A Sermon for my Son, Negotiation of Emotions, Tasks and Relationships

Yesterday my son Nachman celebrated his Bar Mitzvah by being called to the Torah and reading from it. This is an edited version of the Sermon I delivered.

Nachman is still within the first week of being a commanded Jewish man, this is a special time. I remember my own Bar Mitzvah. It was a holy, almost magical moment, when I was acutely aware that everything I did mattered.

Doing Right

I cared a lot then, about doing the right thing then, I still do. This is something I learned from my parents, not from their words but from their example and I hope I can pass on to you. The idea that what matters most is not just to be happy but to do what is right.

Skilled Debater and Negotiator

Nachman, one of your many qualities is your ability to argue a point, whether in the Talmud or in day to day negotiations or debates. It is fitting that the Torah reading this week includes various negotiations. The affirmative argument I propose is that negotiation needs to be conducted in an assertive but gracious and principled, manner, even if you think the other party might not deserve it. In Hebrew this is called, Chein, in English it is called Grace. This sometimes includes searching our own hearts about our motives.  Nachman will need to negotiate at least three important matters as a commanded Jewish man. These include; emotions, tasks and relationships.

Missing/Shrunken Letters

In debating, one strategy is to make it easy for people to follow the arguments. In this talk there is a common thread in that many of my arguments will draw on hints in the Torah text, missing letters or even a shrunken letter in some words. These variations reduce the force of the particular word.

Negotiating Emotion

As you travel on life’s journey you will have many feelings. These will include feeling like taking a break when the task is particularly challenging or boring. Boredom for the 21^st century adolescent is of course a dreadful feeling that is only slightly worse than torture. Come’on, get a grip! Seriously, though managing emotions is not always easy.

Restrained Grief

In the Torah reading, we read about a far more serious emotion, grief. Abraham lost his wife and closest collaborator on a mission impossible of promoting belief in one God in a world of idol worship. Abraham cries for Sarah[i]. Yet, there are two strange things about the Hebrew word Livkota, לבכתה to cry for her. One of its letters is in much smaller size than the rest of the word and it is missing the letter Vav. These variations are hint that Abraham as a scholar was restrained in his crying[ii], at least publicly.

Was this a good thing? In this particular case, it is disputed, some opinions praise Abraham for his restraint[iii] while others criticize him for not crying enough to properly honour Sarah[iv]. These opinions teach us that there are times to express our emotions fully and not hold back, but in other situations it is useful to restrain ourselves. It is also not easy to decide when to express emotion and when to hold back. A central idea of Chabad teaching is the concept that the mind rules the heart. Our feelings are “the children” of our thoughts[v]. We are called to think in a disciplined way to guide our feelings, rather than allow our feelings to guide our thoughts.

Grace in Dealing with a Dishonourable Negotiator

With his dead wife still not even buried yet.  Abraham is a model of restraint and grace when he negotiates with the local people for a grave for his wife.  Again we find the theme of missing letters. The seller’s name, Efron עפרון, is spelled without the letter Vav עפרן  , so that it can be read as  Afrn[vi], related to the word for soil as if he was talking with dust in his mouth.  He talked as if he would give the grave away for free[vii], but in the end asked for an outrageous sum of money. 400 huge gold coins that could be used in any country, so it could be passed to any merchant[viii].

Abraham bows repeatedly, he does not show annoyance, or anger, he bows, and he pays without complaint. The opposite of grace, is to begrudge giving anything to another person unless there is absolutely no choice, and then it is given with a grouchy face. Abraham is said to have “a good eye[ix]”, he is generous, and is a class act. There a certainly times in our lives when this is correct approach.   

Assertiveness

In negotiating life’s challenges, there are few rules that apply to every situation. While in some cases it is best to bow and give in without complaining, there are other situations where we must stand our ground. We find the servant of Abraham, Eliezer on a mission to find a wife for his master’s son, even refuses to eat any food before speaking his words[x].  He also refuses to accept any delays to his agenda and insists on getting what he set out to get when he wants it. There are times when this is right, particularly when dealing with the untrustworthy Laban who our tradition calls Laban the swindler.

Trust

In contrast to Laban, Eliezer himself enjoys the absolute trust of his master, who allowed him to rule all that he owned[xi] and even trusted him with organising the marriage of his son. This is particularly impressive when we consider that Eliezer was a Canaanite who Abraham would have thought of as a cursed people[xii] based on the deeds of his ancestor Canaan the son of Ham.  Abraham clearly puts those matters aside and develops absolute trust in his Canaanite slave.

