Pride and Prejudice - Ki Tisa

This week, the Australian government announced an inquiry into the Safe Schools coalition; an initiative focused the creation of “safe and inclusive school environments for same sex attracted, intersex and gender diverse students, staff and families[1]”. The aim of Safe Schools is one I wholeheartedly support and I hope the inquiry does not undermine this vital work. I do not accept the argument against this kind of work that “it goes beyond education and compels students into advocacy of a social engineering agenda[2]”. Creating spaces that are inclusive and free of discrimination and teaching children to embrace all their peers regardless of differences should be fundamental to education.

This controversy comes at an interesting time for me.  I have been trying to get my head around notions of Jewish pride and how it might be related to gay pride.

One way of looking at pride is to see it as promoting that group, or practices associated with that group as superior to others.

It is undoubtedly wrong to claim that Jews are superior to those who are not Jewish. For example, using the expression “goyishe kop” which means “non-Jewish head” to suggest that because someone is not Jewish they are not clever demonstrates the wrong kind of pride. However this kind of chauvinism is different to a legitimate claim that being Jewish is a better way to live and worship than other paths. Jews, like Muslims, or vegans are entitled and argue for the merits of particular ways of living. The Torah expresses this by stating that “it (the Torah) is your wisdom in the eyes of the nations…[3]” who will praise the Jews because of their adherence to God’s law. Islamic teachings contain the message that “Verily, we were a disgraceful people and Allah honored us with Islam, so if we seek honor from other than Islam, then Allah will humiliate us[4].”

The link between pride or honour and disgrace, shame or derision is one that I kept bumping into this whole week while I pondered this idea of pride. I spoke to a Sydney man who was one of the only Jews among 900 students in an Australian public school. When I asked him about pride he talked about the discrimination he faced as school boy.

Jonathan Sacks, addressing the topic of Jewish pride tells a story about his father being approached by a fellow congregant at a London Synagogue who thought young Jonathan had forgotten to remove his Kippa (skullcap) as he went out into the street. Jonathan’s dad replied: “no son of my mine will be ashamed of who he is[5]”. I also found pride linked to confidence in oneself and determination to follow one’s faith in the face of opposition[6]

The stress young LGBT school students suffer as a result of prejudice is a matter of life and death for some[7], and for many others a source of great anguish. A social worker and advocate for LGBT people in the Jewish community wrote “I have friends who have succumbed to this hopelessness (caused by the attitudes to LGBT people in the Orthodox Jewish community) and are no longer here to make their case. I know people who are alive today because of the outspoken compassion of the rabbis”[8]. He explains pride as serving to “combat institutionalized shame and re-build a strong sense of self-esteem. This is the true meaning of pride. Pride is about affirming our (collective) self-worth despite the challenges we face.”

There are dangers with pride. One Jewish educator suggested to me, that Jewish pride is more important than interfaith respect. His argument was that ‘Jewish children in a particular city don’t have adequate pride in who they are, so showing them how people of other faiths are wonderful might further weaken their commitment to their Jewishness’. I do not accept that Jewish pride should be allowed to become a barrier to embracing the “other”. Research has found that “it is possible to improve children’s attitudes toward a racial outgroup without causing a negative impact on their feelings toward their racial in-group[9]”. We should not resort to reinforcing a weak sense of self by encouraging defining oneself by what one is not.

Pride takes many forms. One source for the idea of Jewish pride is the reference to the desirability of “lifting up the horn of Israel[10]”. The metaphor of raised horns can be understood to be about relief from being downtrodden but is also interpreted as being about glory, and power. According to the Talmud[11] Moses asked God how this could be achieved. God replied that the Jews’ “horn” could be uplifted[12] through giving charity. I am strongly in favour of pride that is compassionate and charitable, and creates a safe place for people to thrive and learn.

