Did not make me a goy?! Sacred text, prejudice and Interpretation (Bahalotecha)

“Bless you God for not making me a goy" (the word "goy" is often translated as a non-Jew 1, but it's meaning is highly contested). These words confronted me in a series of prayers that I have recited every morning since I was five. One morning I was in a meditative mode, fully present and intentional with every word I was saying. I paused. The most obvious inference in this prayer is that I am grateful for not being made an impliedly inferior type of person. But this makes no sense to me. There are many people I know personally who are not Jewish and whom I deeply respect and admire.  If I skipped the prayer, it would mean rejecting the theological/legal system that forms the basis of my Orthodox spiritual life.  So I reinterpret the prayer to mean that despite my acknowledgement of the various paths to personal and spiritual greatness of the Muslims, Christians, Hindus, atheists/agnostics, traditionally spiritual Aboriginals and others whom I so admire, I still thank God for giving me my own cherished Jewish heritage and identity rather than any of those other profoundly beautiful other ways of being.  Afterwards I thought, whom am I kidding? Don’t words have a fixed meaning beyond their creative reinterpretations? Perhaps they do, but that is how I chose to deal with it. 

 

The blessing about not being a non-Jewish person  is followed by an expression of gratitude for not being a slave. I thought that the two prayers could be interpreted in similar ways. To be a "slave" has a certain appeal. As the CEO of a not for profit charity I carry the responsibility for a mission and a few persons’ livelihoods. It's often stressful. Like the Israelites in the desert, I'm tempted by the freedom from responsibility that comes with being an employee or, in the case of the Israelites, the lack of accountability to God they had as slaves of the Pharaohs. 2  Yet despite the attraction of "slavery" I choose to be grateful for the freedom to pursue my vision according to my own conscience and I am happy to pay the price.

The price of leadership can be high. In our Torah reading this week this theme can lead us back to the theme of prejudice. The Israelites in the desert complained and thereby challenged Moses and God. Moses was so frustrated that he would rather have died 3  than continue with his impossible mission of leadership unless God helped him. One group of people are highlighted as being at fault; these were “the multitude among them [who] began to have strong cravings.” 4  The multitude was “not of them 5” (the Jewish nation), but joined the Israelites during the exodus from Egypt and in this case the ethnic Jews are said to have followed the lead of the multitude and also rebelled.

But there is an opportunity for a strong anti-prejudice lesson in our Torah reading too. We read that Moses was married to a black woman, in fact as black as a raven 6 and that Moses’ siblings were rebuked for wrongly criticizing Moses on account of his black wife. I would assume that if his wife was black so was his non-ethnically Jewish, Midyanite father-in-law, Jethro. Shortly before Moses descended into despair he begged his father-in-law to stay in the desert. “Please don’t abandon us…you have been like eyes for us 7” Moses pleaded.  Moses cherished his father-in-law’s advice. A few verses later we are told that Jethro did in fact leave Moses without his support, and that Moses cried out bitterly about the burdens of leadership.   As our sages taught us, there is wisdom among the nations.8  One of our greatest scholars would rise in honour of the accumulated life wisdom of elderly people who were not Jewish 9, while Maimonides happily incorporated ethical teachings from non-Jewish philosophers in his writing. 10

Yet, these highly plausible interpretations in the previous paragraph are far from unanimous. The words “Kushite”/black that describe Moses’ wife are taken to mean that she was not black but undeniably beautiful 11 just as a black person is clearly black. Another commentary argues that in fact Moses didn’t really need his father-in-law’s advice at all and just pretended he needed it out of humility 12.  I suggest that when it comes to religion, especially mine, interpretation is almost everything. So thank you God for making me Jewish even thought I could have been gloriously wonderful in a somewhat different way, being someone else.

This is one demonstration of creative interpretation of a religious text that at first glance seems to say one thing but can actually mean something else.   

Notes

1. I object to words like “goy” or non-Jew as a noun. I think that a person should be defined by what they are and how they define themselves rather than how they are not like me. The literal meaning of the word "goy" is nation and can have a neutral meaning referring to a person from a nation other than the Jewish nation. The blessing traditionally is understood to reflect additional commandments that Jews are obligated in according to Judaism. 