Negotiation about Tasks

One issue that tests the degree to which young men are trusted relates to negotiating tasks and timing, especially those tasks they would like to avoid. Abraham’s Servant Eliezer's negotiated with him about the task of finding a wife for his son Isaac. Abraham wants his servant to bring a foreign wife from his home country and tribe[xiii]”. Again, we have another missing letter in the servant Eliezer’s response to the request. “Oolai”  אוליwhat if she will not want to come? Eliezer asks, but the word is spelled without the letter Vav, so the word can be read as Alai, אלי- to me[xiv]. This interpreted as a hint that Eliezer was hoping that his mission will be a failure, and instead the match with his master’s son will come to him by marrying Eliezer’s own daughter. This demonstrates the need to be aware of our own motives when taking a position or making an argument in a negotiation. Because Eliezer had such a high level of personal integrity which according to this teaching included introspection, he earns the trust of his master. Abraham gives in to Eliezer and modifies the agreement about the task he assigned Eliezer, which further reflects Abraham’s trust in Eliezer and his flexibility with a person he trusts.

Love Built Over time

Isaac, Abraham’s son and the wife found for him by his father’s servant, Rebecca also needed to negotiate their emotions.  In their case the Torah tells us the sequence of events. First it tells us that Isaac brought Rebecca into his tent and married her and only after that does it tell us that loved her[xv].

They did not fall in love. Rebecca fell alright, off the camel she was riding. One explanation for the fall was that she saw him, a tall confident man walking in a field off the beaten path and she thought he was a gangster[xvi]. She fell of the camel in fright! Not exactly love at first sight. But the Torah teaches us that they actively developed their love for each other by the things they did, said and did not say over many years.

So Nachman, you have been blessed to be surrounded by a loving family, friends and community. If you think about the love you feel for your cute little baby brother Tuvia, and handsome brother Levi, you might notice that your love grows through the loving things you do, the imaginative play, or other ways you help both of them.   The choices you make in doing the right thing by all of them and all the people you will have the opportunity to interact with will determine whether you win or lose the main game of negotiating life as a commanded Jewish man.

---

[i] Genesis 23:2

[ii] Ner Haskalim manuscript, Pirush R. Y of Vienna, cited in Torah shlaima p. 922,  point 22

[iii] Drashas Even Shuiv, cited in Torah shlaima

[iv] Pirush R. Y of Vienna, cited in Torah shlaima

[v] Tanya

[vi] Genesis 23:16

[vii] Genesis 23:11

[viii] Genesis 23:15-16

[ix] Pirkey Avot 5:19

[x] Genesis 24:33

[xi] Genesis 24:2

[xii] See Rashi to 24:39

[xiii] Genesin 24:3-4

[xiv] Rashi 24:39. Interestingly, although the story is told twice in the Torah (Genesis 24:5 & 24:39), the variation of the spelling only appears in the text when he retells the story after finding Rebecca (24:39) and his conflict of interest is no longer a practical issue. This demonstrates that ulterior motives are very difficult to spot in the moment, but, they could be easier to spot once the situation is no longer practical. (this insight is from Rabbi Mendel of Kotzk)

[xv] Genesis 24:67

[xvi] Chizkuni

Self Promotion & Trust at Work and Between Groups - Vayetze

Self righteous and occupying the "moral high" ground, or
at least positioning oneself to appear to be good one

One of Orthodox Judaism’s most prominent religious authorities was deeply distrustful of Christian intentions in initiating Interfaith dialogue[1]. He was concerned that it was a plot to convert Jews, a proposition based on generations of bad blood, but one that would be discredited by the evidence of the following fifty years of dialogue. Trust between Jews and Muslims can be particularly difficult to achieve but with many notable exceptions such as my own experience in Together For Humanity[2], and projects such as JCMA[3], Project Abraham[4], the Three Faiths Forum[5] and Jihadi Jew[6].

Another set of relationships that can be difficult revolve around work. In both inter-religious and work relationships one of the destructive dynamics is the attempt by one party or both trying to position themselves as “the good one”, and the other as “the bad one”. Once I became aware of this dynamic, watching people engage it makes me want to scream. This is a discussion about how trust and honour are earned and given, or lost and withdrawn. 

