Embracing the Unknown and alternatives to scientific knowledge /the case of the Golden Calf

Egyptians and others who care about what happens there are facing the unknown. There is an ancient impulse to seek linear knowledge, evidence based, “scientific” information about what is and what will be. This essay argues that having clear knowledge is not always appropriate and that some times it is useful to embrace the unknown or “traditional knowledge” of people with a variety of skin tones including the darker shades.

In 1999, the Nuer and Dinka tribes of Southern Sudan had been waging war, killing each other and destroying each others’ cattle. An American Christian, Bill Lowery, and others from the New Sudan Council of Churches brought chiefs from the two sides together, at great risk to the chiefs themselves. One of the rituals involved participants spitting into a gourd filled with water. When it came to Bill, he spat into it too. When everyone had spat, they splashed the water on each other. The spittle on the tongue is meant to be the coldest part of a person, and splashing it symbolised cooling off the hot bodies, charged with the ‘heat of conflict’. Bill asked the chiefs to tell stories they heard from their fathers’ mothers about how conflicts were resolved in the past. They sat opposite each other, divided by a rope representing the Nile, and discovered the wisdom of their respective ancestors was very similar. They told stories about what was done to them, and finally were asked what they ‘remembered’ for the future of their daughters’ sons.

After three days of story telling, they reached the point of decision. Bill warned his team that this was not a time to give advice. In the end the decision was a ‘no-brainer’. The logical conclusion was ending the fighting. One of the oldest chiefs told Bill, “I have been to many meetings with the United Nations. Never before has anyone asked me what I think[1].”

It is plausible to suggest that the wise UN people were arrogant, but I suspect that they suffered from this need to have a linear “scientifically” documented plan with neat graphs that might not have allowed for listening to old black men. One liberated brown gentleman, India‘s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, had this to say. “It is science alone that can solve the problems of hunger…of superstition and deadening custom…the future belongs to science and those who make friends with science”[2]. 

This impulse may have also been at work when the ancient Israelites, not long after hearing God’s command “Do not make for your self any image[3]” demanded “make us Elohim that will go before us[4]” then created and bowed to a Golden Calf.  The common understanding of this is reflected in the Midrash that “the Egyptians would carry their gods and sing before it and see it before them. Make us a God like the gods of Egypt and we will see it before us”[5]. The word Elohim can mean God but it can also mean a guide as we find when a reluctant Moses is told to speak to the Jews with Aaron as his spokesman, he is told that “you will be for him an Elohim[6]”[7].  The Jews were seeking a replacement for Moses who failed to come back from the mountain.

They thought it would have a higher power to tell them the future, to stand instead of Moses to lead them and tell them what will happen to them[8]. Alternatively, the purpose of the calf was “like Teraphim (statue like objects) that were used in witchcraft to tell them their needs[9]”. In direct contravention of “do not have diviners, (using lucky or unlucky times or omens)…be wholesome with God”[10].  

The Golden Calf was to serve as a focal point for prayer for the Israelites, “just as we do today in our places of worship, taking pride in their stones and mortar” Just as we turn our hearts to “heaven” in prayer. In this view the problem was not so the calf which in its meaning was not that different to the Cherubim on the holy ark but rather creating their own symbol not commanded by God[11]. Aaron states that tomorrow there will be a feast to God, because the spiritual content remained unchanged, only there was a small concession to concreteness of worship[12].

The quest to uncover mysteries engages Moses as well and he asks God to “show me your glory[13]” by which he meant “show me how you lead the world[14]”, seeking to understand divine justice, reward for the righteous as well as the tranquility of the wicked[15].

God responds to this request by explaining that no man can see His face and live. Instead God offers to “I will put you in the cleft of the rock[16] where Moses will see “God’s back” but not his face. Then He will “shield (Moses) with  the palm of his hand on him until He passes”.  The face, back and hands are metaphors that indicate that there are some secrets that must remain closed even to Moses.