---

[1] http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org.au/who-we-are

[2] http://www.corybernardi.com/remove_funding_from_safe_schools_propaganda

[3] Deuteronomy, 4:6 a related concept is the idea of behaving in a way that makes the name of heaven become beloved through your behaviour in the Talmud Yoma 86a 
בגמרא (יומא פו ע"א) מובא: "ואהבת את ה' א-להיך (דברים ו, ה) – שיהא שם שמים מתאהב על ידך,

[4] http://dailyhadith.abuaminaelias.com/2013/02/23/umar-on-humility-if-we-seek-honor-from-other-than-islam-we-will-be-humiliated/

[5] http://www.rabbisacks.org/rabbi-sacks-on-jewish-pride/ video

[6] The Lubavitcher Rebbe,
בנוגע לטעם אמירת ההפטרה – מובא בכמה מקומות (שולחן-ערוך אדמו"ר הזקן אורח-חיים ריש סימן רפ"ד, ובכמה מקומות) שמלכות הרשעה גזרה על ישראל שלא יקראו בתורה ברבים, ולכן תיקנו לקרות בנביאים מעניין הפרשה. וגם כאשר בטלה הגזירה, לא נתבטל המנהג לקרות גם בנביאים...זהו גם המענה לאלו ש"תואנה הם מבקשים" וטוענים: כיצד ייתכן לומר שגם כאשר בני ישראל נמצאים בזמן הגלות, אין להם להתפעל כלל מאומות העולם (מלכות המדינה וכו'), ויכולים וצריכים הם לעמוד בכל התוקף על כל ענייני התורה ומצוותיה… והמענה לזה – על-פי האמור לעיל אודות הגזירה על קריאת התורה: אף-על-פי שגזירה זו היתה בזמן הגלות (כאשר "אותותינו לא ראינו גו'") – אף-על-פי-כן, ראו בפועל ממש נס גלוי, שכאשר בני ישראל לא התפעלו מגזירת המלכות (שכוונתה היתה לנתק את בני ישראל חס-ושלום מתורה), ואדרבה: בעקבות גזירה זו חידשו בני ישראל מנהג ישן – לקרוא בנביאים, שזהו עניין נעלה יותר מדברי תורה (כנ"ל), הנה לא זו בלבד שאומות העולם לא יכלו לגזור עליהם ולהרע להם בעניין זה, אלא אדרבה: על-ידי זה הצליחו לבטל גם את הגזירה שלא לקרוא בתורה. וזוהי ההוראה הנלמדת מאופן הנהגתם של בני ישראל במעשה בפועל ("מעשה רב...כלומר: בעניין האמור רואים במעשה בפועל שכאשר בני ישראל מתנהגים על-פי הוראת התורה מתוך "גאון יעקב", מבלי להתפעל מאומות העולם, ולא מסתפקים בהחלטות טובות בעניין זה, אלא מתנהגים כן בפועל ובגלוי, עד שאפילו אומות העולם רואים זאת – הנה לא זו בלבד שאומות העולם אין יכולים להרע להם חס-ושלום, אלא אדרבה: על-ידי זה פועלים שאומות העולם יסייעו לבני ישראל בכל ענייניהם… (מהתוועדות שבת-קודש פרשת בשלח, ט"ו בשבט התשמ"ג. 'תורת-מנחם – התוועדויות' תשמ"ג, כרך ב, עמ' 924-922 – בלתי מוגה http://www.chabad.org.il/Magazines/Article.asp?ArticleID=3645&CategoryID=933#sthash.38RHYpke.dpuf

[7] http://www.apa.org/pi/aids/resources/exchange/2012/04/minority-stress.aspx

[8] Mordechai Levovitz,  http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/orthodox-gay-and-the-rest-is-private/

[9] Levi, S.R., West, T. L., Bigler, R.S., Karafantis, D.M., Ramizez, L., Velilla, E. (2005) Messages about the uniqueness and similarities of people: Impact on US Black and Latino youth. Journal of Applied Development Psychology 26 p.714-713

[10] The Hebrew metaphoric words of “lifting up the horn” a variously translated as relating to power in the Tehilat Hashem translation of the Amida, or glory in translation of the Avinu Malkeinu prayer, in the new Siddur with Hebrew commentary it relates the term to both power and glory or honor like an animal with horns being seen as powerful, and I guess if it’s horns are held high there can be an element of pride it in as well. The term is also used in Psalm 148, commentary there…. I would see it as possibly being protected from defeat. There is another take on it that is tangential to our discussion but will be on interest to some.