Clear as Mud

Some people like to combine a game of positioning themselves as virtuous, with also keeping things as vague as they can, to maximize their own options later.  An example of this double whammy is when Jacob proposes the payment for his work for Laban, he does so in a manner that has become the standard expression for clarity still in use among religious Jews today, בְּרָחֵל בִּתְּךָ הַקְּטַנָּה. He agrees to work for seven years “for Rachel, your daughter, the younger one[7]”. The decent response to that proposal would be an equally clear confirmation that the terms were either acceptable or not. Instead Laban offers a dishonest[8], “shifty, vague and ambiguous[9]” response with this self glorifying statement “"It is better that I give her to you than I should give her to another man. Stay with me[10]". ‘Trust me’, he seems to say brazenly when he is the last person with the right to demand trust.

Vague Language

A Laban type response is particularly frustrating if one is already concerned about the honesty of the other party or whether their expectations will be realised in the end, as Jacob was[11]. Commentary[12] suggests that Laban had already decided then to give Jacob his daughter Leah instead of Jacob’s beloved Rachel. Craftily, he also uses the word “give” which implies a gift to Jacob rather than an exchange and weakens Jacob’s position. Then in the guise of wanting the pleasure of Jacob’s company he throws in a clause “Stay with me” that will force Jacob to work under the watchful eyes of Laban.  Laban will later swindle Jacob, by repeatedly changing the terms of the deal between them[13].  

Over the years in my interfaith work, I have received some meaningless vague big-picture-yes responses to interfaith cooperation that in fact turned out to mean “I don’t have any desire to be involved but I want to sound good, or maybe make you feel good so I will imply a yes when the real answer is no”.

Brother in Scams?

A natural response to feeling cheated whether at work on in the inter-group context is to respond in kind. My assumption would be that “two wrongs don’t make a right” and that one should never cheat and that while it is a better use of time to focus on sincere people, it is wrong to give up on sincerity.  I wonder what messages can be found in the story of Jacob and Laban. The Talmud[14] elaborates on Jacob’s comment to Rachel that he was her father’s brother[15], with the following exchange.

Jacob to Rachel: Mary me.

Rachel: Yes. But my father is a swindler and you won’t be able to manage with him.

Jacob: I am his brother in swindling[16]

Rachel: Is it allowed for a Righteous person to engage in swindling?

Jacob: Yes, “with a pure one you show yourself pure; but with the perverse one, you deal crookedly[17]”.

Implications of a Licence For the Low Road

One recent article, discusses the difference between Jacob’s two names. It relates the name Jacob to his grabbing Esau’s heel during their birth and represents “attacking at the heel; … to deal, sometimes, deceitfully and surreptitiously”. It also makes a link to current political realities, making the comment that “when we are surrounded by 140 million people wishing to destroy us, we cannot always go with the 'high-road' behaviour. We have to come back to the practices of 'Jacob’[18]”. I lack the expertise to comment on matters of defence and I do not presume to give anyone advice about the Torah sanctioned right to self defence, yet this type of interpretation is one that would make me and many other Jews both in Israel and outside it very uncomfortable.

Jacob’s Actions; a Licence?

A simple reading of the text might yield the conclusion that Jacob carried out his threat to be Laban’s brother in deception. Consider how he creatively implements a profit sharing agreement with Laban. The deal was that Jacob would remove all the speckled and spotted goats and all the brown sheep, then any animals that will be born with these characteristics will belong to Jacob[19]. Jacob then puts spotted or brown sticks in front of the animals when they are in heat, this tactic results in many goats and sheep being born with the appearances that lands them in Jacob’s possession. 

Interpretations of Sticks as Evidence against Defrauding Fraudsters

Commentaries seek to justify Jacob’s action. The simplest is that the sticks method of genetic modification does not work, and the result was due to divine intervention[20]. Another view is that there was a condition in the agreement with Laban that allowed Jacob to use the sticks and he had his permission[21].

Alternatively, Jacob only used this practice after some goats were born with the spots without intervention. He was concerned that these goats would have offspring without spots that would rightfully belong to him, but Laban would claim them because they have no spots. He used the sticks only for his legitimately earned spotted goats[22].

