Crushing or talking with? Chukat

I retaliated. I really didn’t mean to, but X aggressively pressured me to do something and without thinking, I verbally fought back. X was a little hurt. It didn’t need to play out that way. My starting point for this reflection is concern about excessive harshness and punishment.

Author, Dr. Richard Schwartz observed that we treat others the same way that we treat those parts of ourselves that challenge us. “In our attempts to control what we consider to be disturbing thoughts and emotions, we just end up fighting, disciplining … or feeling ashamed of those impulses …[i]” Religious teachings, including some in the Torah, seem to be designed to crush parts of ourselves. I want to examine these and consider alternative ways of reading them.

In this week’s Torah reading we have the strange ritual of burning a dead red cow[ii] to purify anyone who has come in contact with a dead person. It is introduced as a “Chuka”, a statute that God commanded. Commentary elaborates on the idea of a Chuka, which has also been translated as decree[iii]. “It is a decree from before Me; you have no permission to ruminate about it[iv]”. We are forbidden to ever question this divine command. That is harsh! It seems like the purpose of the Chuka, with no logical explanation, is about a process designed to beat us into submission[v].

The idea that crushing that part in us that thinks for itself or lusts after permitted or forbidden pleasures also comes up in one attempt to explain the mystery of the red cow. The animal is seen as a symbol of the material aspects of life. The burning of the cow represents a person who subjugates the material elements within him or herself. This is hinted at by the fact that the ashes of the cow – now crushed and defeated – when mixed with water, causes the person sprinkled with the mixture to be regarded as spiritually pure and clean[vi].  To kill the “animal soul” is seen as a virtue[vii].

An alternative approach to the red cow is offered by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, of blessed memory. The symbolism of mixing the ashes of a dead animal with “living water” is a reminder that although we are all individually mortal, life continues after we die[viii]. He infers this from the fact that the law of the red cow is followed in the Torah[ix] by the deaths of Moses’ siblings. Rabbi Sacks wrote: “with great subtlety the Torah mixes law and narrative together.” We all die, “... yet life goes on, and what we began, others will continue.”

Sacks insists that Judaism is not a matter of blind obedience[x]”.  Some laws are not explained because they are meant to move us at a sub-conscious level. The ritual of the red cow is directed at what Sigmund Freud called thanatos, the death instinct[xi]. According to Freud, “a portion of the [death] instinct is diverted towards the external world and comes to light as an instinct of aggressiveness.”

Sacks insists that the red cow ritual “is a powerful statement that the holy is to be found in life, not death. Anyone who had been in contact with a dead body needed purification. Judaism contains no cult of worship of dead ancestors. Death defiles”.

Countering manifestation of the death instinct, Sacks explains, “cannot be achieved by reason alone”. Instead, he argues, rituals enable the learning to reach “into our unconscious mind and alter our instinctual responses. The result is a personality trained to see death and holiness as two utterly opposed states.”

What we have is not a ritual to beat us into submission and encourage us to berate and crush ourselves but something far more dignified. It is an invitation to engage with the text as intelligent people grappling with the great challenges of life.

Sacks has a similar approach to one of the saddest stories in the Torah. Moses was deprived of his dream to lead his people in to the Promised Land. This was due to the seemingly petty offence of using a stick to hit, rather than talking to, a rock to miraculously draw water from it[xii]. This seems excessively punitive. But to Sacks[xiii], the symbolic meaning of “hitting” at a moment that required “talking” was no small matter.

At the end of his life, Moses was leading a new generation, born in freedom in the wilderness. They were different to their parents who had spent much of their lives as slaves. Slaves understand that a stick is used for striking, which is how slave-masters compel obedience. Free people, by contrast, must be educated, informed and taught.

To put it another way, public administration academic, Holli Vah Seliskar, PHD, wrote, “people benefit most when things are done with them rather than something being done to them[xiv]”. Human beings are happier, more cooperative and productive and more likely to make positive changes in their behaviour when those in positions of authority do things with them[xv]”.