[11] Talmud Bava Basra 10b, cited in Baal Haturim on Exodus 30:11,  he links this Talmudic teaching to the juxtaposition of Exodus 30:10, which refers to Keren (corners of the altar) and the discussion here of giving. 

[12] Alluding to the words Ki Tisa (Exodus 30:11) at the beginning of the Sidra with this name which begins by discussing the donation of half shekels by each Jew toward the construction of the tabernacle 

Linking religion to misbehavior: Abuse & shunning secular authorities - Mishpatim

As I sit down to write this, I am afraid of upsetting people, but also of doing the wrong thing. I have been listening to opposing arguments relating to cultural and religious diversity and seeing how each is true for the people who hold them. A binary paradigm would demand that I simply take one side and ignore the other. I don’t think a binary approach is working. Despite all the good intentions of advocates we are seeing the triumph of “Trumpism”[i], rising anti migrant sentiment in Europe and the Australian High Court ruling that allows asylum seeker families, including children, to be returned to Nauru[ii].  On the other hand, attempts at acknowledging the fears people have of the “other”, such as an article I wrote for an Australian tabloid, The Daily Telegraph, have met with a backlash. Along with positive feedback, there was a torrent of criticism ranging from thoughtful and partly justified, to defamatory. I apologised sincerely and got it taken down, but there are some principles worth considering regarding thinking and talking about out-groups.

Discriminatory talk is a serious moral hazard. The pursuit of justice must start with protecting those with less power from those with more power[iii]. Laws concerning freeing slaves come first[iv] in a series of practical laws in our weekly reading.  To deprive people of freedom is like “murdering them while they are still alive[v]”.  Yet, there are limits on supporting the vulnerable. We are instructed not to glorify the poor person in his fight[vi]. Justice for the vulnerable does not mean that the vulnerable can do no wrong.  Censoring discussion about tensions between members of minorities and majority groups is a well-intentioned but ultimately destructive posture.

A student leader at a rural retreat, a girl in year 11, told her peers and my team who were running the session that the best strategy for dealing with tensions between groups is just to “pretend it is not happening”. However, “pretending” will often fail. Anti-racism literature insists that “Participants must feel ‘safe’ to speak honestly and frankly, including talking about negative experiences. If people feel under attack and think they will be labelled as racist, they are less likely to listen or engage”[vii]. One effective conflict resolution strategy is referred to as adopting the “and stance” which seeks to understand both sides of a dispute because both stories matter. Acknowledging the others’ stories can make it easier for them to add your perspective to theirs[viii].

One critic of my approach, author Randa Abdel Fattah, questions the difference between saying race (of religion) has everything to do with these crimes, and saying it has something to do with it.  The answer for me is in the benefit and truth of the latter vs. the harm and falsehood of the former

An example of this is the way we should talk about the failure of some Australian Rabbis to turn to Secular authorities in cases of suspected child sexual abuse.  It is wrong to say that the Jewishness of the Rabbis was to blame for their behaviour. This is simply not true as we can see that other Jews, including religious Jews, have trusted secular authorities to deal with these problems.  Blaming Judaism falsely taints a community with the wrongful deeds of some people and institutions.

Yet it would be reasonable, and not anti-Semitic, to look beyond the question of assigning blame, and instead explore whether the Jewish faith was a “contributing factor”[ix] in these terrible choices. People and their decisions are multi-faceted and multi-determined.  Although there were factors affecting individual Rabbis’ choices other than faith, such as concern about institutional reputation, personal loyalties, poor personal judgement that also contributed, these do not negate the validity of discussing the role of faith as one factor among others.

One part of the puzzle is the teaching that demands that Jews go to a religious court rather than a secular court even if there is no concern about the specifics of their laws[x]. Going before a court of “the worshipers of stars and constellations” is seen as first denying G-d and then denying the Torah[xi]. But the practical application of religion is often more complicated. Despite this preference for a religious court called a Beit-Din, if a Jew refuses to attend a Beit-Din, one can get dispensation to go to a secular court. Similarly if a litigant did appear before Jewish court but then refused to abide by the judgement one is permitted to turn to non-Jewish authorities to force him/her to do what the Beit-Din ruled[xii]. This demonstrates a hierarchy of imperatives. The preference for a Jewish court is of lesser imperative than justice.  This approach of course should have prevailed in cases of suspected child sexual abuse.  Further questions can be asked about other contributing religious factors such as the emphasis on respect for authority and the lack of sex education in some religious schools[xiii].