One can argue about the plausibility of these justifications, but that is less important than the implication that it would have been wrong for Jacob to rob Laban, even though Laban was a thief. There are other interpretations that might not support this approach[23]. Perhaps the most compelling point is Jacob’s assertion that he served Laban loyally with all his strength[24], working and be consumed by scorching heat during the day and frost by night[25].

The Face Game

Laban works relentlessly on putting Jacob down in comparison to his righteous self. When he first invites him to stay he declares but you are my brother. The word “but” is interpreted as “you have been distanced from all your relatives because of your deceiving your brother twice but you are my relative and I won’t distance you[26]” (because I am so good of course). When Jacob finally escapes from the toxic situation with Laban, Laban pursues him and offers this gem. “What have you done?! you lead my daughters like captives of the sword…why didn’t you tell me and I would send you away with songs, drums and the lyre. You didn’t let me kiss my sons and daughters, now you have done foolishly[27]”. 

Laban then accuses Jacob of stealing his occult artefact called the Teraphim[28]. Jacob explodes, after a fiery defence of his integrity he makes a curse for anyone who stole Laban’s Teraphim. Unbeknown to him Rachel had stolen them[29]. Our tradition teaches us that Jacob’s curse was realised[30] when Rachel died a short time later at the age of 36[31]. While her sin of stealing the Teraphim is said to have caused her not to be buried in the cave of the righteous (in double cave in Hebron)[32], but it is also a direct result of Jacob’s curse. This is the second error in judgement that Jacob makes, the other he is assuming that the shepherds he sees hanging around a well are neglecting their duties when in fact they had a perfectly legitimate reason to be there[33].  

Conclusion

Rather than using our energy convincing people that we are “the good one”, we should just be good and let our behaviour and character speak for itself. It is very sad that people so often demand trust when they don’t deserve it. Perhaps we can resist judging people who like our prominent Rabbi at the beginning of the post who might have heard or seen too much to be able to trust again. Yet, we must thank God, there are not that many Laban’s around and we should not assume that “they are all like that” or that the way things were, is the way they still are. We must pick ourselves up after our trust has been betrayed and trust all over again, albeit a bit more alert.  There are many decent beautiful people in our world of all faiths and skills sets, let us work with them. 

---

[1] Feinstien, R. Moshe, Igros Moshe, vol. 6, p 278, letter with a ruling dated February or March 1967, Adar 1, 5727

[2] http://togetherforhumanity.org.au/

[3] http://jcma.org.au/

[4] http://www.projectabraham.org.au/

[5] http://www.threefaithsforum.org.uk/

[6] http://www.facebook.com/groups/jihadijew/

[7] Genesis 29:18

[8] Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel, adds the word “Rmiyu”, deception, to his translation of “And Laban said” in verse 19.

[9] Leibowitz, N, New Studies in Bereshit, p.321, Jewish Agency, Special Edition, Lambda Publishers, Brookly New York

[10] Genesis 29:19

[11] Rashi Genesis 29:18

[12] Ohr Hachayim on Genesis 29:19

[13] Genesis 31:7

[14] Talmud Megilah 13b

[15] Genesis 29:12

[16] Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel has Jacob saying “I am a swindler, and clever, more that he is is and he will have no permission/ability to do bad to me as the word of God is in my assistance”

[17] Samuel II, 22:27, with slight variation also in Psalms 18:27

[18] Frand, Rabbi Y, http://www.torah.org/learning/ravfrand/5757/toldos.html

[19] Genesis 30:32

[20] Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch

[21] Bchor Shor, Ohr Zarua Hagadol, evidence for this proposition is the fact that Jacob did this openly in full view of all the shepherds for six years where it would have been impossible that it would not become known to Laban

[22] Radak in the name of his father

[23] Daat Zekainim Mbaalei Hatosafot and Ohr Hachayim both have explanations that involve Laban violating the agreement which justifies Jacob taking counter-measures to protect what was his, with the former referring to the phrase “with a pure one you show yourself pure; but with the perverse one, you deal crookedly”.

