Judgement and Matchmaking

“I really don’t know her,” was the reply on WhatsApp from a Rabbi in New York about a woman who was suggested as a marriage partner for one of my sons. The Rabbi was listed on the young woman’s “Shidduch” (match-making) resumé as a reference. He was replying to my message from July 2024, about setting a time to do a reference check about a potential bride. The delayed response is a funny illustration of the challenges of Modern Orthodox Jewish matchmaking.

Jewish marriage is regarded as a sacred reunion between two half souls, separated prior to birth (1). It is the fulfilment of divine design that “a man will leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife, and will become as one flesh.” (2) The tomb in which Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca and other Jewish forebears were buried was named the “double cave” because the couples buried there were profoundly united and became part of a set (3).  Abraham cried for his beloved Sarah when she died (4).   

Ultra-Orthodox Jewish matchmaking to set up such unions has changed in the 30 -plus years since I got married. At that time, a matchmaker who knew the two families made a suggestion. The parents of the prospective young couple made a few calls to check if the young man and woman had compatible values and goals and checked out the families.

I don’t know when it changed, but we now have the “Shidduch resumé”. Men and women prepare a resumé that lists where they went to school, Yeshiva (Talmudic college post high school) or girls Torah seminary, summer jobs, some will include a short description of their qualities and those they are seeking in a partner, and a list of names of references with their phone numbers.  The parents will usually make multiple reference calls before suggesting to the young couple that they consider meeting. If they agree, they begin a series of dates.

The Shidduch process involves serious judging, but with limited information. Some references are afraid to paint their friend in a bad light. Many times, I was told, “She is not the loudest person in the room … but she is not quiet either.” I have found that it was often the little anecdotes that gave me a sense of the prospective partner’s values and character.

There is a great precedent for that. When Abraham’s servant was seeking to find a match for his master’s son Isaac, he focused on observing how helpful Rebecca was at a well. When she offered him and his camels water to drink, he decided she was a suitable wife (5).

We might feel uncomfortable making judgments; as Pirkei Avot teaches us, “Do not judge another person until you have been in their situation.” (6) However, the rules are different when there is a legitimate purpose for the judging. Choosing to spend one’s life together with another person (or advising a son or daughter about this) involves a judgement about how that person measures up against one’s own most cherished values, principles and ideals.

It sounds very unromantic but the initial part of orthodox Jewish matchmaking is similar to recruitment to fill a position in a work context. The critical question in both cases is, is it a good fit?  

In both cases there is a risk that emotion will cloud our judgement. Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kaheneman (6) writes about one way to stuff up an interview process. If you do the emotional stuff first, you might feel good about a candidate because they are similar to you, even if they lack the skills for the job. The emotional connection creates a bias. To avoid that problem, he suggests, do the boring bits first. In the Shidduch process, some young people will want to know more about the person to decide if it is a likely fit before looking at the photo and being swayed by someone’s appearance.

This might sound like a hit-or-miss approach, but if we apply Kahenman’s logic to matchmaking it is more likely to work than being guided by emotions alone.

Once the couple are deemed likely to be technically compatible, they then need to work out if they are emotionally drawn to each other.

Another element in all this is the idea of “Bashert” – that the couple are divinely destined for each other.

In the case of Isaac and Rebbecca, the match certainly seemed “bashert”. They got married and the Torah states that Isaac loved Rebecca (7).

In addition to Rebecca being a kind and sensitive woman, she was a good fit for another reason. Isaac was a reserved man who spoke little and is associated with judgement. Rebecca’s character is also associated with judgement (8). She made a snap judgment (10) about going ahead with the proposed marriage with Isaac; without hesitation, she simply said, “I will go” (11). When her husband seemed to be fooled about his eldest son’s character, because of the delicious meat Esau brought her from his hunt, Rebecca discerned the truth about both her sons (12). 

The marriage between Rebecca and Isaac was not one of constant agreement or acquiescence (13). But there was love and care, based on a sound foundation of compatibility, discovered through sound judgement.

Returning to the young woman who was the subject of the delayed WhatsApp message, at the time of my evaluation process, I was fortunate to get through to most if not all of the other eight references listed on the resumé. They provided enough information for my wife and me to suggest to my son that he should meet her. After the young people spent time dating, they made a decision by using their heads and their hearts. They are now happily married.

