Other People’s Money. Payment for Idealistic Occupations

“I never told this to anyone before”, the Israeli man sitting across me last night in the Succah[i] says. “When I was a child we would walk two kilometres from our home in Jerusalem to the Synagogue. The Rabbi was a really humble man. He did not take a salary for his work as a Rabbi. He made his living working for the burial society. He lived 4 kilometres from the Synagogue and he would walk home with us and stop our place each Saturday on his way home…I never met another Rabbi like him”.

I have been thinking about whether being paid for community work is a problem. In my own case, my heart is set on promoting inter-religious and cross cultural respect and eradicating hatred, an issue I have worked on full time for the last 6 years. Yet, my livelihood is derived from the existence of the problem that I am trying to address. Noel Pearson touches on the role of bureaucrats in entrenched in an article the Australian Newspaper “Their purpose is to keep the poor under harness, forever dependent on what they call service delivery…using them as fodder for the service delivery industries of the welfare state[ii]”. This post is about what my traditions teaches about being pair for work in idealistic occupations.

Torah Students Supported by Others

One of the trends among a section of the very orthodox Jewish community is for men to study the

Torah, full time, for many years continuing even after marriage in institutions of study called Kollels. The families of the Kollel scholars are supported partly by the income of the wives working, but often living off philanthropy and government benefits.

One early source for this practice is hinted at in the Torah reading this week. “And of Zebulun he (Moses) said, rejoice Zebulun in your going out and Yissachar in your tents[iii]”. The verse is interpreted as relating to a partnership between the tribe of Yissachar to study Torah[iv], while Zebulun engaged in commerce and supported the tribe of Yissachar. The reward for the Torah study would be split between them[v].

The Dependence Disgrace

Despite a tradition of patronage for Torah scholars, this practice has been harshly condemned by Maimonides. He writes, “though I decided not to refer to this subject again…I have changed my mind, since what I have to say will not please most if possibly all the world of Torah scholars. Know! The phrase (don’t use the Torah) “as a spade to dig with[vi]” means that you must not use the Torah as a means or instrument of livelihood…but men have distorted the plain obvious meaning…[vii]. “Whoever deliberately sets out to devote himself to Torah (study) and not work for a livelihood, but depend on charity has desecrated the divine name and brought the Torah into disrepute[viii]”. He cites many examples of scholars who earned their livelihood separately from their study. His argument is bolstered by the widespread disgust felt by many secular Israeli Jews about their religious countrymen who study all day and don’t work for a living. Yet, the practice continues.

Practical considerations

While it is true that great scholarship has been achieved after hours and a lot of community work is done on a voluntary basis, there is more that can be done if people are able to devote themselves full time to it.

Maimonides own experience is worth considering, for many years he was supported by his own brother David who was a wealthy merchant while he studied and wrote. After his brother’s death he did support himself by working as a doctor for the Sultan, but it was hardly conducive to scholarship. He described his daily routine in a letter to a friend who he advises not to bother visiting because he would only be able to spare a few minutes as much as he longs to see him.

“I live in Fostat and the Sultan lives in Cairo (a mile and a half distance)…I must see him (the Sultan) every morning to check on his health… by the time I come back to Fostat, half the day is gone. Under no circumstances do I come earlier. And I am ravenously hungry by then.

When I come home, my foyer is always full of people – Jews and non-Jews…people who love me and people who hate me…, all of whom have been waiting for me to come home… I get off of my donkey, wash my hands, and go out into the hall to see them. I apologize and ask that they should be kind enough to give me a few minutes to eat... Then I go out to heal them...Patients go in and out until nightfall, and sometimes – I swear to you by the Torah – it is two hours into the night before they are all gone. I talk to them and prescribe for them even while lying down on my back from exhaustion. And when night begins, I am so weak, I cannot even talk anymore[ix]…”

Perhaps Maimonides would have been better off in the situation of another Doctor-Torah scholar, the Rashbatz, who was prevented from practicing medicine by an oppressive Government. He then felt justified in accepting payment for his religious work[x], and probably did a much better job of it than anyone can do on top of a full time job.

A way around the issue of being paid for teaching Torah is to think of it as compensation for lost income[xi]. The Rabbinic Judge, Karna, one of the examples cited by Maimonides, earned his living as a water carrier rather than as a religious functionary. However, when Karna was asked to adjudicate disputes based on Torah law, he asked the litigants to pay for a replacement water carrier[xii] so that he would not lose out on his meagre income.

Intention

I think the most serious issue here is the one raised by Noel Pearson, in which people harm the very people they are entrusted to help. In the same passage that Torah scholars are urged to combine their study with work, there is a warning for all who occupy themselves with the community, to do so for altruistically “for the sake of heaven[xiii]”. All of us who have the privilege of meaningful work in the community sector are obligated to be alert to ulterior motives, whether these are ego or job security. Good governance and accountability are also critical for maintaining checks and balances.