[24] Genesis 31:6

[25] Genesis 31:39

[26] Chizkuni

[27] Genesis 31:26-28

[28] Ibn Ezra describes the Teraphim as being part of a practice in which a skull of a first born would be used in magical practices

[29] Genesis 31:31-32

[30] Beresheet Rabba 74, Rashi

[31] Seder Olam (Order of the World) Chapter 2, an alternative view is that she was 45 (Sefer Hayashar, cited in Torah Shlaima)

[32] Midrash Aseret Hadibrot 40, cited in Torah Shlaima vol 2, p1236

[33] Genesis 29:7-8

Sticks and Words, Prejudice and Jephthah's daughter. Chukat 2011

There are situations in which the choosing violence over words has some appeal, and using words for reaching agreements and shared understanding seems too hard or impractical. For this discussion I am thinking of “sticks” in a broad sense, all coercion and harsh interaction can be seen as having a touch of violence about it. This week Jews read a story[1] that includes prejudice, violence and a man of deeds, the warrior, Jephthah who made a vow to sacrifice his daughter. In the Torah reading, we are asked to blindly obey a commandment about a mixture of water and ashes of a burnt red cow that has opposite effects on different people[2]. We are also confronted with a sin involving a rock that was beaten rather than spoken to[3]. This is an exploration of sticks and words.

Action Man’s and his Maligned Mother

Jephthah did not worry about scholarship. He thought that as long as he served God with a pure heart we would not stumble[4]. He is introduced as a “Gileadite was a mighty man of valour”, but also as the “son of a lady, a prostitute”[5].  Commentaries are divided between taking it literally[6], and the suggestion that the derogatory name was used for any woman who married out of her tribe. Her marriage was completely acceptable by law, but strongly frowned upon by people worried about land moving between tribes[7]. Influence by stigma, a stick.

Banished

The prejudice does not end with his mother. His half brothers, from his father’s “proper” wife drove Jephthah out with force and strong arm tactics[8].  This was a great injustice[9], stick #2. Banished from his family, the fallen son of a prominent family goes to the land of “Tov”, and he hangs out with “empty men”[10]. This band went out to battle all the time and that’s how they got their food[11].

Conditions,

An external threat of war leads the people to set aside their prejudices. Out of desperation Jephthah is called back and offered the leadership. The psychologically scarred man reminds the people “but you have hated me”[12]. He is deeply distrustful, only accepting the leadership with conditions that he will remain as leader afterwards, whether they still want him or not.  Another stick.

“Stick” Words

Jephthah sends a message to the Amonite king, “what is there between you and me? That you have come to fight me in my land”[13]. The king of Amon demands the peaceful return of Amonite[14]  land that the Israelites took at the time of the Exodus from Egypt. The historical truth was that the land was originally Moabite but had been conquered by Emorites, and only then conquered by the Israelites from them[15]. Jephthah’s response categorically rejects the claim, “Israel did not take the land of Moab or Amon”[16].

In the Harvard negotiation model, the ideal is for the parties to agree on a solution based on meeting as much of their interests as is possible. A harsher element in negotiation is “standards”, when the parties focus on external criteria that force the other party to agree to their terms. Jephthah must have assumed, probably rightly, that there was no chance for a peaceful resolution based on interests. Instead he focuses on standards, such as whatever one’s God has given belongs to that group, so the Amonites and Moabites can have whatever their god Kmosh gave them. Another argument is the passages of 300 years since the original conquest “Why did you not recover the land then?”[17]

The War and the Vow

The tough talk is followed by a battle, and it is then that Jephthah makes the vow. "If You will deliver the sons of Ammon into my hand, whatever comes …from the doors of my house towards me, when I return in peace…shall be to the Lord, and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering."  A vow is a way to force ourselves to do later what we will no longer want to do, again a stick.

Jephthah is victorious. The results are a “very great slaughter and the sons of Amon were subdued before the sons of Israel[18]”.  “Jephthah came to Mizpah, to his house, and behold, his daughter was coming out towards him with timbrels and with dances …And it was, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, "Alas, my daughter! …and I have opened my mouth to the Lord and I cannot go back."  

He was wrong, he certainly could go back. The Torah clearly allows for vow to be annulled by a scholar. He refused to go to the high priest, Phineas because he thought that as leader it was beneath his dignity to go to Phineas. Phineas, thought it was beneath the office of the high priest to go to Jephthah[19]. “I am a high priest the son of a high priest, will I lower myself and go to an Ignoramus?!”[20] Both Jephthah and Pineas are strongly condemned for their arrogance, although there is a view that Phineas had a right to be insulted by Jephthah’s arrogance, although he was a leader of his generation he was not to be compared to with the righteous of other generations, nor was he to be respected as a scholar[21]. 