Moses using a stick instead of words was symbolic of his failure to work with the people, rather than berate[xvi] or order them around. Free human beings respond not to power but persuasion. They need to be spoken to. What Moses failed to understand was that the difference between God's command to "speak to the rock" and "strike the rock" was of the essence.

Next time I am confronted with a situation like the one with X, I hope both I and the person with whom I am talking can focus on trying to find a mutually acceptable resolution to our divergent views and needs. Hopefully, this will involve a collaborative conversation rather than punishment. Failing that, I will go with a firm but fair withdrawal from a situation that is not working, but without speaking harsh words that detract from the sacred dignity of all humans.

---

[i] Schwartz, R. C., (2021) No Bad Parts, Sounds True publishers, Boulder Colorado, p. 8

[ii] Numbers, 19:2-12

[iii] Targum Yonasan Ben Uziel of 19:2 דָא גְזֵירַת אַחְוָיַת אוֹרַיְיתָא

[iv] Rashi to Number 19:2, based on Talmud Yoma 67b; Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 7, I translated the word as ruminate

[v] See Kedushas Levi at the beginning of Parshas Chukas

[vi] Rabbi Chaim Yosef David Auzulai, (The Chidoh), Nachal Kedominm in Toras Chido, p. 130

[vii] Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, Tanya chapter 1

[viii] https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/chukat/healing-trauma-loss/

[ix] The red cow is discussed in Number 19, the death of Mirram and Aaron are recorded in the following chapter in 20:1 and 20:28

[x] Sacks, J. Covenant and Conversation, Number, p. 239

[xi] https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/chukat/descartes-error/ See commentary by Rabbi Yosef Bechor Shor 

[xii] Numbers 20:7-12

[xiii] https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/chukat/why-was-moses-not-destined-to-enter-the-land/

[xiv] Seliskar, H. V. https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/doing-with-not-to-or-for/253464

[xv] Watchel, T. in Seliskar

[xvi] Numbers 20:10

Trust - a little caution and a lot of courage

Photo by Timothy Vogel, Creative Commons
License 2.0 Attribution required Non Commercial

The topic was the challenge of broken trust. It was discussed by a group of Jewish school girls, sitting in a circle, with Calisha, a Muslim woman in a hijab who was co-facilitating the session with me.

Trust is earned, they said. When I lose trust in her, it is because of what she did, they asserted. We insisted that this was not the whole story. Trust is not just the result of other people’s choices. Trust is sometimes a choice we make and a gift we give.

We asked the girls if they ever noticed teenagers yelling at their parents, “You don’t trust me!!” It is screamed accusingly, with great emotion, usually anger and indignation. It is as if the teenagers are saying, “How dare you do this terrible thing to me and withdraw your trust in me?”.

Calisha and I are both parents of teenagers. We put it to the teenage girls that the accusation seems ridiculous. Isn’t the reason the parent doesn’t trust the child because the child behaved in an untrustworthy way?! 

The girls reflected on this. One girl suggested that sometimes the child feels that they are more mature now than when they let their parents down last time. Perhaps. At its core, it is because the child wants the parent to not think about what went wrong last time, and the time before, and instead to give the gift of trust this time. It is hard to feel loved and mistrusted at the same time.

I am thinking about this. Each of us has been let down so many times. There is an almost irresistible urge to take charge, take control, and refuse to let anyone hurt us again. I trusted before. I showed goodwill. I hoped. I was disappointed. I will not be hurt again.

To be at peace and in friendship with our peers or others we might need to apply a little caution to protect ourselves, but we must also show a lot of courage.  

C.S. Lewis wrote: “To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless, it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable…”. [1]

In the spirit of this quote, told them a story about a magnificent tree in a forest.

The tree was delightful. Its leaves and flowers were the most beautiful colour, and dense. Its shade was cool. Its trunk healthy and radiant.

Mr Wombat, waddled over to the tree, and looked up with deep appreciation and joy. Wombat said to the tree, you are beautiful and I feel such joy just looking at you.