The other advantage to seeing faith as a factor is that it means one can think about how faith could be harnessed to influence people to make the right choices.  It would be perfectly reasonable to call on Rabbis like me to try to use religious arguments to persuade a recalcitrant colleague to fall into line and report suspected abusers to police. In fact this is exactly what was vigorously attempted by senior colleagues in Australia years before this scandal became public, but to our great shame, not early enough to protect the vulnerable, and not strongly enough to persuade absolutely everyone completely.  

We need to move beyond the binary approaches where conflicts are attributed entirely to culture and religion or not at all linked and completely irrelevant. We need to move away from accusing those who want to explore faith as a contributing factor of being prejudiced. There is a complexity in the human spirit and complexity when humans with varied needs and assumptions meet in a rapidly changing world.  I don’t believe there are whole cultures or faiths that are incompatible with my own. It is just that mutual curiosity and effort are required for fostering understanding and coexistence.  

---

[i] Beinart, P. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/rubios-surge-is-a-triumph-for-trumpism/459339/ Trump may have lost in Iowa but Trumpism won. The fact that the moderate in the GOP race is now peddling a version of The Donald’s message testifies to how profound his effect has been. …In the final weeks before Iowa, Rubio grew markedly more anti-immigration…

[ii] http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2016/02/04/un-warns-australia-on-nauru-kids-2.html#sthash.gAwOinqQ.dpuf

[iii] Ibn Ezra commentary to Exodus 22:20

[iv] Exodus 21:2, Abarbanel, p. 339, first paragraph argues that despite the principle of “there is no Mukdam or Me’Uchar in Torah” eg. not everything is chronological, and that we cannot read too much into things on the basis of proximity (View of Rabbi Yehuda in Berachos 21b), still it is implausible that there would not be significance in the order of elements within a passage or section.

[v] Abarbanel, p. 340, last paragraph

[vi] Exodus 23:3

[vii] Pedersen, A., Walker, I., & Wise, M. (2005). Talk Does Not Cook Rice: Beyond anti-racism rhetoric to strategies for social action. Australian Psychologist, 40, 20-30

[viii] Stone, D. Patton, B, Heen, S. 1999. Difficult Conversations. Penguin Books.

[ix] Stone, D. Patton, B, Heen, S. 1999. Difficult Conversations. Penguin Books.

[x] Talmud Gittin 88b, cited in TS p9, 28

[xi] Midrash Tanchuma, cited in Torah Shlaima p.9, note 28

[xii] Mechilta, Nezikin 1, cited in Chizkuni p. 261

[xiii] http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/mishpatim-judaism-abhors-child-abuse

The thwarted kiss between Joseph and Jacob – practical & conditional love Vayechi

The hearts of so many adults bear the scars of conditional parental love. Their parents were so fixated on what they wanted for or from their children that they failed to embrace their children as they were.  A related theme is the seemingly transactional and predominantly practical nature of relationships between some fathers and sons. I see these same dynamics in some of the commentary about the attitudes of our patriarch Jacob.

Around the time of Jacob’s death, as he prepared to bless Joseph’s children he asked “who are they?[i]” The question is interpreted as questioning their suitability for blessing. ‘Was their father’s and mother’s union validated by a religious marriage contract (Ketubah)[ii]?’  Another practical consideration that is suggested is that Jacob knew that they were to have wicked descendants[iii]! In contrast Joseph was more present in the emotional dimension of the moment. He “immediately prostrated himself on the ground before God, and begged for mercy that he not be humiliated[iv]”.  Tuning in to his practical oriented dad, Joseph also pleaded: “they are my sons, they are righteous like me[v]!” It is only after this reassurance that Jacob asked that they be brought to him. He kissed and hugged them before he proceeded to bless them[vi].  