2.  This comment is based on commentary to Numbers 11:5 when the Jews talked about free fish they age in Egypt, which is interpreted by Sifre, cited in Rashi, as being free from Mitzvot

3.  Numbers 11:10-15

4.  Numbers 11:4

5.  Ibn Ezra on 11:4

6.  Numbers 12:1-9 according to Ibn Ezra and Abarbanel

7.  Numbers 10:31

8.  Midrash Eicha Rabba 2:13 מדרש איכה רבה פרשה ב סימן יג

9.  Talmud 33:1

10.  Maimonides,

הרמב"ם בתחילת הקדמתו למסכת אבות ("שמונה פרקים") כותב: "ודע, כי הדברים אשר אומר אותם באלו הפרקים... הם עניינים מלוקטים מדברי החכמים (חכמי ישראל)... ומדברי הפילוסופים גם כן ומחיבורי הרבה בני אדם. ושמע האמת ממי שאמרה". על הפילוסוף היווני אריסטו כותב הרמב"ם: "הוא אשר לימד לבני אדם את דרכי ההוכחה וחוקיה ותנאיה" ("מורה הנבוכים" חלק ב פרק טו(.
cited in http://www.kipa.co.il/ask/show/86913

11.  Sifre, Unkelous, Rashi, and Ralbag, see Ibn Kaspi’s (cited in Nechama Lebovitz) withering critique of these teachings that essentially take the verses to mean the opposite of what the plain text appears to be saying

12.  Ralbag

Religion vs. Art? Values clash and my name is not Asher Lev

Staying awake all night on the anniversary of revelation is one of many commonalities between Jews and Muslims. I only found out about this on Monday, in a discussion with some Muslim teenagers and a Sheikh. At midnight on Saturday this week,  I will deliver a talk to sleep deprived Jews at my synagogue as part of the all night learning related to the Jewish festival of Shavuot. I plan to focus as much on cultural conflict as commonality, which should keep my listeners awake.

I will reflect on the play My Name is Asher Lev by Chaim Potok that was recently performed in Sydney. Asher Lev is an artist who grew up in a Chasidic family in a fictional setting that is based on the community in which I was raised. The play raised questions about cultural clashes between faith and art. Asher endured intense conflict with his father who he accused of being afflicted with aesthetic blindness. His father saw Asher’s drawing as being, at best a waste of time and at worst a manifestation of the forces of evil, or the “Sitra Achra”, the other side. Asher’s decision to paint nudes against the wishes of his parents led his father to accuse him of moral blindness.

The conflict between the ideals of the Western art world and the world of Chabad Chasidim has been dismissed by one Rabbi, who cited the example of a Chasidic artist who was encouraged by the leader of the Chabad movement, Rabbi Schneerson (known simply as “the Rebbe”). The temptation to minimise cultural differences is a common one, but needs to be resisted, just as it is unhelpful to exaggerate the conflicts. The very real conflict explored in My Name is Asher Lev is the conflict between acceptance of the validity of art as an end in itself with its own valid traditions and a view  that art is merely a humble servant of worship, and must be subject to its restrictions.

The argument in the book between father and son also played out between the book’s author, Chaim Potok  and the Rebbe, when he attended one of the Rebbe’s public addresses. The Rebbe declared passionately “that if God has given someone a talent and an ability to write a book,...then regardless of the external form of the book in terms of its content, it must fulfil the purpose of persuading the reader that contrary to the views of the fools that think that the world runs without a Master in which might makes right, ... in the end righteous, justice and goodness will prevail”.

Potok did not respond directly to this argument, but he articulated his own philosophy about creative expression which could apply as much to art as it does to writing. In an interview he explained his choice not to meet privately with the Rebbe. Potok reflected that he “was concerned about how such a meeting would affect what I myself want to write about regarding this group. I didn’t want to meet personally with the Rebbe because it was very clear to me that this was a most unusual human being. I didn’t want to spend 20 minutes or half an hour in a room with him, and then have to rethink, undo, restructure, my imagination after that experience. A writer does the necessary encountering for his or her work, and when he feels that his imagination has enough encounter with the reality that he wants to write about, he walks away from the reality and lets the imagination work. You don’t let the reality overwhelm the imagination”.

For Potok,  art, of the written or visual form, is a process of great perfection and integrity that has roots in reality but must transcend the literal truth of reality, to the greater truth of the imagination.  Or as Pablo Picasso, stated: ““Art is the lie that enables us to realize the truth.”.