1)       https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/2634/jewish/The-Half-Shekel-of-Marriage.htm

2)       Genesis 2:24  

3)       Genesis 23:1

4)       The Shaloh on Chayei Sarah

5)       Genesis 24:12-20

6)       Pirkey Avot 2:4

7)       Kahneman, D., (2021) Noise, William Collins

8)       Genesis 24:67

9)       The Shaloh on Chayei Sarah

10)    Genesis 24:55

11)    Gladwell, M, (2005), Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking

12)    Genesis 25:25 and commentary

13)    Genesis 27, Shlomo Riskin 

Breaking Bread with Bishops and the Dialogue of Being and Hospitality

Humans relate better to those we categorise as friends or kin, and we can develop such connections as much – or even more- by being together than by talking. On Tuesday night, a large number of Catholic bishops and Jewish leaders had a meal together. I found it inspiring and challenging.

Bishop Greg Homeming, an older man with glasses, dressed in a very simple brown monk’s robe and sandals, spoke to us about his experiences of friendship and breaking bread with Jewish people. In his anecdotes and sincerity, he demonstrated the importance of being together.

The bishop shared his experience of having Shabbat dinner with a Jewish family. After the meal, they all began shouting at each other. His own cultural heritage is Chinese, and the lively arguing that was normal for this family of Jewish-Lithuanian culture was new and interesting for him. I have developed a friendship with this bishop, but there was another rabbi there with whom he had developed a close bond over many years. I observed them from a distance during dinner. They were in animated conversation like old friends. This was a man who walked his talk.

The bishop’s hospitality was outstanding. They organised kosher catering for us. Delicious salmon, purple and orange carrots, roast potatoes, salad, humous, fruit and two types of cake for dessert. The company was lovely, chatting about various experiences, including how bishops are appointed and visiting people in prison among other matters. As I was leaving, a bishop who had had breakfast with my son and me in July 2024 at a kosher café remembered my son’s name and asked how he was. It was an outstanding evening.

Yet, I felt a bit restless. I believe passionately in the importance of “being”, as in being present and being the best version of ourselves, as opposed to just doing important tasks. Yet, I am a product of three cultures that emphasise activity. Judaism teaches us that “action is the main thing” (1); Chabad Hasidism, under the leadership of its last Rebbe, urged relentless and urgent activism and I am a child of New York, a city that never sleep or stops hustling. I was in a room full of leaders who were responsible for the education of hundreds of thousands of children, teachers and believers and it was such an opportunity to work, yet we sat like a bunch of people without a care in the world. This was because the dialogue of being was very important for all of us. There is also something Christian (or Catholic) about the experience I had that night, that moved me even if I can’t fully articulate it.

The intersection between being, doing and hospitality plays out in the story of Abraham who was “being” inspired and elevated by a divine revelation (2). Despite the loftiness of this experience, Abraham intentionally (3) shifted his attention from the divine visitation to an opportunity to offer hospitality to passing travellers (4).  This choice is justified in the Talmud as a principle that welcoming guests is greater than receiving the divine presence, the Shechina (5).

The prioritisation of hospitality over spiritual ecstasy could be understood as prioritising doing over being. This missed the idea that for Abraham being hospitable was a deeply moving and joyful (6) experience. Abraham’s enthusiasm can be seen in the way his whole family was enlisted in feeding the travellers and the five references to speed, rushing and running in describing the preparation (7). It helps to contrast the hospitality of Abraham’s nephew Lot (8) with that of Abraham. While both men insisted that their reluctant guests join them, in Lot’s case, there was no reference to speed or any member of his family joining in (9).  

As I reflect on the hospitality, fellowship, friendship and food offered to me last night by new and old friends, I acknowledge a precious gift and I recommit to the value of being, and the practice of the dialogue of being. Not all dialogue involves words.  This is beautifully put in a psalm: “There is no talking, without their voices being heard. [Yet], in all of the earth, their message goes forth, their ‘words’ to the very edges of the world.”  (10)

1)    Ethics of the Fathers 1:17

2)    Genesis 18:1

3)    Rabbi Simcha Zisl of Kelm

4)    Genesis 18:2

5)    Talmud, Shavuot 35b.