Similar commentary suggests that Jacob focused on merit at the very moment of his reunion with his son Joseph, after twenty-two years of separation and grief. Joseph was only seventeen when he went missing, reportedly killed by a wild animal. When father and son reunited, Joseph fell on his father’s neck and cried[vii]. According to commentary Joseph sought to kiss his father and be kissed by him but his father would not allow it. The reason given for this is that Joseph had been aroused by the seduction of his master’s wife, despite the fact that in the end he did not commit adultery[viii].  I am troubled by the view that technicalities and judgements would be in play at a time one would expect intense parental love. I also think this interpretation is implausible in light of the next verse, in which Jacob exclaims “now I can die (happy) after seeing your face because you are still alive![ix]” 

The Torah does not tell us about another word being spoken between Jacob and Joseph for the next almost seventeen years. The next conversation was practical and short. Jacob requested that his son Joseph bury him in Canaan rather than Egypt and Joseph agreed to do so[xi].  Finally, in one of the last chapters on Jacob’s life did he talk to his son in a reflective way about how he had been blessed and about the death of his first love, Joseph’s mother, Rachel[xii]. According to commentary, Jacob told Joseph that he knew that Joseph felt resentful about his mother being buried on the side of the road, so he explained the decision [xiii]. 

As a son I feel challenged by all of this. I reflect about my own relationship with my father—how often do we talk about matters of the heart? It is easier to talk shop, getting advice about working in non-profit leadership, or to talk about Torah. Like Joseph, I am tuned in to the emotional side of life. Talking about feelings with my dad might be really useful., I suspect this  might be true for many fathers and sons. On the other hand a commitment to a relationship includes respect between both parties to allow both to determine the nature and content of the relationship.

[i] Genesis 48:8

[ii] Masechet Kalah, chapter 3, 15a, or Were they born out of a holy pregnancy? Manuscript Midrash Habiur, cited in Torah Shlaima p.1751 note 60

[iii] Pesikta Rabbati 3,

[iv] Midrash Tanchuma Vayechi 6, Manuscript Midrash Habiur, cited in Torah Shlaima p.1751 note 61

[v] Pesikta Rabbati 3

[vi] Genesis 46:29

[vii] Genesis 48:8

[viii] Masechet Kallah, 3, cited in Torah Shlaima, p 1697

[ix] Genesis 46:30, on the other hand even this expression of emotion is interpreted as being practical. Rashi suggests that Jacob was thinking that he “would die twice, once in this world and a second time in the world to come because God would demand your death from me (that is to hold me liable for your death), but now that you are alive I will only die once”  and I would die twice

[x] Unkelus

[xi] Genesis 47:29-31

[xii] Genesis 48:7

[xiii] Rashi

Judgement, Muslims and responses to terrorism (Miketz 2015)

Photo by Scott under https://www.flickr.com/photos/skippy/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

The other day I discussed with a group of Muslim high school students the Islamic principle that one must make 70 excuses for a friend who appears to have done the wrong thing.[i]  It is an interesting variation of the Jewish principle of judging everyone favourably.[ii]  I wonder to what extent these ideals are applied in either community when it comes to judging people outside our own faith communities. Giving the benefit of the doubt can also inhibit fighting evil, if we offer excuses when it would be more useful to name the problem and address it.  These considerations are relevant to judgements regarding terrorism.

This issue of judging others plays out in the discussion of the description of Joseph by Pharaoh’s chief butler in Genesis. The Pharaoh was distressed about a dream that no one could interpret. The chief butler told him that in prison there was a ‚“youth, a Hebrew slave”, who can interpret dreams.^[iii]  This description has been interpreted as malicious – “Cursed are the wicked that even the good that they do, is done with evil intentions!” – because Joseph’s Hebrew ethnicity calls attention to his membership of a hated people, his youth to his foolishness and his status as a slave to a restriction on Joseph ever holding high office.^[iv] 

An alternative interpretation suggests that the description was motivated by fear rather than malice. Joseph had interpreted the chief butler’s own dream two years earlier, when they were both prisoners, and had requested that the chief butler mention his unjust imprisonment to the king. The chief butler had forgotten about Joseph. He was now worried that if Joseph succeeded in interpreting the king’s dream he would be appointed to high office and would then take revenge against the chief butler for letting him down.^[v] 

Considering these two interpretations together, I suggest that:

a. Fear is a big motivating factor in denigrating the other. We need to resist excessive fear.  