It make a big impression on me as a child when my father came home from a newly formed “community representative body” or parliament one night and said we decided to disband the group as soon as it has achieved its purpose rather than it continue to exist and become a new “monster”.  All of us in in the community sector must justify the wages we take in terms of the benefit we provide to clients and the community and the impact we have. We dare not do any less.  

---

[i] Temporary dwellings used during the festival of succot

[ii] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/from-claymore-to-cape-york-the-poverty-endures/story-e6frg786-1226483728207

[iii] Deuteronomy 33:18

[iv] We find a reference to member of the Yissachar tribe acting as scholars “understanding of the times” In Chronicles I, 12:33

[v] Rashi, Midrash Tanchuma

[vi] Pirkey Avot 4:6

[vii] Maimonides commentary on Pirkey Avot

[viii] Maimonides Yad Hachazaka, laws of Torah study, 3:10-11

[ix] Wein Berel, http://www.jewishhistory.org/maimonides-letter-to-a-friend/

[x] Chill, A, (1991) “Abarbanel on Pirkey Avot”, Shepher-Hermon Press, New York, p.247 (this book also includes a compilation of other commentaries as well drawn from Midrash Shemuel

[xi] Abarbanel makes this argument in his commentary to Pirkey Avot, I am sure there are other sources

[xii] Talmud Ketubot 105a, cited in Maimonides commentary on Pirkey Avot

[xiii] Pirkey Avot 2:2

“Pelting the Rebellious Son” The Individual, Indulgence, & Submission

Labelled for resuse
From David Westerfield blog

The individual, our rights, needs and even desires are regarded as highly important in the modern western approach. Follow your heart, is a catch cry. There are societies that put much more emphasis on the communal interest, with the individual coming second. I live in both worlds. I sometimes feel indulgent, slack and “soft” in comparison with my mother, for whom the question seems almost never to be “what do I want?” but instead “what is my duty?” I wonder about the merit of sacrificing the needs/wants of the individual for the greater good and the merit of submission to a higher authority. Yet I also worry about the harshness some might employ in controlling the indulgent “inner child”. This is starkly symbolised by the proposition of an execution of the “rebellious son” by his parents handing him over to the community to kill him by pelting him with stones.  

Rebellion, a Capital Offence?

Let us start with the Torah’s text about the “execution of a rebellious son”. The Torah states:
“If a man has a wayward and rebellious son, who does not obey his father or his mother, and they chasten him, and [he still] does not listen to them, his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, and to the gate of his place.

And they shall say to the elders of his city, "This son of ours is wayward and rebellious; he does not obey us; [he is] a glutton and a (wine) guzzler."

And all the men of his city shall pelt him to death with stones, and he shall die. So shall you clear out the evil from among you, and all Israel will listen and fear” [i] .

This law is generally assumed to be a theoretical one that has never been implemented and will never be acted on[ii]. Even in its theoretical form it is completely at the parents’ discretion, which is one more argument for its impracticability[iii]. Still this law exists on the books as a moral teaching, which I find difficult to live with.  What might this teaching be?

More important than love?

Several possibilities are suggested. One our love of God overriding the “strongest love in the world, that between a father and son, or that of a mother to her son, in spite of this when the parents see their son straying to a bad way, it is forbidden for them to have mercy for him and they must restrain their love (for their son) out of love of God and to bring their son to the house of stoning, their love should be like the love of our father Abraham (Upon him be peace) who held back his love and tied up his son on the altar[iv]”. 

This interpretation is disturbing in how far it suggests this should be taken. I wonder about a more general message about transcending our own inner world and “what feels right” to us to, not necessarily to act against our own conscience, but simply to do things that don’t resonate for us out of compliance with “the will of God”, or fall in behind the agendas and priorities of others in our communities. It is frustrating to watch people fixate on their personal vision who are unwilling to “take their eye of the ball” for long enough to give anyone else any assistance.  

Discipline not Indulgence

Other interpretations focus on various aspects of the rebellious son. The word “Moreh” which means rebellious is the same word for teach or show. “He wants to teach his father and mother knowledge, that his way is the right way, and this is the way of youth to imagine that they are the wise ones and they know how to conduct themselves…the son wants to educate his father[v]”. Gluttony is defined as involved theft of money[vi], which is then used to buy wine and meat eaten half raw[vii] in bad company outside the family home. The concern here is with excessive indulgence which is seen as corrupting. It is contrasted with a custom that when one hosts guests one should leave some space empty of plates[viii].  Of course this can be taken too far, we must remember that “stoning the indulgent” child is a threat that is never to be carried out!” There are so many delightful things in the world that God has created for our enjoyment as long as we partake of it in moderation.