Magnificent Tree said to Mr Wombat. I feel so touched and loved. The tree opened its heart and invited the wombat inside. Wombat was amazed by the beautiful diamonds inside the tree’s heart. Magnificent Tree said to Wombat, please take one diamond home. Wombat reluctantly agreed. As soon as Wombat returned home, he gave the diamond to Mrs. Wombat.

Fox saw Mrs. Wombat’s diamond and was envious. He too went up to Tree and offered gushing compliments, none of which were sincere. Magnificent Tree was naïve and invited Fox inside. Fox did not wait for an invitation to take diamonds, he grabbed diamonds right and left, tearing and breaking Magnificent Tree’s delicate heart. The tree was hurt and furious. Its heart snapped shut, trapping Fox inside.

And from that day on the tree’s leaves were mostly drained of their colours, there were fewer leaves, the trunk lost its shine and the tree smelled vaguely awful. A really skilled nose would pick up the scent of dead fox. Like CW Lewis’s heart in a coffin, refusing to trust and love hurts us badly.

As believers, we are invited to trust God. Despite natural disasters and human ones, God did not stop. We are still called to believe in his infinite kindness. This is not easy.

Trust and faith are practices, not static states. Our behaviours build our faith and trust or allow them to wither and die.

Every seventh year the Israelites would not plant or harvest [2], pausing their “hustle” to make a statement of trust in God. “You might ask what will we eat [3]?” God says trust me. Many Jews trusted God and downed tools for the Sabbatical year, some do so to this day, but some did not trust or stop farming.

The fury of God’s disappointment in the failure to observe the Sabbatical year is intense. “I will make the land desolate so that your enemies who settle in it shall be appalled by it…And you, I will scatter among the nations, and I will unsheath the sword against you…Then shall the land make up for its sabbath years throughout the time that it is desolate and you are in the land of your enemies; then shall the land …observe the rest that it did not observe in your sabbath years [4].

Failure to give God the gift of trust leads people in a hustling [5] mode, or a controlling mode of being, working the land hard, refusing to take time out for spiritual reflection [6], and being unwilling to “let go and let God”.

This is hard work and I hope we all respond with compassion to anyone struggling to trust after heartbreak. It is cruel to judge people for failing to do this hard work. On the other hand, the consequences of not letting go and trusting again are devastating.

A few minutes before the session ended with the girls, Calisha and I gave them one last gift of trust. The game, Pattern-Ball, can become rowdy and silly but we chose to trust them that they would do it sensibly, even though some of them were unsettled after over an hour of learning with us. One girl reminded us that we “do not want to smell like a dead fox”. There was no way to know if the trust in the girls would be vindicated. It was.   

 

Notes

[1] C.S. Lewis - The Four Loves https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/3058-to-love-at-all-is-to-be-vulnerable-love-anything

[2] Leviticus 25

[3] Leviticus 25:20

[4] Leviticus 26:32-35

[5] Brown, Brene, Rising strong

[6] Seforno

Women and men in Jewish marriage has anything changed

 On Wednesday, a group of Muslim students, a learned Muslim colleague and I discussed marriage. A question from one of the students was “how has Jewish marriage adapted to modern understandings of gender equality and LGBTQ+ rights while maintaining traditional marital practices? are there any contemporary interpretations or adaptations within Jewish communities?” The timing was great because I am currently reading “This Is How Your Marriage Ends” by Matthew Fray about how men fail to honour women’s perspectives and pull their weight in thinking about and doing housework.

While the positions of Orthodox and Progressive Judaism are clear regarding same sex marriage, other adaptations are more subtle.

The most interesting of these are two ways of interpreting a traditional phrase about marriage:

“Who is a Kosher woman? The one who does [whatever is] her husband’s will”. [i]

In 1962, a whole new way of reading this same verse was put forward by the Lubavitcher Rebbe. The new reading involves some word play made possible by the fact that the Hebrew word for “does” also means “makes”.  “Who is a Kosher woman? The one who makes [moulds and influences] her husband’s will” [ii].