Acting on the Vow

Jephthah’s daughter agrees to comply with her fathers vow…and he did to her his vow which he had vowed; and she had not known any man…[22]. Commentary differs on whether she was killed[23] or isolated for the rest of her life[24]. Either way, an avoidable terrible choice[25], if only he had bothered to study and would have known that his vow could be cancelled.  

Mindless worship

All this would point to the value of knowledge. Yet, there is a place for the non-logical. In introducing the law of the red heifer, the Torah states; “This is Chukaht חוקת (the statute of) the Torah which the Lord commanded, …take for you a perfectly red unblemished cow…[26]”. The word Chukat means a law for which no reason is given. While some might assume that God knows the reason for this, in Chasidic teachings it is suggested that these commandments simply transcend reason[27]. The words “this is the statue of the Torah” is also taken to mean that it would be better for a person to treat all the laws of the Torah as unexplainable commandments rather than try to find reasons for them[28]. 

The Chasidic movement sought to correct the devaluing of the worship of the unlearned Jews that stemmed from the great emphasis on scholarship in 17^th and 18^th century Eastern Europe. It insisted on celebrating the sincerity and holiness of the “simple Jews”. In its Chabad version it also emphasised self nufilication. Somewhere out of all of this emerged a saying that “Sechel” (the mind) is concealment of Godliness.” While it still encourages us to think as a means of worship, there is a downgrading of the importance of thinking in comparison with obediance.

Words Not Sticks

On the other side of the argument is the following idea. The Israelites were without water. God told Moses to take a stick and speak to the rock and water would appear. But he hit the rock instead: a repetition of his exact action forty years earlier under God’s instructions when he had made the same request for water. What was the difference? Four decades before, Moses had been leading slaves; they were acustomed to being told what to do, now they were free people. Times and people had changed. The stick was no longer needed – just words. Moses had failed to change and was no longer the man to lead the people.[29]

Violence in its various forms might be necessary at times, minimizing it should help.

---

[1] In our Haftorah reading from the prophets

[2] Numbers 19:1-22

[3] Numbers 20:7-12

[4] Me’am Loez, translated by Rabbi Nathan Bushwick (1991), Moznaim Publishing New York, Jerusalem, p. 234

[5] Judges 11:1

[6] Metzudat David

[7] Radak (David Kimche, 1160-1235), Ralbag

[8] Metzudat David

[9] Ralbag

[10] Judges 11:3

[11] Ralbag

[12] Judges 11:7

[13] Judges 11:12

[14] I would assume that  Amon and Moab were closely related peoples, both parties to the conversation do not distinguish between them

[15] Numbers 21:26 see Rashi

[16] Judges 11:15

[17] Judges 11:26, echoed in the Talmudic law in Bava Basra chapter 3, of Chazakah, that someone who claims ownership of land and can prove possession for three years does not need to produce the original sale documents unless the original owner protested within the three year period. Otherwise his silence is part of what legitimises the possessors claim.

[18] Judges 11:33

[19]  Midrash Tanchuma, Rashi

[20] Midrash Tanchuma Yashan quoted in Liebovitz, N, Studies in Bamidbar, p. 274, This reminds me of the case about an accountant for a company called Chicago Kosher in Winnipeg, Canada. This company sold meat certified as Kosher all over the world. The accountant calculated the combined output of all the Kosher butchers in Winnipeg, and realised that it did not add up to the meat processed in the factory. He approached the certifying Rabbi about his concerns. The Rabbi asked him, can you study the Talmud? “No” he said, can you study the Mishnah? “No” etc. The Rabbi dismissed him as an ignoramus. The accountant then went to another Rabbi who was less judgemental and more supportive. The accountant was proven right, when police discovered meat from non-Kosher butchers being delivered in middle of the night. I met the accountant years later, but heard the story from someone who knows him well.  

[21]  Me’am Loez, p. 239

[22] Judges 11:36-39

[23] Ramban

[24] Abarbanel, Ibn Ezra, Radak

[25] Talmud,  Ta’anit 4a

[26] Numbers 19:2

[27] I remember this in the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, I don’t have an exact source

[28] R. Mendel of Kotzk, quoted by R. Zeev of Strikov, in Greenberg, A, Y, (1992) Torah Gems, Y Orenstien/Yavneh Publishing Tel Aviv

[29] Sacks, (2009) Chief Rabbi Jonathan, Future Tense, Hodder & Stoughton London