b. It is sometimes absolutely right to judge. The tradition calls out the prejudice and mean spiritedness of the chief butler.  Muslim leaders have publicly called out prejudice and injustice where they believed it was at play in the way the “war on terror” is being prosecuted and have suggested that this injustice can contribute to radicalisation. The latter opinion is widely held by counter terrorism experts.^[vi]  Equally, it is right for Muslim leaders and others to make crystal clear that there are no excuses for perpetrators of terrorism or for advocates of extremist ideology and generalised anti-Western, “conflict-of-civilisations” or other “us & them” narratives.

c. There is a temptation for religious people and members of in-groups to assume the most negative interpretation of the character and motives of the “other”. One of the Muslim teenagers made the observation in our session that misjudgement goes both ways. “Some non-Muslims judge Muslims in general based on the actions of a minority of extremists, while some Muslims judge non-Muslims in general based on a minority of people who are prejudiced against Muslims, but the truth is that most people are not prejudiced.” I think he is right.

d. One flaw of reasoning is the assumption that if I don’t know about it, then it did not happen. Muslims I know and trust assure me that their religious leaders have been very clear in their condemnation of terrorism as absolutely unjustified. Yet, people who don’t have first-hand knowledge of these efforts assume they are not happening.

I fell into that kind of trap in 2010 when I wrote^[vii] about Reuben in the story of Joseph and his brothers.  Reuben castigated his brothers for selling Joseph: “Did I not say to you, do not sin with the boy and you did not listen?! And now his blood is being demanded (we are being held accountable for it).”^[viii]  At the time I asserted that Reuben “might have wanted to say that, it seems clear that he certainly meant to say that^[ix], but he did not quite tell them that. Compare his record of what he told them with his actual words at the time, ’let us not kill his soul, do not spill his blood, (instead just) throw him into this pit in the desert (filled with snakes and scorpions^[x]) but do not send your hand against him’.”^[xi]

Two prominent commentators disagree with my judgement of Reuben. “There is no doubt…that all of these words [that Reuben claimed to have said, he in fact] spoke to them at the time, but the Torah abbreviated the story.”^[xii] 

Perhaps, rather than judging Muslim leaders for failing to condemn, when we don’t really know how much they do or don’t condemn, we can ask them about their efforts to ensure their followers are well educated about positive messages from within their own tradition about conflict and generosity.  For example, a prominent Muslim leader who attended the session with the Muslim teenagers where I raised the teaching about the 70 excuses expressed concern that not one of the boys knew of this teaching. Equally it would be worth asking: how well educated are Jewish teenagers, or adults for that matter, about positive messages in their own traditions that can contribute to peaceful relations between people who believe differently?

---

[i] “If a friend among your friends errs, make seventy excuses for them. If your hearts are unable to do this, then know that the shortcoming is in your own selves.” [Imam Bayhaqi, Shu`ab al-Iman, 7.522] cited on http://seekershub.org/blog/2010/02/making-70-excuses-for-others-in-islam-a-key-duty-of-brotherhood/

[ii] Pirkei Avot 1:6

[iii] Genesis 41:12

[iv] Midrash Tanchuma, Bereshit Rabba 89 cited in Rashi

[v] Chizkuni, alternatively the butler might also have been afraid of the King, who could be angry about why the chief butler never bothered to tell him until now about such a wise person as Joseph being in the land

[vi] Professor Boaz Ganor in a public lecture in Sydney on 27 July 2015 talked about the art of counter terrorism which involves the need to tackle capability and motivation, but the efforts to address the former through arrests etc. negatively impacts the attempt to win hearts and minds and decrease motivation for terrorism

[vii] http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/shame-pride-striving-case-of-reuben.html

[viii] Genesis 42:22

[ix] Yefat Toar, cited in Torah Shlaima p 1584, note 79, suggests that the meaning of what Reuben said was not to sin with the boy. However, the tone of the words he later claims to have said with those he said a the time differ significantly, which led me to wonder whether there was a discrepancy between what he felt like saying and the weaker words he actually used, perhaps out of fear of fully confronting the wrongful mindset of his brothers.