At the end of My Name is Asher Lev, there is a dramatic clash between Asher and his parents.  They come to see his exhibition and are confronted with a crucifixion he pained where his mother is portrayed as Jesus on the cross, suffering the torment of being torn between her husband and her son. Asher’s paternal grandfather was murdered by a Russian peasant in the lead up to Easter in an anti-Semitic act, presumably because of the mistaken belief that the Jews had crucified Jesus. Asher’s father regarded his son’s depiction of  him and his wife in a crucifixion scene as a terrible betrayal. He could not imagine any meaning of the cross other than the one he sees through the lens of his history and faith, both of which have strong objections to the symbol.  

To Asher, he had no choice if he wanted to be authentic. He was guided by artistic traditions about how to express his truth. The portrayal of the artist in Asher Lev echoes the words of the driven prophet Jeremiah: “But if I said; I will not mention Him, and I will no longer speak in His name, it would be in my heart like a burning fire, confined in my bones, and I wearied to contain it but was unable.  Asher’s powerful commentary on reality is inside him and eventually comes out whether he likes it or not. The conflict was intense and appeared unresolvable.

Someone asked me after the play if I agreed that Asher suffered from moral blindness. I said I thought it was more a case of social blindness for both father and son. Neither protagonist can understand the worldview of the other. Particularly in the case of Asher, there is little reflection on the nature of the conflict. Asher appeared to act impulsively in his drawing, or even allowed others to act for him in the case of the decision by the gallery owner to display the crucifixion, which he doesn’t protest but doesn’t explicitly give permission for either. The name of the book, “My Name is Asher Lev”, hints at a justification for hurting his parents in order to be true to himself. .  

I think there is more than one way to be authentic. I found a little while ago that expressing myself freely in an op-ed in the Daily Telegraph without really thinking through what I was saying, how I was saying it and my relationship with some of the people about whom I was writing was an unwise choice. Even as we express ourselves, we can still take the time to reflect on the perspectives of others. In some cases we will resolve to stand our ground and in others to yield. At this point in my talk, I will raise my voice, for emphasis in the tradition of the art of public speaking. I will urge my listeners to ensure that whatever they choose, they should be fully aware of their feelings and principles and awake to the implications of their choices. The louder voice will probably jolt at least one of my listeners from their snoring slumber who will open one eye and wonder what it is all about.  

Plebiscite Restraint, Stigma, Gay Men, and a Blaspheming “Bastard” (Emor)

Last week I participated in a panel with Anthony Venn-Brown, Anglican Priest, Rod Bower, and business leader, Peta Granger, regarding the relationship between LGBQTI people, business and religion. The session was facilitated by LGBT rights campaigner Tiernan Brady, who concluded the discussion with a plea for civility and restraint during the upcoming debate in Australia about broadening the legal definition of marriage. I agree that this is extremely important in order to avoid the negative impact on LGBQTI young people of a slanging match that would demonise and denigrate proponents of both change and the status quo.

In preparation for the panel I read; A Life of Unlearning: a preacher's struggle with his homosexuality, church and faith by Brown which he had given me. I found it quite unsettling. The impact that shame made on his life over a period of many years has been devastating. The secret life he led as a gay person left him exposed to exploitation, prone to making self-destructive choices and caused him terrible suffering. Eventually, when he disclosed his sexuality, he was shunned and his family was abandoned by the Christian community of which they had been a part. 

One aspect of Brown’s story, as well as the broader history of the experience of gay men in the 60s and 70s, led me to revisit something I had written in 2011. At the time, I was critical of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein’s view expressed in a letter written in 1976 that “the whole world despises homosexuals...”... and that gay men also despised each other[i]”. While no one needs to pretend that the Torah does not prohibit homosexual acts, I argued that it was “hard to believe that this conclusion was based on intensive interviews with a representative sample of homosexuals[ii]”. Yet, Brown writes about the significant impact of stigma, and shaming on gay men in the early 70s that led to a split between activists who wanted to focus on politics and others who sought to focus on improved self-image.

I must concede that Feinstein did have some factual basis for his assertions that were at least true at the time he wrote his letter. Where this Halachic authority and reality part company is in his wishful conclusion that stigma would lead same sex attracted men to avoid homosexual sex[iii]. Brown’s experience illustrates that stigma had no such impact on him, but that it did have an extremely damaging impact on his life. Negative self-perception has also been linked to diminished religious adherence[iv], which is another reason some orthodox Rabbis who are concerned about alienating LGBQTI people have opted for restraint.