6)    The Baal Shem Tov comment relating to Genesis 18:19

7)    Genesis 18:6-8

8)    Genesis 19:1-3

9)    Hattin, M., Vayera | Life's Concentric Circles, https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/torah/sefer-bereishit/parashat-vayera/vayera-lifes-concentric-circles

10) Psalm 19:4-5

Dialogue Challenges and Abraham

On Sunday afternoon, I was standing in my local library, looking Jewish, together with a Jewish child. Two teenage boys walked near us and mumbled a few words they thought would annoy us because we are Jewish and then walked off laughing. The child said to me, I want to go home now. I also felt like going home then. Being an object of ridicule and an object with which to show off to your friend how daring you are, so you can feel a sense of belonging, is unpleasant. The library is one place that makes me feel relaxed, except on that Sunday, when it didn’t.

One might argue that this is a first world problem and I don’t have permission to be annoyed because other people are suffering more. I reject that. All harm must be prevented and dealt with.

On Monday, a Muslim man in New York was mocked because of his concern about his aunt who “stopped taking the subway after September 11 because she did not feel safe in her hijab.”   The mocker suggested that complaining implied that "the real victim of 9/11 was his auntie, who got some (allegedly) bad looks". This ridicule is not ok. It is not right to divide people into “the real victims” and “the fake victims”. We should all feel comfortable on public transport or in a public library, and anywhere else and expect to be treated as people and individuals, not objects or stereotypes. This includes Muslim women who have copped this abuse for years!

Also on Monday, two people from the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and two of us from Together For Humanity planned a youth forum for high school students in the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney. The aim was to ensure that everyone can thrive at school, feel safe, supported, valued and known at school, free from demeaning comments and racism. To get this result, the students need to think deeply about effective dialogue. The students would be offered some tips about how to do this.

One tip we will offer is to use the word “and” rather than “but” when considering conflicting perspectives (1).  This can help us see how multiple perspectives can be true, rather than one cancelling another, while the word “but” usually implies that only the words after it (“but”) are valid. 

Another tip relates to “violence” and “silence”. These are two ways in which people respond to the discomfort of some conversations, according to the authors of Crucial Conversations (2). “Violence” in this context includes trying to force an opinion on others, or verbal personal attacks.

“Silence” can include masking one’s true feelings and just going along because one might feel afraid to say what one really thinks. One problem with silence is that valid concerns are not raised and important information is lost, whereas dialogue is defined by the authors as the free flow of meaning between people which enables new ways of thinking about challenges.   

Abraham is known for his commitment to fairness and justice (3) and being a kind person who was probably not comfortable saying no to his beloved first wife, Sarah. When Sarah felt disrespected by Hagar - her former maid, who had become her rival wife of Abraham - Sarah demanded that Hagar be dealt with harshly (4). Abraham’s response to Sarah was that she could do whatever she pleased to Hagar. Sarah’s treatment of Hagar resulted in her running away.

My guess is that Abraham was not ok with this course of action, but it was easier to agree. Ramban, one of the most respected commentators on the Torah, wrote that the harsh treatment of Hagar was a sin on the part of Sarah, as well as Abraham for condoning it (5).  

Going back to the youth forum, to encourage students not to mask their real views, we will invite them to respond the following prompt. “If I was completely honest, I would say that I am not ok with…” (6). This prompt led to deeply honest conversations in a Brisbane school a while ago, and we are hoping for similar results in Sydney. 

Another tip is to reflect on what the motives are for a conversation. We are encouraged to ask ourselves “What do you really want out of this conversation” (7)? Is the purpose mutual understanding? Pushing a point of view? Venting?   

A woman and her son were approached the other night by a stranger. “Can I ask you a question?” the stranger asked. Thus began an insincere pretence at dialogue, that was really about lecturing someone about the “questioner’s” opinion. I find such behaviour so offensive, and consider it is a crime against the sacred act of dialogue.

Dialogue, when it goes well, is a beautiful means of connection and respect between people with diverse perspectives or worldviews. For Muslims, knowing people from other “tribes and nations” is part of the purpose of creation (8). It has been a profound privilege for me to be known by Muslims and people of other traditions as well as to know in return. Yet, sometimes people with the best of intentions have ulterior motives and the dialogue fails.

