Belonging and Difference Vayerah

On Wednesday night I listened to Ian Thorpe speak at a dinner in aid of my brother’s charity, the Jewish House. Ian talked about his experience as a world record breaking Olympic champion swimmer, who also struggled with mental health challenges. He gave a riveting account of the mental struggle to win an Olympic swimming race in the last few seconds after being behind. But more importantly, he touched on his experiences of coming out both as gay and as someone suffering depression.

Mr Thorpe did not elaborate on his experience of coming out. However, the need for acceptance by people we care about and a feeling of belonging among them, is so important to all of us. As I explored the Torah reading this week I learned that Abraham was also concerned about his social ties. Abraham had been instructed to circumcise himself as a sign of a covenant between him and God. However he was concerned that this act “would set him apart from his generation, in his skin and flesh. This might lead to him not being able to welcome guests anymore as they would stay away from him…” (1) This surprised me a little, because I had the impression of Abraham as the Iconoclastic outsider - champion of monotheism is a world of polytheism - who embraced his “otherness” (2).

On Thursday morning, I reflected on my experienced at the dinner where I sat among some 1000, mostly Jewish guests, who were there in aid of the Jewish House’s services for people in crisis, such as homelessness, mental illness, and domestic violence. While I on the same page as the crowd last night regarding support for the needy, I wonder how many of them agree with my interfaith work. When it comes to that aspect of me, do I fully belong? It is useful for me to keep in mind that Abraham combined otherness in pursuit of his vision and principles with caring about being connected to his community. Indeed, at the end of the night, one guest shared with me her belief in the spiritual validity of my work with people of other faiths. 

The combination of being accepted and being true to oneself is not always easy. A choice one needs to make is whether to hide some parts of ourselves or "come out". Abraham consulted his friends about the merits of going public about his next step in otherness and decided he would publicize his decision to circumcise himself  (3).

The flip side of this is accepting that sometimes there are communities that won’t accept you and might not even be worth belonging in. Abraham’s nephew, Lot, sought to integrate with the xenophobic society of Sodom. (In Jewish tradition, the wickedness of Sodom was primarily expressed in their cruelty to visitors or poor outsiders). Lot appeared to succeed when he was appointed as a judge by the Sodomites (4). This thin veneer of acceptance of Lot by Sodom fell away quickly when Lot showed his commitment to hospitality. An angry mob of Sodomites reminded Lot that he was an alien and threatened him (5).

It is not easy to accept the fact that some social connections are not working and one needs to move on. Lot was instructed by angels to leave Sodom before it would be destroyed and take him down with them. Yet, Lot hesitated, and had to be dragged out of Sodom (6). Lot and his wife were warned not to look back (7). It is important not to ruminate about what might have been. However the separation from Sodom was difficult for Lot’s wife and she turned back, perhaps in sadness about those left behind (8). The consequence of turning back for Lot’s wife is that she was instantly turned into a pillar of salt (9). 

It is entirely appropriate to seek closeness with one’s communities, even if there is not a perfect value alignment, but there are times when separateness is appropriate. In those cases, it is ok to be sad, but it is important “not to look back”.

Notes

1)     Toras Hachida, Vayera 5, p. 103, based on Midrash Rabba

2)     See Likutei Likburim by the 6th Lubavitcher Rebbe, R. YY Schneerson, who talked about the concept of Ivri as one is on the “other side” to the rest of society

3)     Toras Hachida, ibid

4)     Rashi to Genesis 19:1, based on Bereshit Rabba 50:3

5)     Genesis 19:9, as interpreted by Sacks, J. (2009) Covenant and Conversation, Maggid, Jerusalem, p. 112-114

6)     Genesis 19:16

7)     Genesis 19:17

8)     Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 25,  in Torah Shlaima, 145, p. 812

9)     Genesis 19:26

Dangerously Divisive! Korach & Pauline Hanson

Arguments are raging about how to respond to the election of the divisive anti-Islam senator elect Pauline Hanson. On one hand we are being urged to “listen [to,] not lampoon” Hanson and her voters. We are told that although ‘Hanson’s policies are misconceived’ we can must empathise with the economic pain of Hanson’s rural supporters and to accept that their “fears are natural, and understandable”. I suggested on twitter that ‘dialogue with fearful, resentful people must sit alongside ensuring that bigotry is not made respectable’.