The relationship between stigma and alienation from religion comes up in commentary at the end of our Torah reading last week. We read about “the son of an Israelite woman, and he was the son of an Egyptian man, went out among the children of Israel, and they quarrelled in the camp… The son of the Israelite woman pronounced the [Divine] Name and cursed. ...They took the blasphemer outside the camp and stoned him[v]”. Commentary tells us that the blasphemer of mixed heritage ‘was known until shortly before this episode, as the son of an Israelite woman among the other Israelites he had chosen to identify with. His mother had concealed the truth about her son’s birth by an Egyptian father that she slept with while married to another man, because of her honour. Somehow people began to talk about the fact that he was, in fact, “the son of an Egyptian”’[vi].  At that time, he sought acceptance and dignity by being allowed to pitch his tent among his mother’s tribe. However he was rejected and this lead him to lash out against God and ultimately to his death. 

While I am pleased that capital punishment is no longer practiced in Jewish law for blasphemy or any other crime, I think there is a lesson in this story about stigma and its impact on LGBQTI people. Drawing on Brown’s experience as well as the Biblical blasphemer, I think there is a particularly strong lesson relating to those who also seek a home within orthodox Jewish communities and other conservative faith communities. The Israelites in the desert lost a man who desperately wanted to belong within their faith community but instead turned to blasphemy. There is a big difference in tone between Feinstein’s writing in the 70s and the empathy shown by Rapoport, an orthodox Jewish scholar whose book was published thirty years later[vii]. 

Also at the forum, leading politician Penny Wong talked about the importance of considering where public figures’ words land and their impact. She could have quoted the Talmudic advice; “Wise people, be careful with your words[viii]”. I hope Tiernan’s call for civility and restraint on all sides of this debate will be heeded.  

---

[i] Feinstien, R. Moshe, (1976) Igrot Moshe, Orach Chayim 4, p. 206, in a letter dated 1 Adar II, 5736

[ii] http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/torah-based-responses-to-homosexuality.html

[iii] Feinstien, R. Moshe, (1976) p. 205 and 206

[iv] See Tanya chapter 1

[v] Leviticus 24:10-23

[vi] Abarbanel p 281

[vii] Rapoport, Rabbi C, (2004) Judaism and Homosexuality, Vallentine Mitchell, London & Portland

[viii] Pirkey Avot 1:11

Insecurity, Scapegoating and Re-assigning Shared Responsibility - Acharei Mot

I, like many people, crave the feeling that comes from thinking of myself as being good. This need can be difficult for me to satisfy because I am both flawed as well as virtuous and my habitual self-criticism and insecurities tend to focus more on the former than the latter. Some people, including bigots[i], in their efforts to think of themselves as good, designate someone else as a scapegoat to take the blame for the existence of their shortcomings.  Scape-goating is part of both Donald Trump’s and Bernie Sander’s appeal to at least some Americans.  Either foreigners or bankers are blamed for America's problems.  This tactic is far from new and in fact when we re-examine the origins of this concept, there are dramatically different approaches to the topic of “scapegoating”.

We first read about the scapegoat in Leviticus: “Aaron shall lean both of his hands upon the live male goat's head and confess upon it all the wilful sins of the Israelites, all their rebellions, and all their unintentional sins and he shall place them on the he goat's head, and send it off to the desert...[ii]”

The concept of transferring blame implicit in scapegoating is strongly rejected by one of the greatest Jewish authorities of all time, Maimonides. He wrote that ‘sins are not burdens that one can transfer from the back of one person to that of another, but (rather) all these actions are all meant as lessons to bring about fear in one’s soul, until one repents[iii]’. In this approach, the destroyed goat is an illustration of the evil within each individual themselves, that can only be removed by personal change and improvement. The goat is at least in part an aid to the imagination just as the ceremonial “tossing our sins” into the sea by emptying our pockets at the edge of a body of water does not substitute for the hard work of changing habits and repairing our relationships with our fellow humans or God.   