It has taken me a while, but finally, I learned that there are conversations “that I really feel I need to have”, that, in fact, don’t need to happen. Unlike conversations with people with whom dialogue is likely to be beneficial and lead to mutual understanding, there are people with whom conversation is unlikely to be beneficial. The divergent interests are far more compelling for them than the common good. In such cases it is better to go separate ways.

Abraham understood this was the case with his nephew, Lot. Rather than engage in dialogue with the younger man, Abraham said to him “Let there be no strife between you and me, between my herders and yours… Let us separate: if you go north, I will go south; and if you go south, I will go north.” (9) Abraham still cared about the younger man and was there for him when he needed help (10), but also created space between them. Sometimes, this is the best course of action.

The session we are planning for the high school students in mid-November will hopefully be the start of a longer engagement and learning journey that will enable the fine young people we meet to create cultures of respect and belonging in their schools.  

1)     Stone, D., Patton, B, Heen, S, (of the Harvard Negotiation project), (2023) Difficult Conversations, Penguin Books

2)     Patterson, K., Grenny, J., Switzler, A., McMillan, R., (2018) in Crucial Conversations, McGraw Hill.

3)     Genesis 16:1-6

4)      Genesis 18:19 & 25

5)      Ramban, on Genesis 16:6

6)      CHAT, Cultural Hearing and Telling program, Scripture Union

7)      Patterson et al.

8)      Sura Al Hujurat - The Rooms (49:13) O humanity! Indeed, We created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you may ˹get to˺ know one another. Surely the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous among you. Allah is truly All-Knowing, All-Aware.  — Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran https://quran.com/49/13

9)      Genesis, 13:8-9

10)   Rashi on Genesis, 13:8-9

Responsible and Caring Enough? Noah

When preparing to teach the teachers of tomorrow at Sydney University about global citizenship, I reflected on the question of responsibility. Many people, including me, and even children, are burdened with feeling responsible for problems that we cannot fix. These feelings are emotionally draining and perhaps destructive because they distract us from doing what we can for people we love or live near us in our communities and suburbs. On the other hand, there are times when I or others fail to embrace our responsibilities as individuals, members of families, communities and humanity as a whole.

Margaret Meade famously said we should “… never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.” Good point.

I love the idea of changing the world. I have committed my life to it. Then I got tired, very tired.

On the one hand, I am deeply grateful to the small group of thoughtful committed people who work alongside me and guide me as I have tried to change the world and then to support children and teachers. Thank you to all of you in the Together for Humanity team, board members, the volunteers, the casual educators, the donors, Christians, Muslims, Jews and others. We did amazing things together and we will continue to do great things.

On the other hand, despite all the children and adults we educated to reject prejudice and hate and to find common ground, there were other committed, but less thoughtful people who contributed to injustice, hatred, generalisations, prejudice and dehumanisation.

I learned, slowly and over many years to feel a little less responsible. It is not my task to complete the work, but neither am I free to desist from it (1).

I think of change-work as being a crew member of a sailing ship. We are not the captains of the ship ̶ that is God (or whatever forces atheists see playing God – multinationals, or whoever).  We are not responsible for the winds ̶ that again is God. Our task is to be part of the team that turns the sails to catch the winds already blowing. We do this with great humility – as small players in God’s vast world but paradoxically with a touch of magic as God’s partners in creation (2).  

Reading the Torah with this mindset, I am challenged when I read the story of Noah, especially as interpreted by some Jewish scholars.

Noah was burdened by his parents’ expectations that he would change the world, comfort humanity and repair the earth that had been cursed (3). He was favoured by God and declared to be a saint (4).

The world had become evil and full of crime and cruelty. The powerful– the sons of the gods ̶  took any woman they wanted, regardless of her consent or marital status (5). They farmed animals and people to be sold as sex slaves, with ownership certificates (6).  

When God told Noah, the golden boy, that the inhabitants of the earth would be wiped out in a flood, he said absolutely nothing, not one word of prayer to save his generation (7). Reactively, perhaps feebly, Noah talked to people who approached him while he was building his ark about the coming flood and suggested that they change their ways (8).  However, he failed to change his society. Instead, the people ridiculed and cursed him (9). For this he is deemed to have failed to be collectively responsible for humanity (10).  