In the Rebbe’s new interpretation, a wife is encouraged to influence her highly hassled husband who lacks the will to do what is appropriate. She is “obligated, in ways of pleasantness and peace” to “make and reveal” the husband’s will to do what God wants of him.

It can be argued that this is not a completely modern innovation. Abraham was instructed by God that everything Sara tells you, obey her voice [iii] . But there is a reasonable counter argument, in quoting God’s words to Eve. Your longing will be to your husband, and he shall rule over you [iv]. I would argue that the phrase that a man will rule over his wife is a curse and a prediction, rather than a prescription. As much as I don’t like it, it is hard to escape the sense that Judaism sees a man as having authority in the home. Consider this disturbing law written by Maimonides: “Whenever a woman refrains from performing any of the tasks that she is obligated to perform, she may be compelled to do so, even with a rod [v] ”.

I explained to the students that Jewish law responds to the context of when it is applied. I can’t imagine any Rabbi today would be ok with a man hitting his wife with a rod for failure to do the dishes.

Mathew Fray has much to say about dishes. Before his transformation into a reflective remorseful ex-husband, he was a bitter man who blamed his ex-wife for his problems in a blog post entitled, “my wife divorced me because l left dishes by the sink [vi] ”. He now realises that the dishes by the sink represented something more - a lack of consideration of her needs and perspective. He wrote, “I remember my wife saying how exhausting it was for her to have to tell me what to do all the time… She wanted me to figure out what needed to be done… without making her responsible for orchestrating everything”.

In 2024, for many women to feel respected and loved, a man needs to do more housework and more of the thinking and orchestrating than their parents or grandparents did. This is not a reform of Judaism, but the application of timeless principles to our time. The commandment to love others like ourselves [vii]  requires all of us taking other peoples’ wants, needs and points of view into account as much as we want ours taken into account. This applies to spouses as well.

Similarly, when couples disapprove of each other’s behaviour, rather than find a rod, it is appropriate to draw the spouse’s attention to whatever we are concerned about [viii] , but in a way that does not humiliate them [ix].  

Also on Wednesday, it was Rosh Chodesh, the beginning of a new month when Jewish custom dictates that women not do house work if possible. I won’t disclose too much personal, but I did pay extra attention to this custom this time. Hopefully, I will make a habit of it.

Another modern Rabbi pointed out that when the Torah described the role of women as helping men, it states that she would be “opposite him”. A marriage partner is not a geisha girl or guy who serves drinks and sets the table.  A life partner must be able to say no if necessary—the ‘kenegdo- opposite’ part—because if you marry a yes-sayer, you aren’t really being challenged by another. Moreover, the lips may be moving one way, but the heart may be saying ‘no’ silently until the heart breaks from the weight of ’nos.’ In the end, a "help-opposite" creates its own synthesis, and a new oneness is born. The couple must drink together but not always from the same cup, so that one can correct the other, complement the other, cheer and comfort the other, help and be helped by the other. Only then is the one not alone [x].

My scholarly Muslim colleague shared her perspective on all these matters as it relates to nuances and misunderstandings of Islamic traditions, but that is her story to tell.

The students were delightful.

 

---

[i] Tana Dbei Eliyahu Rabba 9

[ii] The Lubavitcher Rebbe, (1962), a talk on parshat Balak and Likutei Sichos vol 4. איזוהי אשה כשרה? כל שעושה רצון בעלה" (תדא"ר פ"ט). שני פירושים למאמר זה. א.   הבעל ברובו של היום אינו בבית, צריכה איפוא האשה "לעשות" את רצון בעלה - להוריד את הרצון לידי עשיה בפועל. לבעל יש רצונות טובים בעניני חינוך הילדים, הכנסת אורחים, נתינת צדקה וכדומה; אך ההוצאה לפועל של רצונות אלו תלויה באשה. ב.   לפעמים, צריכה האשה "לעשות" - ליצור - את רצון בעלה. כשהבעל טרוד מאד וחסר לו הרצון לעשות את הראוי, חייבת האשה, בדרכי נועם ובדרכי שלום, לעשות ולגלות את רצונו הפנימי של הבעל, שהרי כל יהודי רוצה לעשות רצון קונו...(משיחת ש"פ בלק תשכ"ב - לקו"ש ד עמ' 1069

[iii] Genesis 21:12

[iv] Gensis 3:16

[v] Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, laws of Marriage 21:10

[vi] Fray, M. (2022), This Is How Your Marriage Ends, Souvenir press, p. 50

[vii] Leviticus 19:18

[viii] Leviticus 19:17 see

[ix] Arakhin 16b

[x] Rabbi Shlomo Riskin – I believe. I have been unable to find the source. 