In contrast to the view of Maimonides, the symbolism found in at least one commentary of this ritual appears to reflect the modern concept of a ‘scapegoat’. This interpretation implies that sins can indeed be transferred from one person to another. It symbolically links the two goats and the twins Jacob and Esau[iv] who are seen as ancestors and therefore symbolic of the Jewish and Roman nations respectively.  Despite the similarity of two ordinary goats as well as the twins Jacobs and Esau Jews, Jacob is seen to be held close to God, while Esau is distanced from God. This choice is articulated by God through one of the prophets in the statement: “Is it not (true) that Esau is a brother to Jacob said God, yet I loved Jacob and I hated Esau[v]”. Mirroring this apparently arbitrary selection of Jacob by God, one goat is selected to be offered in the holy temple. The other goat, is sent to a forsaken area in the desert which mirrors the fact that Esau, the archetypal Roman, himself was a man of the field, distanced from God, “bitter, brazen (עז) in strength and wickedness”.  

If we take this commentary at face value, it implies that the Jews can pass on their sins to Rome! Despite my preference for Maimonides’ approach that affirms personal responsibility, I think that sometimes there is in fact merit in assigning shared responsibility to parties other than the direct perpetrator. For example, if members of oppressed minorities commit crimes like burglary, it makes sense to combine the principle of personal responsibility that holds the robber accountable with assigning some responsibility to those who created the unjust circumstances in which those crimes are committed, such as colonialism or institutional racism. This theme is alluded to (in the commentary about the scapegoat) when Esau/Rome, cries out in protest as the crimes are loaded onto him: “how can I bear all these sins?” The complaint is explained as an argument against shifting blame for sins that are not attributable to oppression such as sins of lust[vi].  The implication is that culpability for some sins can be justly attributed to the oppressive, “brazen” state and only some “responsibility re-assignment” is unjustified.  

For me, I believe the most useful thing to do in relation to my self-concept is firstly to combine acknowledgement of my shortcomings with appreciation for my positive aspects. There is no need, benefit or justification to blame others for one’s own faults. There are times when I can use my imagination in a process of moving on, just like the goat ceremony might help someone work on their self-improvement. For example, I can externalise my habitual self-criticism and imagine it coming from a harsh unreasonable judge or a personalised “inner critic” who needs to be told to back off. Religious Jews often talk about the “evil inclination” as if it was another person. This is ok as long as we don’t forget we are just pretending and that in reality the “inner critic” and evil inclination is part of us. In the broader context of inter-group relations, I think the concept of the scapegoat can be, at times ridiculous bigotry and at other times, a rightful redistribution of a fair share of responsibility between those who take harmful actions and those who, through greed, arrogance, stupidity and injustice contributed to the circumstances that made that harm likely.

---

[i] See the work of Stuart Hall on representation

[ii] Leviticus 16:21

[iii] Guide for the Perplexed 3:46 cited in Nachshoni, Vayikra, p. 768

[iv] Abarbanel Acharei Mot, p. 179

[v]  Malachai, 1:2-3

[vi] Chasam Sofer in Toras Moshe, based on Midrash, cited in Nachshoni, Vayikra, p. 767

Religious attitudes about sexuality in the context of harming LGBTI youth - Tazria

River is the name of an Australian high school student who is homeless. Although born female, River does not identify as a girl, but rather as “gender fluid”. Like other LGBTI youth River has been subjected to abuse and hostility ultimately leading to homelessness. On a radio program this week[i], I heard one LGBTI young person who turned to a religious based service for emotional support but found that the minute they identified as gay, there was a dramatic shift in the mood away from compassion and empathy to distance. “When I asked for the help that she (previously) mentioned she said ‘It is not for me’”.

The hostility toward the Safe Schools program that addressed some of the anti-gay bullying in schools has come under fire by religious people. Of course for Jews and Christians there is the Biblical prohibition against homosexual sex. Still, out of the 613 commandments in the Torah this one generates disproportionate passion[ii].  This got me thinking more broadly about religions’ reservations about sex as one possible factor that makes empathy with and acceptance of LGBTI people harder for some religious people.