Noah’s final humiliating episode had him rolling naked and drunk in front of his children, when he finally found his voice to respond to his humiliation with curses for his grandson (11).

Yet, the Torah is clear that Noah was a virtuous man who did what he could in a terribly difficult time (12). His very name, Noah, means respite. He was not an assertive man. Maybe his getting drunk was a response to his feeling of loneliness when everyone – outside his own family – was dead, and even when they were alive, he could not relate to them (13). Or it might have been a reaction to his own sense of failure to live up to his father’s dreams and his sense of responsibility for the catastrophe of humanity.

As I sit with the two ways of reading the story, I choose to embrace both. Perhaps what I can learn from Noah is not to go passive or silent, to continue to care deeply but to care enough. Not to the extent of delusional saviour complexes. Regardless of others’ estimations of our gifts, we can discern which challenges to take responsibility for and which to step back from. We are not responsible for other people’s choices, nor are we responsible for saving the world. Yet, we should care about all human suffering, everywhere, even as we recognise our limited ability to alleviate it.  Then we should go about soberly doing our bit. This is what we should also tell our children.  

 

 Edited by Hazel Baker. Thank you!

1)    Pirkey Avot 2:16

2)    Talmud, Midrash Rabba

3)    Genesis 5:29

4)    Genesis 6:8, 6:9

5)    Genesis 6:2

6)    Midrash Rabba and Eshed Hanechalim commentary

7)    Genesis 6:13- 7:5, Sacks, J. (2009), Covenant and Conversation, Genesis, p.45

8)    Midrash Rabba

9)    Midrash

10) Sacks, p. 63, others

11) Genesis 9:20-27

12) Genesis 7:1

13) Adin Steinsaltz, https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4942416/jewish/What-Was-Wrong-With-Noah.htm

Dominance vs Acceptance and Lamekh’s Song

After a soul-replenishing walk the other day, I walked out of the bush onto a path where I saw a little dog ahead. From the dog’s perspective, a strange man was approaching and this was a problem. A few loud barks did not persuade the man to back off  ̶  he continued to approach. This required an escalation: first circling the stranger and barking even more menacingly and then a warning bite! The bite through my clothing didn’t pierce the skin, but the dog had asserted itself!  

Unlike that dog, humans have choices. Situations that at first may feel adversarial can be resolved through conversations that uncover misunderstandings or alternative solutions. I have been working on acceptance of how things are, and letting go of expectations about how others “should” be or behave. We have a choice about how we react to anxiety either by seeking to control others, or by letting go (1), with trust in God and respect for others’ right to choose what they wish to do or give.  

In Genesis, we read about Cain, whose name means “acquisition” (2). When his brother Abel’s offering was favoured by God, while his was rejected (3), Cain failed to “acquire” the approval he craved. His “face fell (4) ”. In his status anxiety, Cain failed to follow God’s guidance to improve himself and manage his drives or impulses (5). Instead, in an outburst of violence, he murdered his brother. The anger he felt was so overwhelming that he thought – in error – that he had no choice in the matter (6) .

Worse than crimes of passion are acts of violence and ways of unethical domination that are not impulsive but premeditated (7). When some people see the ways that intimidating others can allow them to take what they want, they either inflict violence or threaten to do so to get their way (8).

Cain’s descendant Lemekh embraced violence. He had contempt for the “respectable people” of his time, descendants of Adam and Eve’s other son Seth, who shunned the Cainites because of their murderous and condemned ancestor (9). Lemekh tried to revise history, creating myths to recast Cain as a hero. “Our father Cain did not wimpishly relinquish his status as the firstborn son of Adam and Eve. When he was insulted by Abel and God, Cain defended his honour (10)”. In this way, Lemekh thought that Cain had been rehabilitated, and the Cainites had restored their past glory.

Lemekh was wrong. Rather than him changing the past, the past was a strong influence on him and his family. Wicked ways that are deeply embedded in people’s hearts, such as Cain’s embrace of murder, anger and dominance, can be perpetuated in families (11), an example of “visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children… (12)”. Indeed, Tuval Cain, one of Lemekh’s sons, built on his ancestor’s murderous legacy (13) by being the first to create weapons (14).