The place in which Moses has this experience, hosts another visitor years later in the dramatic story of Elijah in the cave[17].  Elijah arrives in the very cave and asks him “"What are you doing here, Elijah?". Elijah replies that he had “been zealous for the Lord, the God of Hosts, for the children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant... they have killed Your prophets by the sword..” Again the theme of passing plays out. God tells Elijah, “"Go out and stand in the mountain before the Lord, Behold! the Lord passes”. Then there is a great and strong wind splitting mountains and shattering boulders before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. And after the wind an earthquake-not in the earthquake was the Lord. After the earthquake fire, not in the fire was the Lord, and after the fire a sound of silence[18]. Whatever God’s message was to Elijah with all of this, curiously God repeats his original question. "What are you doing here, Elijah?" Elijah’s response is identical with the one he offered before this dramatic display. I wonder if this is part of the reason our sages teach us that forever more Elijah is required to attend every circumcision where the covenant is affirmed. Perhaps observing imperfect people ambiguously cleaving to God is a good correction to Elijah’s judgmental “black and white” certainty.  

Moses is changed forever by this experience and having “Gods hand on him”. Moses did not know it but the skin of his face shone with rays of light, Aaron and the sons of Israel were afraid to approach him. For most of the rest of his life he would need to have some concealment of his own, covering his face with a mask or veil. If we understand the veil metaphorically then rather than adding to the mystery detracted from it by “putting a mask on the ideas and presenting them in a way that the people could understand[19]”. Thus, Moses having sought to uncover the mystery and having being touched by it, must now protect others from mystery, giving physical interpretations to spiritual ideas, thus concretizing the ethereal.     

While the scientific method can help us communicate and put a man on the moon, it is not the tool for the ultimate questions of life. Embracing the unknown or seeking traditional knowledge each have their place. The Ultimate knowledge of God is (to know that) we don’t know[20].

[1] Lowery, W. (2010). Related to me in by Bill Lowery in late night Conversation at the Third World Peace Forum, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. http://southsudanfriends.org/News/Update991122.html. Accessed 7 June 2010

[2] Appleyard, B. (1992) Understanding the Present, Science and the Soul of Modern Man, p.3 Picador/Pan Books, London

[3] Exodus 20:4 in the Ten Commandments

[4] Excodus 32:1

[5]  Pirkey Drabbi Eliezer 45, cited in Torah Shelaima, volume 21, p 85.

[6] Exodus 4:16 and later 7:1

[7] Interpretation brought in Torah Shlaima, Volume 21, Miluim p. 206, seems to be quoting Ibn Ezra, not clear to me from the text.

[8] Ralbag, Torah Shlaima ibid

[9] Rashbam, in Torah Shlaima ibid

[10] Deuteronomy 18:10-12

[11] Kuzari 1:37, cited in Nachshoni, Y (1988) Studies in weekly Parsha, Sh’mos p.573, ArtScroll, Brooklyn NY

[12] Ibn Ezra as understood by Nachshoni, Y, ibid p.574

[13] Exodus 33:18

[14] Midrash Tanchuma Yashan, Vaetchanan 3

[15] Shemot Rabba 45:5

[16] Exodus 33:22

[17] Talmud Pesachim 54a, quoting Kings I Kings - Chapter 19. Ten things were created on the eve of Shabbat between the sons (twilight), these are…and the cave in which both Moses and Elijah stood. Moses as it states and “I will put you in the cleft  of the rock and with Elijah “and he went till the mountain of God, Horeb and came there to the cave and rested there”.

[18] The Hebrew is Kol Demama Daka, which literally means a sound, a silence, that is fine. The late educator Mr. Max Wallhouse, of blessed memory, translated it as the “Sound of Silence” which is the best translation I can think of. The more common translation is “a small still voice”.

[19] Rabbi A. Alrabi, Drashot Torah – Rabbi Shem Tov son of Rabbi Shem Tov, Ralbag, discussed in Torah Shelaima, Kasher, M, Torah Shelaima, volume 22, Miluim, p 181

[20] Mimonedes

---

Egypt – what is the right question for a Jew?

Elation and ambivalence

For many Jews the chaotic uprising in Egypt elicits our natural affinity with the oppressed, perhaps even evokes the drama of our own Egyptian liberation, complete with the chaos of the plagues. For some the joy is tempered by fear. What are the right questions for a Jew to ask?

It is good for the Jews?