The Complexity of Self Esteem and Humility – Nadab and Abihu Acharei Moss 2024

There is no simple formula for navigating self-esteem and humility.

Creative Commons license -2.0 

Judaism mandates humility, and psychology promotes self-esteem. I am not satisfied with the synthesis that humility and self-esteem are simply two sides of the same coin.  Instead, I suggest that to live virtuous lives we need to see ourselves as being of limited importance, and we also need to appreciate our worth. These virtues sometimes compete, and at other times complement each other. Let us begin with a scenario.  

“Name drop”
At the Passover Seder last week, I made a point that compassion for refugees is one implication of retelling the Exodus story. In illustrating this point, I mentioned that I met a past Australian Prime Minister who was vocal about refugees. “Name drop!” one guest called out.

Neither humble nor esteemed

It was light-hearted banter, but assuming that it was a “name drop” and not an innocent legitimate comment, it contravenes the requirement, to “walk humbly with your God”   [i] or, more precisely, to “walk in a hidden manner”. Jews are also urged to be of “very, very lowly spirit, as the hope of man are the maggots (that will consume his/her corpse when buried) [ii] ”. But according to a popular understanding of psychology, my problem was not actually regarding myself too highly, but a lack of self-esteem (iii). The name drop would be interpreted as an attempt to overcompensate for my low self-esteem. While this explanation is sometimes true for some people, I am sceptical of it as an explanation for everyone, all of the time.    

The Lure of the Synthesis
The synthesis between the virtues of humility and self-esteem is attractive to the modern Jew. Our generation is a generation of psychology rather than philosophy.  Psychology, or at least pop psychology, is what determines the essence of the human experience in the world [iv].  For the religious Jew to insist on humility as a stand-alone virtue is to sound like a flat earther. It seems easier to conform to the norm of emphasising self-esteem. Yet, to hold humility and self-esteem as separate virtues is to have a fuller spiritual toolbox for navigating our lives.

Humility and Nadab and Abihu
For the person of faith, humility is essential. We are invited to be of lowly spirit before every person [v] and never see ourselves as superior to anyone else.  Humility also enables us to truly worship God, on God’s terms, rather than our own terms. Nadab and Abihu were two men who lacked such humility [vi]. Rather than obey God, they brought fire to God’s temple that God did not command [vii]. They failed to respect that there are special times when God invites a select person into the temple [viii]. In their self-directed, overly entitled, drunken [ix], exuberant religious ecstasy, they displayed their arrogance. They were overheard saying that soon their elders, Moses and Aaron, would die and they would replace them to lead the Israelites[x].

For me, the lesson from this story is if I think too highly of myself, it can make it harder to restrain my desires. However, when I see myself as of low status, this can help me regulate my impulses to comply with the will of God and ethical imperatives.

Self-Esteem required for Moral Conduct
Sitting on a plane flying to Perth, I was surprised to read a Fifteenth Century Torah text that argued that regarding ourselves highly is essential for virtuous living or self-regulation. If we see ourselves as valuable, we will behave as befitting someone of high status; conversely, if we see ourselves as lowly, this could lead us not to bother doing what is right [xi]. The example of King Saul is cited. He failed to appreciate the importance of his office as King, and humbly followed the will of the people. The prophet reprimanded him for his humility with the words “If you are small, from your perspective, [don’t be] you are the head of the tribes of Israel, God has anointed you as a King over Israel!” [xii]. 