On the other hand, there are very real fears that giving credence to bigotry will have devastating effects. Jarni Blakkarly wrote after the election of Hanson: “A lot of my friends who are people of colour and particularly Muslims are genuinely afraid at the moment.” Last time Hanson was in Parliament she made offensive comments about Aboriginal people and there was an increase in racist incidents in her state to the extent where Aboriginal people reported being afraid to travel on buses. A similar effect is currently being felt on the streets of the UK, as a result of the toxic Brexit rhetoric. Tim Soutphommasane correctly asserted that “We have plenty of examples about how licensing hate can lead to serious violence and ugliness in our streets and our communities ”.

In the Torah reading this week we have the example of Korach, a Biblical figure who challenged Moses’ leadership and threatened the cohesion of the Israelites. Of Korach it is written that ‘A man took a divisive stance and lost part of himself[i]’. There is something profoundly diminishing in the stance of hateful divisiveness. Yet, the threat dividers pose is seen as massive, and must not be underestimated. Shakira Hussein argues that Hansonism is part of an international trend and that those who are supporting the approach “are not just seeking to recapture the past. They’re looking to the future — and they believe that it belongs to them[ii]”. In the case of Korach, God himself intervened and had the earth swallow Korach alive[iii].  This reflects the power of words to undermine societal norms and cohesion. Ridicule of Hansonism and of her as a public figure representing offensive views is appropriate and a legitimate part of the battle of ideas.

Like Hanson challenging the Elites, Korach denied Moses authority as a messenger of God and falsely accused him of haughtiness: holding himself above the people[iv].  Yet, we know that Moses was a reluctant leader and is described in the Torah as a most humble man. In speaking the unspeakable, Korach shook the foundations of his society and emboldened others who wished to break free from the constraints of what was previously considered “correct” speech. In our time, like then, it is important for people to strongly distance themselves from divisive figures or risk being seen as legitimising their views. This is symbolically alluded to in the story of Korach when the people are instructed to physically distance themselves from Korach[v] because tho stand near Korach could be understood to be standing with him and his agenda[vi].

On the other hand there is value in a dialogue with Hanson’s voters, but in a way that does not to amplify their voices. Moses himself talked to some of the rebels and sought to reason with them. Moses send a messenger to two of the other rebels who had not approach him to invite them to meet him for dialogue[vii]. In many ways, Hanson’s voters are people like you and me. Many of them are suffering and have genuine concerns about the future of our country. They also have unacceptable and harmful views that need to be challenged. But the best way to do that is to engage with them in an appropriate way without causing further harm to our society. 

The nature of Korach’s punishment is illustrative of the nature of in-fighting and divisiveness. The ground opened and swallowed Korach alive[viii]. This is the nature of conflict, it is consuming[ix]!  When the Israelites saw Korach consumed as a consequence of the conflict they ran screaming[x], because they said: “lest we also be swallowed”. There is a struggle for hearts and minds and the direction we will take regarding differences. Let us fight hard, compassionately and wisely.

---

[i] Ohr Hachayim, to Numbers 16:1

[ii] https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/07/06/pauline-hanson-product-of-right-wing-bigotry/?activation=success

[iii] Numbers 16:31-33, If I take the story of Korach literally, it troubles me because of what it implies about dissent and challenging authority but I am looking at it in more thematic or Midrashic terms

[iv] Numbers 16:3

[v] Numbers 16:26, Arama, Rabbi Y., cited in Lebovitz, N. Studies in Bamidbar Numbers, Malbim, Hirsch, S.R.,

[vi] Midrash Hagadol cited in Torah Shlaima

[vii] Numbers 16:5-12

[viii] Numbers 16:31-33

[ix] Chafetz Chayim

[x] Numbers 16:34, “screaming” is my creative interpretation/translation of the words in the verse that states “they ran to/for their voices” which is ambiguous. 