There is also the danger that in being overly harsh toward ourselves we become hardened and cruel. A lovely story involves a Rabbi disapproving of a rich man eating very simply, hard bread etc. The Rabbi told him to eat steak and drink fine wine. This way he will recognise that the poor at least deserve bread and other basics, if he only gives himself stale bread, what crumbs will he offer the needy?

Submission to “The Official Position”

In contrast to the “out of control rebellious youth”, there is the case of the rebellious elder[ix]. This is a top level scholar who having arrived at a different conclusion to the majority of the highest religious court called the Sanhedrin, dares to defy the official ruling and guides people to behave in accordance with his own view. This is so that there not be “many Torah’s”, and serves to unify the Jews in their observance of the Torah.

The requirement to submit to the official position played out in the poignant story of Rabbi Joshua who believed that the holiest day of the year, Yom Kippur, was on a different day to the one decided on by the majority and the president of the Sanhedrin, Rabbi Gamliel. Rabbi Gamliel demanded the Rabbi Joshua publicly demonstrate his acceptance of the ruling by appearing before him with his staff and money bag. This would be violation of the holy day according to Rabbi Joshua’s opinion[x]. This must have been very hard for Rabbi Joshua. This incident and the disrespect to Rabbi Joshua later contributed to Rabbi Gamliel being deposed as president. There is a balance one must find here.

Judging texts and Individual Dignity

This material is also useful when we are tempted to judge the sacred texts of other faiths, not to simply read a text without considering the traditional interpretations. It is also important to consider seemingly unrelated teachings to gain a broader perspective. Reading the examples above could create the impression that the Torah is concerned only with the “greater good” and not with the rights of the individual, or even the obligations we have toward others. This is not true, of course. I am struck by the symbolism of the Torah’s command to a creditor seeking an object as surety for a loan from a poor person, “In the outside, you will stand[xi]”! The creditor has a right to demand an object from the borrower, but he dare not violate the sanctity of the vulnerable man’s home. According to one traditional translation, the lender is actually instructed to stand in the marketplace where the borrower will meet him with an object of surety of his choosing[xii]. Even a court officer is forbidden to enter the home of the borrower[xiii]!

Conclusion

There are several pathways to virtue. One relates to prioritising God and this has led many to do beautiful things. At the same time, there are many atheists who are highly ethical decent people. Another valuable path involves moderation, and still there are highly disciplined, dieting exercising self-centred even cruel people. In contrast there are some “go with the flow”, sensual ice cream eating people who are generous and loving. Jews are now in the month of reflection, Elul, leading up to the Day of Atonement. There is a lot to think about, including how gentle to be or not be with our indulgent inner child.

---

[i] Deuteronomy 21:19-21

[ii] Talmud Sanhedrin 71a, there is a dissenting view that this law was meant to be implemented

[iii] Maharsha on Sanhedrin, cited in Nachshoni

[iv] Rabbenu Bchaya

[v] Abarbenel (1437-1508)

[vi] Talmud Sanhedrin

[vii] Meam Loez

[viii] Shulchan Aruch 151

[ix] Deuteronomy 17:10-11

[x] Talmud Rosh Hashana 24b-25a

[xi] Deuteronomy 24:11

[xii] Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel

[xiii] Talmud Bava Metziah 113b, this is one opinion, the other opinion is that a court officer is allowed to enter the home.

Religious Certainty; Conformity, Carnage & Comfort

In Toulouse, French Jews & Muslims
link arms in protest of the killings. 

We have been doing a lot of religion this week, two long Seders to midnight, a massive effort to rid our homes of any traces of bread (or other leaven) and long prescribed prayers. Some people happily choose to do all of this and get a lot out of it, personally, I found the Seders fulfilling but reading some of the required prayers felt more like conforming to religious rules or community norms than motivated by devotion to God. I have also been moved by a report about young man who is very much part of the Sydney Muslim community, is gay and considers himself agnostic but he feels compelled to either hide his truth or sever all ties with his community[1]. I suspect that if he was an orthodox Jew his situation would be very similar. In both cases it seems that conformity is part of the cost of belonging[2], rather than individuals being encouraged to freely pursue truth and choose what they believe to be right.

The recent murder of a Rabbi/teacher and his young children in Toulouse is a more serious example of how religion can be used for evil. As a Rabbi/teacher with young children myself, it really brings it home to me. I don’t think it is just to blame all adherents of Islam for the actions of this murderer. The act has also been condemned by French Muslim leaders.  In this post I share a few thoughts about the broader issue of whether religions that claim to have the absolute Truth are a force for good. 

Double edged sword

A starting point for me is the idea that religion can be used for good or evil. It is written of the Torah, If he merits, it becomes a life giving drug for him, if he does not merit it becomes poison[3]. This is interpreted as depending on whether one studies for its own sake[4] rather than some ulterior motive, or alternatively, whether “they occupy themselves with it with all their strength to know it’s secret[5]”. This presents the idea that religion can be destructive, but also the opportunity to get it right by being alert to the dangers and continually seeking the “true secret” within the sacred text.