Tuval Cain’s siblings were all pioneers, one in developing agri-business (15) and the accumulation of wealth (16), another in the arts, the “father” of all musicians (17), and their sister Naama was a talented singer (18). The siblings complemented Lemekh’s repair of the past by creating a glorious future (19).

After the description of Lemekh’s talented family in the Tanach, there is a plot twist. Lemekh tells his wives that he killed a man and a boy (20) in retaliation (21) for some kind of wound and a bruise. Lemekh’s story about these killings is in the form of a song (22), a war song, as Biblical songs tend to be (23). It is a dramatic warning to his wives that he is far tougher than Cain and if they dare defy his wishes, such defiance will be met with violent vengeance and him killing them. This was his way of dominating his wives as if they were slaves, or property, for him to do with as he pleased (24).

      
An alternative interpretation identifies the slain man and boy as Lemekh’s ancestor Cain and his own son Tuval Cain, killed in a series of accidents, rather than acts of vengeance (25). Lemekh’s song is seen as a bitter “last testament of a Cainite seer. (26)” Instead of the pride and joy in his family’s accomplishments, Lemekh sees the symbolism of his killing his ancestor and son as representing the failure of the Cainite approach. “Alas, I have not rehabilitated my ancestor, I killed him! I murdered the youth! And in doing so, I inflicted the deepest wound on myself! We have destroyed the past and the future and gained no present.” Lemekh recognised that he was morally damaged, “bruised and wounded (27) ” by the legacy of anger and murder that he inherited from Cain and that shaped him and his weapons-manufacturing son, Tuval-Cain (28).  Lemekh declared: “Cain-ism must be repudiated!”

Lemekh’s lament is a call for us to reject dominance in favour of humble acceptance of that which we cannot control.  His song is about the ultimate painful cost of coercion and threats that far exceed any short-term benefits.  Inflicting or threatening “punishments” can destroy family ties and friendships (29), often with great harm to the perpetrator. Instead, let us affirm the dignity and rights of all people, with assertiveness, forgiveness, patience, tolerance, curiosity and compassion.   

---

[1]Jeffers, S. (2012), Feel The Fear And Do It Anyway, Revised, Vermilion, London, p. 232-233

[2] Genesis 4:1

[3] Genesis 4:3-5

[4] Genesis 4:5-6

[5] Genesis 4:7

[6] Leiner, J, the son of the Ishbitzer, in Beis Yaakov al Hatora, Bereshit, 70, on Sefaria https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.4.23?lang=he&with=Beit%20Yaakov%20on%20Torah&lang2=he  

[7] Liebovitz, N, New Studies In Bereshit Genesis, 6, p. 46, I use the term unethical domination to exclude cases where legitimate authority is exercised eg. by the parent of a young child about to cause harm to themselves or others, or a police officer protecting a vulnerable person from someone seeking to harm them.  

[8] Genesis, 6:2, “the sons of the powerful saw the daughters of man, that they were good and they took women from all that they chose”

[9] R Ephrayim, based on a lost midrash, cited in Azulai, C. Y. D. Chidoh, in Torat Hachido, p. 38- 115 

[10] Medan, Y. The Song of Lemekh – The First Song in the Bible, https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/torah/sefer-bereishit/parashat-bereishit/bereishit-song-lemekh-%E2%80%93-first-song-bible

[11] Talmud, Berakhot 7a, as interpreted by Medan, Y. following the approach of Ralbag on the Torah, Shemot 20:1:3, and Leiner,

[12] Exodus 34:7

[13] Rashi, on Genesis 4:22

[14] Genesis 4:22

[15] Hirsch, S.R. on Genesis 4:21

[16] Malbim on Genesis 4:21

[17] Genesis 4:21

[18] Me’am Loez

[19] Hirsch, S.R. on Genesis 4:21

[20] Genesis 4:23

[21] Malbim’s commentary to 4:23, C. Y. D. Chidoh, in Torat Hachido, p. 38- 115, Medan, Y.

[22] Hirsch, S.R. on Genesis 4:23

[23] Medan, Y.