Being Jewish: Dissent, Self-Criticism and Self-Doubt (Lech Lecha)

I have been reading the often funny, interesting and nasty observations of Tuvia Tennenbom in his book ‘Catch the Jew’.1 Central to his story and argument are a few key caricatures. These include the ‘idiotic, fanatical, but sometimes interesting Haredi Jews’, the ‘self-critical, self-doubting, self-hating, incoherent, hypocritical, humourless leftist Jews’, alongside various non-Jewish villains. It got me thinking about the nature of being Jewish and the Jewish attitude to dissent and self-doubt.

Abraham, considered to be the first Jew, discovered God through his own logic and then defiantly destroyed idols to demonstrate their powerlessness, according to oral Jewish tradition2 (and also found in Islamic traditions). Abraham then miraculously survived the punishment of being thrown into a fiery furnace.3  This story suggests that part of being Jewish involves questioning established views and tearing down conventionally ‘worshipped but false symbols’. As attractive as the story is, it is not recorded in the text of the Torah, which arguably diminishes its significance somewhat. 4  Still, although some Jews in positions of authority might find it convenient to have all dissenters fall into line, the right kind of Chutzpa is clearly an important part of being Jewish.    

Being Jewish and a non-conformist5 also sometimes demands sacrifices in terms of relationships. The very first instruction from God to a Jew made him tear himself away from his land, his birthplace and his father’s house.6 7  The dislocation caused by “being removed is considered to be more difficult for people than all (other difficulties)”.8 but Abraham had to abandon friends and family for the sake of his love of God.9 Moving away is also understood in a symbolic and metaphoric sense “as the thinking spirit abandoning material things…in order to occupy oneself with achieving completeness”.10 The quest for completeness can also be linked to the ritual of circumcision11, which at its most basic level is a physical symbol of a close exclusive bond with God, called a covenant.

Someone on a mission for, and in relationship with, God one might be forgiven for exhibiting some hubris. Yet we find the opposite in Abraham, the archetypal Jew. When there is a famine in the land he does not rely on a miracle to save him, instead he travels to Egypt. When God promises Abraham the land of Canaan, he questions God: “With what (personal merit12) will I know that I will (in fact) inherit it?”13 After Abraham had rescued his nephew and his fellow Sodomites in battle, he was afraid in case perhaps just one of the people he had killed in battle may have been righteous.14 Abraham’s fear is linked to the proverb “fortunate is the person who is always afraid, but the one who hardens his heart will fall into evil”.15”  And Abraham himself is criticised by one authority for complicity in his wife Sarah’s mistreatment of his second wife, Hagar, conduct seen as a ‘karmic’ origin of conflict between Jews and Arabs in later times.16 Self-criticism and self-doubt are both very Jewish.      

So I say to Mr. Tenenbaum and to some who criticise me as a “dissenter”: I make no apologies for thinking deeply about how Jews can do better and how we get it wrong sometimes. This is my obligation as a Jew. If someone doesn’t like Jewish self-doubt or criticism, the Jewish response is to “be bold like a leopard in the face of those who mock him”.17