 

Conclusion

Every human, regardless of ethnicity, beliefs, achievements, or virtues is intrinsically valuable. We are cherished by God in whose image we were all created [xiii]. We never deserve to be hated by anyone, including ourselves. It is ok to be temporarily shamed when our choices fall short of our ideals. Like an email delivering a message, once the shame delivers the message about the gap, it can be deleted. And, at the same time, each of us is profoundly insignificant. We are mere mortals making some noise and doing a few meaningful things that are not such a big deal, as we are only doing what we were created to do [xiv]. Does this all fit neatly? Of course not, because life is complex, not neat.

---

[i] Micah 6:8

[ii] Pirkey Avot, 4:4

[iii] Lieberman, D. J. (2022), Mindreader: The New Science of Deciphering What People Really Think, What They Really Want, and Who They Really Are. Harmony/Rodale

[iv] https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/5099355/jewish/Can-Kosher-Make-Sense.htm

[v] Pirkey Avot, 4:10

[vi] Leviticus, 10:1-2 and 16:1-2

[vii] Leviticus 10:1

[viii] Leviticus 10:2

[ix] Midrash Tanchuma, Acharei Mot.

[x] Torah Cohanim, in Kasher, Rabbi M., (1978) Torah Shlaima, volume 27, p. 2

[xi] R. Yitchak Arama, Akedat Yitzchak, gate 64

[xii] I Samuel, 15:17

[xiii] Pirkey Avot, 3:14

[xiv] Pirkey Avot, 2:8

Tolerance of Real Differences in Approach and the Cohens Contentious Belt

No! It is not true that diversity is always delightful. Some diversity of belief and approach is highly concerning, sometimes dangerous and infuriating. There are instances where differences in approaches and beliefs are highly concerning, infuriating, and sometimes even dangerous. Australians don’t kill each other over religious differences these days, but there are other matters about which Australians are prepared to inflict harm, not with physical violence, but in other harsh ways. This post is a religious argument for tolerance – at least of people- in situations involving real differences. To fight fairly about things worth fighting for – playing the ball not the man - while also acknowledging common ground with one’s opponent.

I am reminded of a passionate woman I will call Esther, standing at a polling booth handing out ‘how to vote cards’ for a progressive candidate on election day. Standing a few meters away were some women handing out ‘how to vote’ cards for (Australian Politician) Pauline Hanson and her One Nation party. Esther was curious about her opponents and engaged them in an honest, curious conversation. She learned that they were motivated not by raging hatred, but by love and concern for their families and their own understanding of what was right. Neither she nor they changed their positions, and Esther continued to advocate for what she thought was right, while also acknowledging that there was common ground.

I was inspired to write this by some teachings about the Torah reading this week. The priest or Cohen was required to wear garments with very specific requirements (i) These included a belt that was made of wool and linen (ii) This mixture is normally strictly forbidden for Jews (iii) . When I buy a new wool suit, I need to send the jacket to a Shatnez inspector in Melbourne to tear open the collar to see if there is any linen in it that would make the suit forbidden to me.    

This will all sound ridiculously technical to people unfamiliar with these matters. Trust me, I am not interested in technicalities. This is going somewhere interesting.

One explanation for the prohibition of mixing wool linen is that doing so messes with God’s vast eternal plan (iv). Every object on earth is linked to heavenly energies. Every blade of grass has a dedicated angel (v). Wool is linked to kindness and linen is linked to severity or judgement (vi) and these two should not be mixed (vii). One prominent occasion of mixing these was when Abel brought an offering of wool and Cain brought linen and a short time later it ended in murder (viii). A literal version of what figuratively happens every day on social media between the “woke” and their “enemies”.

Yet, difference does not need to end in fratricide. Those of us inclined towards softer and kinder approaches don’t need to regard those with harsher approaches as our enemies. This is the message of the priest’s mixed belt. That the same elements that can tear us apart, that are like fire and water, can coexist in humble recognition of that which is greater than all of us (ix). In the case of the priest in the presence of God in the holiest place on earth, the submission to God enabled fire and water to co-exist. In our families and societies, let us advocate for all that we perceive to be good, and against all that we perceive to be evil, but let us be humble enough to recognise that there is usually common ground between us. As religious people, it could be that we are subjects of God, and otherwise, simply that we are all people.