Perhaps this is not the best question. It is one that survival instincts have programmed in Jewish minds.  Jews have paid a bloody price for events that were not “about us” regardless of what was happening, be it crusaders setting out to capture Jerusalem, or Chmielnicki rising up for the peasants. Times have changed, we are no longer the 'niggers' of the world. Yes, anti-Semitism persists but the power dynamic and scale of persecution is dramatically different.

Jewish woman: The black taxi driver called me a kike (when he was not happy with the tip).

Black Woman: You can get a taxi, when I wait for a cab they don't stop[1].

With the changed circumstances, I think the balance must shift a bit more to the second half of the great teaching. “If I am not for myself, who is for me, but if I am only for myself what am I?[2]”

Pre-emptive self defence

Some would argue that the imperative of being “for myself”, not relying on others for our survival is the most relevant point here. I have never faced the horrors of war. I do not have the expertise to ascertain the potential threat of extremists cancelling the peace treaty with Israel and a renewal of major wars.  Instead, I will explore more generally relevant principles and sources.

The principle of self defence is articulated as follows. “If a thief will be found in a tunnel (that a thief might digs under the walls of a house), and he will hit and die, he has no blood. If the sun arose on him, he has blood”[3]. This is the source for the principle that if “someone comes to kill you, arise and kill him”. At the time this was written, there was no home insurance, banks or welfare so the assumption the thief “knows that a person will not stand and see his money being taken and be silent, therefore (the thief) came on the basis that if the owner of the money will stand up to him he will kill him”[4].  The exception to this principle, is if it is clear to the home-owner (represented by the metaphor of the rising sun) that thief will not kill him, the self defence justification for violence falls away[5].

This suggests that a clear risk justifies violence or other harsh defensive acts. How much risk justifies pre-emptive measures needs to be considered with a full understanding of the situation.

Respect and Suspect

Our guidance varies in relation to caution and trust. We are taught to judge every man to the side of merit[6]. Yet, we are told that “always, let every man be seen by you and a thief and (at the same time) respect them as if they were (the great) Rabban Gamliel[7]. A story illustrates this idea.

A man visited Rabbi Yehoshua, who gave him food and drink and showed him to (a place to sleep) on the top of floor. Rabbi Yehoshua removed the ladder beneath him. What did this man do? He got up at midnight, spread out his robe, took vessels (belonging to R. Yehosha) bundled them into his robe, tried to go down, fell and broke his elbow. In the morning R. Yehoshua came and found him. Empty one! This is what people like you do? Said R. Yehoshua. “I did not know you took the ladder from under me”, the guest replied. He said to him, “don’t you know we were careful about you from yesterday”[8].

We are also taught if one suspects the innocent they are punished in their body. As we see with Moses[9] who suspected that the Israelites “will not believe” him[10].  A judge is told to see litigants as wicked when they stand before him but as righteous after they have accepted the judgement[11]. I have not yet managed to get clarity with this[12] in general much less in the case of Egypt.

Is it good?

I think a better question is simply to ask if what is happening in Egypt is good. The answer must be yes, when we are talking about the removal of a tyrannical dictator, who reportedly employed 2 million secret police, yet failed to adequately protect minorities such as the Copts.

Judaism believes there are seven obligations for all people on the earth and one of these is the establishment of justice. I cried when the statue of Sadaam fell in Bagdad, as will so many liberated Egyptians when Honsi creates a space for justice to be pursued[13].

Freedom for any depends on freedom for all

Proclaim liberty throughout the land for all its inhabitants[14] the Torah states in relation to freeing slaves. Yet, surely the proclamation is one of freedom for slaves, why does it say “all its inhabitants? Penei Yehoshua explains, in any country where freedom is incomplete even if only a few are slaves, all the people are slaves. Slavery is an affliction which afflicts slave, master and by-stander. In todays global village, I think this can be applied more broadly.

As a Jew, I am thrilled that men and women in Egypt will soon be free. I pray this will indeed be the case and that will be good not only for the Egyptians but also for my brothers and sisters in Israel.

---

[1] Goldstein, T, (2001),’ I’m Not White’: Anti Racist Teacher Education for White Early Childhood Educators, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, Volume 2,  Number 1, 2001.