[x] Rashi

[xi] Genesis 37:22

[xii] Abarbanel in agreement with Ramban on Genesis 42:22 

Fear, doubt and “the Muslims” Vayishlach

Photo by Nasrul Ekram,
https://www.flickr.com/photos/inrime_nasrul/
reproduced under creative commons
license 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

Late one evening this week, I received yet another Facebook private message expressing hostility towards Muslims and Islam. This kind of hostility is often driven by fear, a combination of healthy self-preservation instincts given the terrible deeds of some, and misunderstanding due to an absence of meaningful contact with Muslim people. More generally, fear in peoples’ lives may be driven by self-doubt. In cultures that value confidence, feeling afraid can make one feel ashamed; hostility can serve as a more acceptable mask.

As he traveled home to the land of his birth, the Biblical Jacob became afraid and distressed about his brother Esau coming toward him with 400 men.  His fear was of being killed in an attack but his distress is interpreted as relating to the prospect of him killing his attackers.1 Yet that interpretation is questioned by other scholars who ask why Jacob should be distressed about killing assailants in self-defence? 2 I find this second line of commentary disturbing. Surely the prospect of “spilling blood”, destroying the priceless treasure that is every human being, is distressing to the spirit! 3 Fear about our safety due to the threat of terrorism, and acceptance of the need for defensive measures, should never be allowed to overcome our humanity, to blur our sense of right and wrong toward innocent people - including Muslims.

An alternative suggestion is that Jacob was distressed because he was grappling with two opposing arguments about killing his attackers. On the one hand, he had been promised protection by God which rendered him invincible; as his life would not be in danger, killing his assailants could not be justified based on concern for his own survival.  On the other hand, however, he might have sinned and in consequence lost God’s protection, in which case his life would be in danger and he would be justified in killing to defend it.4 

A related interpretation finds reason for his distress in the mouths of his wives.  “If you are afraid, why did you take us out of our father’s house? Rather you should trust in the ‘shade of your Creator’ who told you to return to the land of your fathers”. Immediately, “Jacob felt afraid of the external threat of attack by his brother and distressed internally because of the criticism of his wives”.5   Their words seem to have stung because he felt ashamed of his doubt. I feel for him.

All the above discussion assumes the possibility of a credible threat.  In an alternative authoritative interpretation Jacob had received a report from his scouts that in fact his brother Esau was approaching with 400 men to honour Jacob. The scouts reported that the delegation was motivated by Esau’s joy about Jacob’s return and his love for his brother. Yet Jacob disregarded the report of his own fact-finding and goodwill mission because he didn’t believe the evidence. He was so afraid because he clung to his prejudgment about Esau’s evil intentions.6 The intelligence from the scouts seems to have been proven correct, however, when Esau ran toward Jacob, hugged him, kissed him and cried when they met.7  Our response to perceived threats should respect evidence, or the absence of evidence, and be proportionate.

Fear and doubt are reasonable and natural reactions to threats of violence and the horrible deeds we have lately heard about, read about and seen on film. In one sense, it is unreasonable to feel ashamed of this fear. Yet some sense of shame can also be useful; it challenges us when we think we are letting ourselves down. When confronted with fear of the other, or with ourselves and when confronted with self-doubt, it is a good time to pray, to take some time alone 8 and to wrestle with the feelings, the facts and our faith. Jacob did that and emerged a champion.9   

Notes

1 Bereshit Rabba 76, cited in Rashi

2 Mizrahi on Genesis 32:8, Beer Basadeh, written by 19th century Bosnian Jewish scholar Rabbi Meir Danon

3 Kasher, R. Menachem, in Torah Shlaima p. 1267, note 50, follows the tradition about God silencing the song of the angels during the splitting of the sea because his Egyptian “creations were drowning”

4 Beer Basadeh on Genesis 32:8

5 Ner Haschalim, manuscript cited in Torah Shlaima p. 1266, 50

6 Rashbam Genesis 32:7, Bchor Shor offers a similar but less definite approach. In his view the scouts report that they came back and they don’t know what is in Esau’s mind, wether for good or bad because he didn’t respond to their questions, instead he said I will go to him and speak with him, “mouth to mouth”. 

7 Genesis 33:4, although one would think this evidence settles the argument about Esau’s good will, it does not. There is an argument in the Sifre cited in Rashi about Esau’s sincerity. One view asserts that in that moment he kissed him with his whole heart with another view that in fact it was done with his whole heart.  