Image: Jesslee Cuizon from Fujisawa, Japan, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

---

^[i] Exodus 28

^[ii] Talmud, Yoma 69a, Maimonides, book of service, laws of the vessels of the sanctuary, 8:11,  

^[iii] Leviticus 19:19

^[iv] Fiddler on the roof reference

^[v] Zohar Vol 3, chapter 18

^[vi] Benayahu Ben Yehoyada, Shabbat 11a

^[vii] Rabbenu Bchaya on Leviticus 19:19

^[viii] Genesis 4:4-4:8 as interpreted by the Zohar and Bchaya.

^[ix] The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Likutei Sichos Vol 36, pages 153-160

 

  

Inner Peace and Judaism

 “Jews don’t do inner peace”.

“Jews don’t do inner peace”. This was my first thought when teacher Judith Hurley invited me to talk about inner peace in Judaism for a staff spirituality day. The Strife of the Spirit[i] is the title of a book that articulates some of the Chabad Hasidic ideas that have most influenced my understanding of spirituality. The battle of the body also referred to as the animalistic soul or “evil inclination” against the divine soul looms large in the Hasidic experience[ii]. The Torah appears more concerned with the struggle to obey the commandments than peace. However, as I learned more, I recognised that peace can be regarded an overarching goal that includes obeying the commandments and living out the covenant with God.

Peace is an essential condition of existence.

This past week, I was delighted and surprised to find teachings about inner peace in the writings of Rabbi Yitzchak Arama (1420 – 1494). Arama is regarded as one of the great rationalist commentators on the Torah. He frequently quotes Maimonides’ guide for the perplexed. Yet, he regards peace as essential to all of existence including Jewish life[iii]. He explains that every being in the universe, other than God, is a composite of different components that must coexist in peace. The moment that peace is lost to a body, is the moment it is destroyed. The word ‘disintegrate’ captures his thinking. To disintegrate means to decay but also signals that it is opposite to being integrated or at peace.

Peace with God is synonymous with living the covenant.

For Arama, peace with God is synonymous with living true to the covenant with God. To obey the commandments is to be at peace with God. The gift of peace brings healing of all our faults[iv]. The opposite is also true. Regarding the verse “there is no peace for the wicked[v]”, Arama comments that there is no punishment needed for the wicked, other than losing peace.  To lose peace is to lose hope and to close off the channel of God’s blessings.

The resolution of inner strife involves inner peace.

In Jewish and Chasidic writings about the battle between body and soul or between animal and divine souls, there are allusions to cooperation and peace between them. Every morning and evening, Jews read the ‘Shema[vi]’, which
calls us to love God with all our hearts. The word for hearts has an extra letter Bet[vii], which alludes to Jews loving God with our two inclinations, the evil and good, or with both the animal and divine aspects of ourselves. The animalistic evil inclination cooperates with the Godly - good inclination to love God - putting aside their competition to conquer and control the body[viii]. Instead they are at peace with each other in joint love of God. The animal soul’s passion in the hot-headed person is harnessed by their divine soul to perform great acts of compassion beyond their ability[ix]. The two parts of the person working in harmony. Our souls are redeemed in peace[x].

Peace through pausing on Shabbat.

The practice of Shabbat is one of the great Jewish vehicles for peace. In the ten commandments we read, “Six days you shall work and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath for your God you shall not do any work”[xi]. The Torah instructs us to do all our work in six days. This is interpreted[xii] as God commanding us to imagine that, in fact, all our work has been done by Friday afternoon and to rest from even thinking about work. All the piles of papers in the in-tray, all the unanswered emails are as if they don’t exist. Vanished by a swish of the Shabbat angel’s wand, if I may mix my metaphors.