[2] Pirkey Avot, 1:14

[3] Exodus 22:1-2

[4] Rashi on Exodus 22:1

[5] Mechilta, Talmud Sanhedrin 62, an example of this is a father coming to rob his child.

[6]  Pirkey Avot 1:6

[7]  Masechet Kala Rabbati chapter 9

[8]  Ibid

[9]  Exodus 4

[10] Talmud Shabbat 97a and Talmud Yoma 19b 

[11] Pirkey Avot 1:8.

[12] A distinction is suggested in Kalla Rabbati between someone you know to whom we would apply the principle of “do not judge your friend until you have been in his position”, but strangers can be judged. The Talmud in Yoma would fit this interpretation because the context there is suspicion against a Kohen Gadol (high priest). It is harder to reconcile with the case of Moses suspecting the Jewish people as a whole, most of whom were strangers to him, it also does not sit well with “judging every man favourably” in Pirkey Avot 1:6

[13] I explored the Torah case for democracy in an earlier post http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com/2011/01/gods-way-halacha-shariah-vs-democracy.html

[14] Leviticus 25:10

Giving; Generosity, Glory, Guilt, Perpetuating inequality?

Giving; Generosity, Glory, Guilt, Perpetuating inequality?

On a Friday afternoon, in the mid 80’s,
a man approached me on 7^th Avenue
in Manhattan,

“Can you help me?” he asked.

I thought he was looking for directions.

He had intense dark eyes, he continued.

I AM homeless, I eat out of garbage can, and I have not eaten anything today.

I was a teenager, this was New York with homeless people everywhere. I handed him some change.

“I will say a brachah” (Hebrew for blessing made before eating food)

“I will not carry the food I buy in the street on the Sabbath”

Whoa, I thought, this guy is Jewish just like me, and he is hungry and I am giving him a bit of change?

I reached into my pocket and gave him all my change.

Then I realized that I had someone else’s dollars bills in my see-through white shirt pocket.

“I have more money on me, but it is not mine”, I said.

His intense dark eyes are looking at me.

He says, “I hope you are not lying.

You are not lying. Nothing is anyone’s it all belongs to God.”

“I hope you God finds you a home”, I offered lamely.

“I have a home, God earth!”

This story cuts to the essence of some of the dilemmas related to giving. While charity begins at home and within communities[1] it must not stop there. Being kind only to our own is not seen as Kosher[2]. We sustain the poor of the idol worshipers with the poor of Israel[3]. Questions can also be asked about attitudes about giving, and the results for recipients.  

Motives for Teruma (contribution)

“And they will take to me, a contribution, from each man whose heart is moved in generosity, you shall take my contribution[4]”. This particular case of giving was to contribute to the construction of a temporary temple for the Israelites in the desert.

In this case, giving must be done willingly and it should not be forced[5]. “Not even coercion with words, a person was not to be pressured to give more than their heart moved them to contribute”[6]. It is suggested that it was the generosity of the heart, rather than the physical building that brought God’s presence into the tabernacle[7].

In other situations, the community did force people to give to the poor[8]. Giving that is a sacrifice, rather than out of generosity, or ‘giving till it hurts’ might be another ideal, following the principle that “According to the pain is the reward”[9]. 

On one level the motives should not matter.

The very generous and hospitable Chasid says to the Rebbe (Master)

“I am not sure about the charity I give or having poor people around my table, because I don’t know if I am doing it for honor, or with (pure motives) truth”.

The Rebbe responds, the poor people enjoy the benefits, with complete truth!

While glory seeking by the giver matters less than the benefits to the poor, the equation changes if the motive interferes with addressing the needs of the poor.

The End of Charity

Nic Frances, a former CEO of a major charity, suggests that charity is often driven by guilt or a desire to feel good about ourselves but actually perpetuates poverty.  People feel satisfied to throw the crumbs from the rich man's table to the poor and therefore avoid thinking about the cost to society of keeping people poor[10]. Personally, as the leader of a non-profit responsible for fund-raising I would like to think he is wrong. That is part of his argument too, that we in the non-profit sector a doing well out of poverty and misery. Ouch.

Frances makes a complex argument and at the risk of oversimplifying, he is essentially proposing that social enterprises rather than charity should tackle poverty through the market with help from government legislation to make it profitable.