Religiously justified violence and creativity

Yet seeking the truth might still lead people to the conviction that they know what God wants, and that God’s will is for them to kill another person (apart from self-defence). In the Torah, the Israelites are instructed to annihilate the Canaanites, execute Sabbath violators and witches. Yet beyond the early years[6],  religious courts rarely administered capital punishment. “A Sanhedrin (high court) that executes one person in seven years is called "murderous." Another sage says “one execution in seventy years”. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say, "If we had been among the Sanhedrin, no one would ever have been executed.[7]" This reluctance to take a life shows a creative application of God’s law in which very mature, responsible sages, while not doubting their right to kill, somehow manage not to.

Application to Toulouse

In the case of the Toulouse murderer, I think of religion abused. Here was a young person with a criminal record, and no formal religious authority making decisions on his own about religion and death. As the attached image shows, religious authorities in his community clearly did not agree. I suggest that in some cases terrorism might be the bastard child or western individualism/anti-authoritarianism and narrow extremist interpretation of text. If Authority was strongly respected the idiot- murderers would feel compelled to seek guidance, and wiser heads would weight up the interpretations, the circumstances etc. and at least in some cases such as Toulouse, rule against the killing.

An example of this was told to me about some gong-ho young Muslims in Sydney who asked a sheik if they could go off to Iraq to “kill the invaders attacking their co-religionists”. The Imam cleverly instructed them to first fulfil their religious obligations of honouring their mothers and come to dawn prayers every morning before they think of undertaking such a mission. The last US soldiers will be long gone from Iraq before these guys start getting out of bed at 5 am or get permission to fight. This is not a panacea, but in some cases respect for authority and guidance certainly can help, just as in other cases questioning bad authority is important.

Conformity and Questioning Authority   

As part of the Seder ritual, we read about the “wicked son”[8]. His “wickedness” consists of excluding himself from the ritual by asking “What is all this work for you?!”. This is seen as a denial of the main principle because he excludes himself. The wicked son is dealt with harshly and confronted with the idea that if he had been in Egypt with that kind of attitude he would not have been redeemed.

The requirement to conform is not based on authority always getting it right. The Torah discusses a process of atonement for when leaders make mistakes and lead others to sin[9]. One teaching tells us “because a person comes to (a position of) greatness, immediately he comes to sin[10]”. In a play on words we are taught, fortunate is the generation in which leaders are prepared to acknowledge their mistakes[11]. One of the great stories about Abraham has him challenge his father and the religious leadership of his time by smashing idols[12]. Yet, it seems that the more dominant example is the story of the binding of Isaac when Abraham is prepared to kill his own child to obey the word of God.

The positive power of certainty and conformity

While some would prefer a more open approach to truth, others find great value in conforming to a set of certainties about God and truth. Consider the inspiring words from Eva Sandler the widow of the murdered French Rabbi who also lost two children. “I don’t know how I and my husband’s parents and sister will find the consolation and strength to carry on, but I know that the ways of G-d are good… I know that their holy souls will remain with us forever… Parents, please kiss your children. Tell them how much you love them, and how dear it is to your heart that they be living examples of our Torah…, imbued with the fear of Heaven and with love of their fellow man[13].” I doubt anyone who had suffered such a great loss could find the strength to be so positive unless she is certain about God and Torah.

A way forward

Conformity and religious certainty can be both a good or bad thing depending on how it is applied. I think is it vital for those who believe they have the Truth to be aware of the dangers that could flow from this certainty and grapple with the ethical implications of it. One way to decrease the risk of devaluing others is to interact in a genuine way with people who do not share one’s own faith. This would hopefully help focus the mind to creatively seek out interpretations that bring people together, and preserve peace, justice and dignity for all. 

---

[1] Good Weekend Magazine, Sydney Morning Herald, 7/4/2012

[2] Vardy, P, (2010) Good and Bad Religion, SCM Press , London, explores this theme

[3] Talmud Yoma 72b

[4] Maharsha, Rabbi Shmuel Eliezer Edeles  (1555-1631)

[5] Rashi to Talmud Shabbat 88b

[6] of conquest and battle with Amalek

[7] Talmud Makot 7a, translation from www.jlaw.com/Briefs/capital2.html

[8] The Haggada, the text we recite at the Passover Seder

[9] Leviticus 4:3

[10] Midrash Hacheifetz, from an old manuscript, cited in Kasher, M, Torah Shlaima, vol. 25, p 159

[11] Torah Kohanim cited in Torah Shlaima, , vol. 25, p. 194, Rashi

[12] Midrash, also told by Muslims

[13] http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1808989/jewish/Massacre-in-Toulouse.htm