[24] Malbim

[25] Midrash Tanchuma

[26] Hirsch

[27] Genesis 4:23

[28] Leiner, Y, 71

[29] Perhaps there is a difference where relationships fail because people cannot bear to be in the presence of someone and continuing to be together will cause distress or emotional harm, and other situations where such differences can likely be tolerated but the effort is not made due to either a sense – perhaps sub-conscious - that the other person deserves to be punished or of righteous indignation. 

Kashrut, Rules and Spirit An Interfaith Perspective

Religion can be expressed either as self-transcending and compassionate or as ritual and rules. On the fourth day of Passover, I listened to a Muslim scholar, Dr Samir Mahmoud, assert that all things are alive and sentient, that the Prophet Mohamed listened to pebbles whispering and that Halal should, more rigorously, include ethical considerations such as the conditions in which animals are kept prior to slaughter. I felt moved as I listened to him.

Our weekly Torah reading contains many mundane laws for Kosher food [1], which come across very differently from Dr Mahmoud’s talk. This begs the question: is Judaism more interested in the rules than the spirit?  

Rules!

There is no denying that there are a lot of rules in Judaism. On Passover, when my family and I performed the Seder, we read about the “clever son” who asks a question about the three types of rules of Passover [2]. The question annoyed me; it seemed so technical and to miss the awe-inspiring bigger picture of the Exodus, such that I felt like crossing out his question and replacing it with: “How can the Exodus story inspire me and our community to be better versions of ourselves and to maintain hope in trying times?”

One way of understanding the rules is that they lead to self-transcendence. This idea is expressed in this teaching, “What does God care whether one slaughters an animal from the throat or from the nape? Thus, we learn that the mitzvot were given only to refine the people” [3]. In other words, the rules are a means to an end. As we prepare and eat our food, we think about divine rules and this leads us to think about our creator, develop self-control and become better, more mindful people [4].  Indeed, the ending of the Kashrut chapter in Leviticus includes a call to holiness. [5]

 

Laws Beyond Rationale

Another way to think about Kashrut is that we do it because God commanded us to do so. When the laws are introduced in Leviticus, it says nothing about mindfulness. This animal is permitted as food because it has split hooves and chews its cud; the other one is forbidden because it does not [6]. This is the way many Jews experience Kashrut [7] and how I would usually relate to it.

Harmful Food

Two more approaches assume that the problem with unkosher food lies in the food itself, that either these foods are harmful to your health [8], or that they contain spiritual or chemical properties that dull your spiritual sensitivity [9] and they create cruelty in your heart in the case of eating the flesh of predators [10]. Hasidism teaches that there are divine sparks in all things – similar to Mahmoud’s point – but the sparks in Kosher foods can be elevated by eating with positive intention, while non-Kosher foods are “tied down” and cannot be elevated, regardless of one’s intentions [11]. 

Evidence

However, the health thesis has been strongly rejected on the basis of evidence [12]. We see non-Jewish people who eat non-Kosher food and are healthy. However, this same logic surely applies to the spiritual properties approach, one of the arguments being that if these foods are spiritually harmful, then non-Jewish people who do not keep Kosher should be of inferior character, which is manifestly untrue. Furthermore, if these foods are so inherently spiritually harmful, shouldn’t non-Jewish people be protected from them [13]? 

About the person, not the food

A careful reading of the Torah text in Leviticus suggests that the problem with these foods is more about the person eating them than about the foods alone. Sixteen (16) times in this passage, we have variations of the idea that these are a problem for you [14]. According to the Midrash, the prohibition of these foods will be reversed in the messianic era and are only forbidden now to see if we will obey the divine command [15].

Our tradition teaches us not to proclaim that we do not want to eat the flesh of the pig, but rather to say, “I want to eat it but I won’t because my heavenly Father decreed that I should not” [16]. The process of self-denial itself transforms the person who overcomes their desires [16].   Experiments by psychologist, Roy Baumeister, found that intentional eating, or eating “virtuous food”, such as radishes or celery while resisting the temptation to indulge in chocolate takes a lot out of us. The people who ate radishes “will [tend to] give up earlier than normal when faced with a difficult cognitive task” [18]. If one practices the Kosher laws as intended according to this approach, it could be a taxing, and intense but ultimately might be a rewarding effort

Chewing it over

The link between spiritual and personal growth and Kosher eating is linked symbolically to one of the signs that an animal that is “chewing the cud”, literally and figuratively, is Kosher. After the animal swallows its food, it regurgitates it and chews on it again. “… we have to constantly re-evaluate our situation – reflect and prob our conscience - and make certain that we are on the right path” [19].