8 Genesis 32:25

9 Genesis 32:29

Selective empathy and relationships with 'others’ - Vayetzei

Terror has struck ’us’ again. I write ’us’ referring to Westerners who identify with the Paris victims. I feel angry about this attack against ordinary people in a Western city. A terrible destruction of life perpetrated against people who live in a ’normal’ city like I do. I am surrounded by outrage and solidarity expressed in French flags, on Sydney’s Harbour Bridge, the Opera House and all over Facebook. But surely, every life of a non-combatant taken violently is an utterly unacceptable violation of the sanctity of life?

I am disturbed to read Facebook posts by my Arab and Muslim friends rightly expressing their hurt at the implication that French lives appear to matter more to Westerners than Arab or Muslim lives. Some posts list the names of places where Arab or Muslim blood has been spilled, including the terrible attacks in Beirut. Yet, none of these posts mention the recent stabbings of Israeli civilians. I feel a deep sadness about the selective empathy so much in evidence right now. 

 

The term ’selective empathy’ is almost a tautology because researchers in this field explain that empathy is by its very nature geared toward people we see as being like us. We can overcome this natural tendency to limit our circle of empathy either by calling on increased compassion (which is not naturally restricted to people like ourselves) or by changing our relationships with ‘them’ so that they become part of ‘us’.

The inclusion of those we are unfamiliar with and whom we regard as alien can feel quite threatening. After the Biblical Jacob left his village and the people familiar to him he put rocks around his head when he stopped for a nap along the way. This act is considered highly symbolic.  Jacob protected his mind from the influences of a new place. Only his hands, symbolising action, were to connect with the new place, but his mind had to remain ‘unpolluted’(1). 

Despite the fear some people have about how they might be changed or lose their identity, they do often make efforts to connect with the other. When Jacob met the ‘strangers’ among whom he would live he addressed them as ’my brothers (2)”. It is easier to regard people as abstract threats when you are not interacting with them face to face.

Although Jacob approached the locals in a spirit of friendship (3) and love, (4) the natives responded without enthusiasm. His three questions were met mainly with one-word answers (5). According to commentary there was a dismissive comment about how he talked too much—so he might as well talk to ’Rachel who is a talkative one, just like you’. (6)

In our experience in the work of Together For Humanity, we have found that outsiders, such as Muslim teenagers, are often more motivated to connect than those who are more settled. In one case, a few years back, Muslim state high school students posted repeatedly on an electronic notice board but their Jewish peers never got around to responding. In another interschool program the school with Muslim students was keen to continue the relationship into a second year but the mostly ‘white’ school opted out. Sadly the goodwill of the ’outsider’ is sometimes weakly reciprocated.

Jacob, the outsider in our story, was cheated by a local man in full view of ’all of the men of the place (7)’. Their father Laban switched his promised bride, Rachel, with her older sister, Leah.  When the stranger protested against his unfair treatment, his complaint was dismissed with a reprimand about local customs. ’It is not done this way in our place to give the younger before the older (8)’, said Laban. Later, when Jacob prospered, he faced resentment from his brothers-in-law (9), just as his father had earlier as a foreigner in the land of the Philistines. 

Relationships between people who perceive each other as different can be fraught. In my experience, empathy grows when we manage to transcend differences and stop seeing people as ‘the other’.  Perhaps a practical first step is to recognise and accept our own limited feelings of empathy and our closeness to some people more than others, and pray for Paris if that feels right for us. Then one could take a step back and ask: ‘How can I be more equitable in my concern so that I can contribute to more inclusive, just, compassionate outcomes for all people— wherever and whoever they are?’ 

1.       The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi M. M. Schneerson, Likutei Sichos volume one, first Sicha

2.       Genesis 29:4

3.       Midrash Hagadol, cited in Torah Shlaima, Vol .2, p. 1158, 15

4.       Radak

5.       Genesis 29:4-6

6.       Pirush Hatosafot Hadar Zkainim, cited in Torah Shlaima, Vol .2, p. 1159, note 18

7.       Genesis 29:22

8.       Genesis 29:26

9.       Genesis 31:1