The Torah reading this week begins with an unusual expression “A woman who will seed and she will give birth to a male[iii]”. It proceeds to declare her ritually impure for seven days as a result of childbirth. I find this puzzling as in Judaism we regard death as the source of spiritual impurity. That being the case I would have thought the miracle of a new life would be a completely positive thing. To put it another way, “the key to birth is in the hands of God and has not been handed over to any messenger (such as an angel), how can this result in impurity?[iv]”

One commentary about this verse references the fact that the laws about human impurity follows the laws about animal based impurity. This sequence is meant to lead to humans feeling humbled by reflecting on the fact that both in creation and in listing of the laws they come later than animals. In addition, the Torah seeks to foster humility by drawing a person’s attention to “his lowliness and his disgusting formation from a putrid drop^[v] that he was formed from… and how polluted is his birth so how can he be arrogant?![vi]” This commentary does not accord with my view that birth is the most beautiful miracle from conception to delivery.

An alternative[vii] is that on the contrary the “impurity” relates to “the greatness of the human, the chosen one of creation”.  It is precisely because of the holiness of the new life that it draws negative energies[viii]. In this mystical approach, a spiritually neutral situation does not attract the forces of darkness but where something holy is present these spirits are drawn to it, to try to (appear?) similar to the holy. This approach is similar to Newton’s law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. 

A similar explanation is that the impurity is not a result of birth itself but comes after the birth. It is related to the reason for impurity of a dead body. “The place has been emptied of holiness - that is the soul of the person,   therefore the forces of impurity seek to dwell there. The same is true with a woman giving birth. Because God himself was the one opening (the womb), and therefore when the Divine presence leaves, the forces of impurity desire to attached themselves to her[ix]”.

Despite the problems some sources have with sexual desire, even linking it to an idea of original sin[x], there are clearly some sources in Judaism that see sexual desire as a positive thing. The Talmud refers to the sexual act as “Shalom Bayit”, peace in the home. Recognising the relational benefit to the marriage and broadening its legitimacy beyond procreation.

Another teaching relates to the verse at the start of this blog post. The Talmud infers a practical message about managing male desire from a creative interpretation of this verse. If a woman seeds (climaxes) first she will give birth to a male...this is only that they (the males) delay themselves… so that their wife should seed first (and as “reward for this”) their children will be male.... ^[xi] Let us put aside the implications about gender equality arising from male offspring being offered as a reward. This is an ethical teaching about the obligations of men to concern themselves with female desire rather than just their own.   

Male sexual desire is also seen as a positive thing in another context. The basin used by the priests (Kohanim) to wash themselves in the temple was made from the mirrors that the Hebrew slave women used in Egypt to attract their husbands’ attention^[xii]. “Moses despised the mirrors because they are made for the evil inclination, but The Holy One Blessed Be He said to him, accept them as these are dearer to me than everything. It is through these (mirrors) that the women stood up many hosts in Egypt. When their husbands were exhausted from the back breaking work they would go and bring food and drink and feed them, they would take the mirrors and each one would see herself and her husband in the mirror and she would coax him with words, saying “I am more pretty than you” and through this would bring their husbands to desire and they would attend to them and they would become pregnant and give birth^[xiii]”.

I don’t know if this kind of exploration of positive religious teachings about sexuality in general can lead to better outcomes for LGBTI young people. Perhaps what is needed is more direct action to ensure that the ideals of compassion and the dignity of all people are extended to LGTBI people, especially in “safe schools”. On the other hand maybe a healthier understanding of this beautiful part of being human can help religious people more calmly see variations of sexuality and gender in context, as just aspects of how various humans are, without losing sight of the humanity of people like River.

---

[i] http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2016/04/bbg_20160403_0805.mp3

[ii] Boteach, Rabbi S., http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704361504575552203494330686 and others

[iii]  Leviticus 12:1

[iv] Shem Mishmuel in the name of the Rebbe of Kotzk, quoted in Greenberg, A. Y, (1996) Iturei Torah, p. 64 Yavneh, Tel Aviv

^[v] Pirkey Avot – Ethics of the Fathers, Chapter 3, Mishna 1

[vi]  Yaffa, Rabbi Mordechai (1604) in Levush HaOrah, on Leviticus 12:6 (note, the Hebrew word that I translate as Polluted is מזוהם)

[vii] This is by a student of Rabbi Yaffa, but he declares his interpretation to be “the opposite, from one extreme to the other” to that of his teacher.

[viii] Eilenberg, Rabbi Y.B, (1623) in Tzeda Lderech, Eilenberg was a student of R. Yaffa, another layer to this I heard in the name of Rav Frand, is that the birth of a daughter requires twice as long to deal with the “impurity” because not only is there one miracle of life but the double miracle of the creation of a child who will herself also bear children.