Conclusion

In the interfaith encounter we must not exaggerate or understate our similarities. Dr Mahmoud’s understanding of his faith and the nature of all things and its relationship to Islamic dietary laws is different to the teachings I cited about Kosher. On the other hand, the striving for the transcendent and compassionate is expressed in both our faiths and in the strivings of people of all faiths or none. As a Hasidic Jew, I too am taught to see spiritual life in all of creation [20] and to see links between my practice, ethics [21] and spiritual growth, following the unique pathways and rules of the Torah.  

 

Thank you to Hazel Baker for editing this blog post. Her edits have made this post clearer and stronger. Thank you.

Notes

 

1)       Leviticus 11

2)       The Passover Haggada, the four sons.

3)       Bereshit Rabba, 44

4)       R Bchaya on Leviticus 11, R Haim Donin in To be A Jew.

5)       Leviticus 11:44-45

6)       Leviticus 11:3-7, according to Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, 3:46, there signs are not reasons, they are only ways of identifying which animals are Kosher or not-Kosher

7)       Orenstien, W. and Frankel, H, (1960) Torah as our Guide, Hebrew Publishing Company, p. 27, “unlike many other laws in the Torah, the reason for these [dietary] laws is not given… Learned men of every generation have tried to explain them, but to this day no one has found the reason for them. But we observe these laws because they are the will of God.

8)       Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, 3:46

9)       Talmud Yoma, 39a as interpreted by others such as Mesilas Yesharim 11, the Talmud itself is talking about sin in general rather than specifically the properties of non-kosher food. “…sin stupefies the heart of a person, as it is stated: “And do not impurify yourselves with them.””

10)    Ramban, Leviticus 11:13

11)    Tanya Chapter 8

12)    Arama, R. Yitzchak in Akeidat Yitchat, Gate 60, Abarbanel on Shemini,

13)    An internet user going by the name Maximilian asked a question along these lines on the Ask Noah forum: “Hello! Is it alright according to Torah if I [as a non-Jewish person] avoid eating ‘unclean animals’ like G-d spoke in Leviticus 11? Even before Noah was on the Ark G-d spoke about clean and unclean animals, in Genesis 7,2. I can imagine that trying to avoid these spiritually unclean animals can help to get a better relationship with G-d? I feel better eating just animals which G-d called clean, is it okay if I do so?”

14)    Leviticus 11:4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 20, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 37, 40. Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman in his commentary to Leviticus page 216, makes the point that in Judaism the animals are not intrinsically bad, unlike his understanding of Zoroastrianism. It must be said that the Torah does attribute an element of “not pure” or pure to non-Kosher and Kosher animals respectively, in Genesis 7:2, I don’t think that attribute cancels the sixteen references to “Lachem” to you, in Leviticus 11.

15)    Midrash Tehillim 146:3 (explaining the verse "He permits what is forbidden”). What is meant by permitting what is forbidden? Some say that all the animals that became impure in this world, God will purify them in the future. As it says (Ecclesiastes 1:9) “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again.” They were pure for the children of Noah. And He also said to them (Genesis 9:3) “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all.” Just as I have given you the green plants, I give you everything. Why did He forbid it? To see who accepts His words and who does not. And in the future, He will permit everything that He forbade

16)    Sifra on Leviticus 2:26.

17)    Arama, R. Yitzchak in Akeidat Yitchat, Gate 60.

18)    Buameister, R, in Kahneman, D., (2021) Thinking Fast and Slow, Penguin Books, p. 42.

19)    The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Likutei Sichos Vol 1, as reworked by Yitzi Hurwitz

20)    R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi in the Tanya, section 2, Sha’ar Hayichud V’Haemuna

21)   The problem of how animals are treated in preparation for human consumption is addressed under the laws of cruelty to animals, Tzaar Baale Chayim.