This approach is based on faith. If God wanted all that work done this week, He would have found a way for us to get it done. The fact that he didn’t ensure that it got done, means that it was not destined to be this week’s work. It belongs to another time. On Friday at sunset, all the work that mattered is either done, or as good as done, because Shabbat is a sacred time in which that work is irrelevant.

This attitude has been an amazing gift for me and my family. I don’t check emails or social media or lift a pen or read a work report. It is truly a holy time. Unfortunately, thoughts are harder to control than actions, and I confess that my thoughts sometimes wander to work on shabbat. But it is still a powerful way of achieving inner peace, to a significant extent, at least once a week with a flow-on effect for the rest of the week.

Accepting others and self – the ugly man

One of the great obstacles to peace is an unwillingness to accept people, either others, or to accept ourselves as we are. I have had my moments with both. Enter the ugly man story.

Rabbi Eliezer was once riding on a donkey on the coast, he was feeling very happy because he had studied a lot of Torah.

Then he noticed a very ugly man, not just in the physical sense but it was clear to the Rabbi that the man had an ugly character.

The ugly man greeted him, "Shalom, Rabbi!"

Rabbi Eliezer did not return the greeting.

Instead, he said, "Empty (headed) one! Are all the inhabitants of your town as ugly as you?"

The man replied: "Why don't you tell the craftsman who made me, “how ugly is the vessel you made?"

Rabbi Eliezer realised that he had done wrong. He went down from his donkey, prostrated himself and begged the man for forgiveness[xiii]...

A believing person has no business condemning anyone for what they are. Yes, we can object to someone’s behaviour. But I have found that sometimes what annoys me more than behaviour is another person's essential nature. This is wrong, as they have not chosen to be the way they are. They were created that way.

The same principle applies to me. It is ok for me to be disappointed with my behaviour or choices. But I should never be ashamed or frustrated with myself for what I am. I did not create myself[xiv]!

Forgiveness

We can lose peace within ourselves and with God through our choices and walking away from God and our covenant with Him[xv]. When this happens, we can seek resolution with God. Once we seek forgiveness, we are encouraged to be confident that God will instantly forgive us. God’s capacity for forgiveness is infinite, not like humans, who might find it hard to forgive someone for their repeated mistakes[xvi]. I’ve found that sometimes by focusing on my belief that God has forgiven me, I can more easily forgive myself. At a Catholic school spirituality day, I recently invited teachers to consider trying this approach on grudges they held against themselves - perhaps for ten years or twenty years - and to consider whether God’s forgiveness might allow them to forgive themselves as well.

There is also great power in forgiving others, which Jews are encouraged to do every night before going to sleep[xvii]. Forgiving others not only releases the object of our resentment, it also allows us to feel at peace in ourselves.  

Conclusion

Being at peace and in sync with God, through living out the covenant and bringing the different aspects of ourselves into harmony with God, allows us to have hope and brings with it its own kind of inner peace.

---

[i] Steinsaltz, A. (1997), The Strife of the Spirit, Jason Aronson, it is an adaptation of the Tanya the foundation book of Chabad Chasidism, by Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, who is one of the most significant figures of Hasidism

[ii] Tanya, by Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi

[iii] Arama, R. Yitzchak, in Akedat Yitzchak, gate 87.

[iv] Arama, based on Isaiah 57:19

[v]  Isaiah 46

[vi] Deuteronomy 6:5-9

[vii] Sifey Chachamim on Rashi’s commentary to Deuteronomy 6:6

[viii] Tanya, chapter 9

[ix] Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson, Sefer Hamaamorim Hakuntresim, Vol 1, Naase Na Aliyas Kir Ktana

[x] Psalm 55:19, as interpreted by Rabbi MM Schneerson, see also http://www.chabad.org.il/Magazines/Article.asp?ArticleID=11930&CategoryID=2010

[xi] Exodus 20:9

[xii] Mechilta

[xiii] Talmud, Taanit 20a–b

[xiv] Tanya, 31

[xv] Arama, ibid

[xvi] Tanya, Igeres Hateshuva chapter 11

[xvii] Siddur, order of shema and prayers before going to sleep, section hareni mochel