[ix] Shem Mishmuel in the name of the Rebbe of Kotzk, quoted in Greenberg, (1996)

[x] See Rabbenu Bchai, Tazria 12:7, “it can be explained that the sacrifice was not because of her own sin but because of her mother's sin (Eve) the mother of all the living. Because were it not for that sin, man  would cause birth with his wife not in the way of lust and desire but rather in a completely natural way just like the nature of the tree that brings forth its fruits every year without lust. This woman giving birth, (it can be said of her) like mother, like daughter in the act of sin. Because the branches are rotten with the rot of the root. Therefore she is required by the verse to bring an offering to atone for that primordial sin. ...

^[xi]  Talmud, Nida 31a&b see also Rabbenu Bchai, Tazria 12:7 One who can conquer his (evil) inclination and delay himself so that she “seeds” first he receives his reward…

^[xii]    Exodus 38:8

^[xiii]   Rashi on Exodus 38:8, 

Don’t keep it simple or calm! On political and other leadership

The contrast between Donald Trump and our current prime minister could hardly be greater. The “Donald” fearlessly commits to punishing women for having abortions, ‘building a wall that Mexico will pay for’ and barring Muslims entry to the US. I cringed when I read Kristina Keneally’s sarcastic ridiculing of the caution of our Prime Minister in her article; “Let’s cut Turnbull some slack, he’s had a hard week after making a decision[i]”. Another comparison could be made between the complexity of Hilary Clinton’s candidacy and the simplicity of the Sanders economic message. The attraction of the simple is undeniable. Despite my strong feelings about the leaders more generally, this post is focused on the merit of different leadership styles rather than on the personalities. 

 I was told the other day to calm down while talking passionately about my ideas. I thought: ‘No way will I calm down’. Sitting alongside emotion’s potential for destruction and messiness, is its potency as an ingredient of positive change. I love watching Bernie Sanders getting carried away in delight, as when a bird settled on his podium, or in anger when talking about injustice. On the other hand, emotion coupled with arrogance can be truly scary in a leader.

I also choose to embrace, albeit reluctantly, my hesitancy and difficulty making decisions. While it might be considered heroic or “manly” to be decisive, it can also lead to harmful decisions.

In this week’s Torah reading, we find a caution against getting carried away with emotion in the case of Aaron’s sons who spontaneously and joyously[ii] brought an offering that they were not commanded to bring[iii]. Passion is vital, as symbolised by the constant fire in the temple [iv], but it must be combined with humility[v]. Humility is also highlighted in commentary about Aaron being told by Moses to step forward to leadership[vi]. It is suggested that Aaron was reluctant about leadership, worried about a past failure. However he was told “it is for/because of this that you were chosen[vii]”. This quality of humility and reluctance to lead is itself the virtue that makes Aaron deserving of leadership[viii].  Sanders seems to have a combination of humility and passion which I am drawn to.   

I also have been thinking about the qualities attributed to honey and salt in our traditions. Honey is seen as highly potent and not at all complex: it simply adds to the flavour of foods. Salt is complicated. If you put a lot of salt on a plant, it will destroy it; however, put salt on other foods and it preserves them. So salt is complicated in that it’s  both preserving and destructive. Of the two elements, it is salt that is required in the temple and honey that is generally banned. That might be of some comfort to Clinton or Kasich supporters if complexity was the only thing that mattered.  Humility and passion, coupled with an embrace of complexity and caution, are some of the needed qualities for leadership. As Ed Kotch said when he was running for Mayor of New York, “there are many people better qualified than me to be mayor. None of them are running this year”.  I pray that whoever leads both the US and Australia be blessed with the required qualities to do so.   

---

[i] The Guardian

[ii] Torat Cohanim, in Torah Shlaima p3, 1

[iii] Leviticus 10:1

[iv] Schneerson, Rabbi Y. Y. in Hayom Yom,  21 Adar II

[v] Talmud, Eruvin 63a, Yoma 53a, and Torah Cohanim

[vi] Leviticus 9:7

[vii] Torah Cohanim cited in Rashi

[viii] Baal Shem Tov in Degel Machne Efrayim, in Greenberg, A.Y. (1992) Torah Gems, Orenstien, Tel Aviv p.266

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