Certainly providing someone with a job is better than giving them a handout[11]. A man would prefer one measure of his own (produce) than nine of his friend[12]. Frances illustrates his vision with his success in the UK in transforming a charity that had been taking people's old furniture and stained mattresses and giving them to the poor.  It moved to a business model that sold new beds at a discount to the poor, reconditioned electronics and provided jobs to previously unemployed people.  

Markets are driven by profit, while governments or creativity occasionally manipulate the market to make a profit out of helping people, I wonder if it can work on a large scale.

Fixing “Charity”

Frances argues that charity has not solved the problem of poverty and has therefore been discredited. His ideal of poverty eradication is noble, but perhaps “the poor shall never cease from the land[13]”. In which case the better question is what is best way to “open, you must open your hand to your brother, to your poor and needy in your land?[14]”

The word charity is often used to describe an act of benevolence that makes the giver feel virtuous in doing more than his fair share. Torah's word for giving to the poor is Tzedaka, which means justice. Giving to the poor is just passing on what is rightfully his[15].   

Whose Money?

The verb in Exodus (above) relating to “my contributions” is “take” rather than “give”. This is consistent with the belief articulated by the

7^th Avenue

man that everything belongs to God. “Give Him, from that which is his, because you and yours is His[16]”. “Giving”, is actually taking what God entrusted to us for a particular purpose and delivering it. 

Supporting Scholars and the arts

Can it be that God gave rich people money so they can patron the arts? I see similarities between the support given to Torah scholars and artists. Artists civilize society and sometimes challenge it. Torah scholars contribute to the holiness of their communities (although this raises the issue of large scale avoidance of jobs in favour of study)[17]. The Holy Ark containing the tablets from Sinai was carried with poles, the Torah forbids the removal of the poles[18]. The poles symbolize those who financially support Torah study[19]. That the poles must not be removed from the ark represents the importance of this support[20].

Conclusion

Charity begins at home, but must not end there. Motives matter. Results matter more. Giving to the poor can be thought of as acting as God’s messenger. I hope 7^th Avenue guy is ok, may the merit of your reading this brings blessings to him wherever he is on God’s earth.

---

[1] Talmud, Bava Metzia 71a, “the poor of your own city, (and community) come before others”

[2] The stork, a non-Kosher bird is called Chadidah, which means kind. A moral explanation for why such a benevolent creature is unfit, is that it is only kind with it’s own “friends”, or it’s own kind.

[3] Mishnah Gittin 5.8; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 254, 256, cited in http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Jews_and_Non-Jews/Legal_Issues/Non-Jew_in_Jewish_Law.shtml

[4] Exodus 25:2

[5] Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel, on Exodus 25:2,  Lekach Tov, quoted in Torah Shelaima, Teruma p.6

[6]  Magid Meisharim, also quoted in Torah Shelaima, Teruma p.6, note 24

[7] Kli Chemda, parshat Truma, Torah Shelaima ibid

[8] Talmud, Kesuvot 59b

[9] Pirkey Avot, 5:21

[10] Frances, Nic, (2008) The End of Charity, Allen & Unwin, Sydney

[11] Mimonedes, eight levels of Tzedakah, the highest is giving someone a job

[12] Talmud Bava Metziah, Perek Elu Metziot

[13] Deuteronomy 15:11

[14] Deuteronomy ibid

[15] The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi M.M. Schneerson, Likutei Sichos.

[16] Pirkey Avot 3:7, it continues, with a quote from King David, for from you is everything, and from Your hand, we have given you (Chronicles I, 29:14)

[17] Shunning work to study and expecting to be supported by the governments, community or ones wife is another matter. Among other things, it seems to default on the commitment in the Ketuba/marriage contract “and I will work and provide for you…” It is at odds with many pro-work traditions in Judaism. This issue is dealt with to a limited degree in
“ http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com/2011/01/faith-food-flood-money.html ” this article is about the merits of the giver in supporting the study of Torah.

[18] Exodus 25:15

[19] Midrash Lekach Tov, quoted in Torah Shelaima

[20] Nachshoni, Y, (1988) Studies in the Weekly Parsha, Teruma p530, Artscroll, Brooklyn, New York, based on earlier sources