1.    Tenenbom, T (2015), Catch the Jew, Gefen Publishing
2.    Bereshit Rabba 38
3.    Bereshit Rabba 38. Whether Abraham miraculously survived being inside the fire or a miracle happened to change the Kings mind and free him is discussed by some of the commentaries. Abarbanel on Lech Lcha and Ramban on Genesis 11:28 mention the alternative view that a hidden miracle occurred that the thought to free Abraham was put into the kings heart to free him from prison. 
4.    Abarbanel, argues that whatever Abraham accomplished out of his own thinking and mind is less significant and worthy of being recorded in the Torah than what happened as a result of God speaking to him through prophecy.
5.    See Likutei Diburim of the 6th Lubavitcher Rebbe, who links the meaning of the word Ivri/Hebrew to “one from the other side of the river” representing taking a different path to those around oneself.
6.    I wonder why only the father rather than the mother is mentioned here. In the same vein, the name of Abraham’s father, Terach, is given in the Torah while the name of his mother is not stated. A Midrash (Pirkey D’Rabbi Eliezer, cited in Torah Shlaima vol.1 p.542, note 4) states that his mother’s name was Amaslah, Amaslai.
7.    Genesis 12:1
8.    Pirkey D’Rabbi Eliezer, cited in Torah Shlaima vol.1 p.542, note 4
9.    Ramban
10.    Abarbanel, see also Likutei Sichos vol. 1 by the Lubavitcher Rebbe
11.    Genesis 17:10-14
12.    Bereshit Rabba 44
13.    Genesis 15:8
14.    Bereshit Rabba 44
15.    Proverbs 28:14
16.    Ramban on Genesis 16:6
17.    Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, opening paragraph

Chutzpah! "Inappropriate Talk"

"Tell the tall buildings in Mahattan, I am a Lubavitcher"
shouted Y at a late night "Farbrengen"/debate mocking the
idea that young idealists can tell the big world anything

This week began with the news of the terrible murder and loss of innocents in Connecticut. May their families find some measure of comfort and their souls find peace.

 

One confronting immediate response to these deaths on social media was to complain about the coverage of a western tragedy and calling attention to the violent or preventable deaths of children in other countries. Was it proper to use the opportunity to make that point at that time? Can there ever be a wrong time and can there ever be considerations of propriety that are more important than the life of a child?

On a far more trivial level, the other morning I had the slight discomfort of being in the same small room as a man I will call B., who won’t talk to me on principle.  He objects to my working together with Muslims or Arabs or Christians as a matter of religious principle. On one level is it hurtful, we have known each other a long time. I think there might also be some ego involved. B has not had the opportunity to study the Torah in depth yet he thinks it is his place to rule me, a Rabbi, out of order. I don’t see myself superior just because of a bit of extra knowledge, yet in this case I had a passing though of indignation. “Is it his place to issue Halachic rulings against what I do?!” It’s not serious but it ties into my topic, Chutzpa, which can be loosely translated as impudence.

As a rule, Chutzpah, which is modern slang is seen as kind of spunky and cute, is traditionally seen as a bad thing. Yet, the other side of the argument is that some notions of propriety and good manners may result in silence in the face of injustice.  Jewish law requires a student to reproach even a teacher if the teacher is doing something wrong ([i]). This past Sunday I was at a book launch about the protest against the Holocaust by Aboriginal leader William Cooper. I learned that the protest was completely ignored at the time, no record of it remains, it was never sent to Berlin, nor does it feature in the diary of the German Consul in Melbourne or his superior in Sydney ([ii]). The Nazis would have seen it as “inappropriate” that black Aborigines would dare tell them what is right. Yet his protest continues to inspire and challenge us today.

In our Torah reading this week we have a touching example of disregarding propriety when the wellbeing of a child is at stake.  Judah approaches ([iii]) the Egyptian viceroy who is threatening to enslave his younger half-brother Benjamin. The body language implied in the approach is, at least according to one commentator, to be one of “war ([iv])”. He disregards the normal conduct of the world which is to ask permission first and only then to enter, Judah approaches first and ask for permission later ([v]). Another commentator has Judah “break down the door and come before Joseph with his brothers ([vi])”.

Judah’ begins by saying “please my master, may your servant speak words in the ears of my master and let my master not be angry with your servant because you are like Pharaoh ([vii])”.  On one level we have the deferential language about servant and master, in fact in this one monologue Judah refers to himself, his father and brothers as Joseph’s slaves eleven times ([viii])! Yet commentators draw many inferences that paint a much more aggressive posture. Asking Joseph not to get angry is taken as proof that he plans to speak harshly ([ix]) that is likely to provoke the ruler. His comparison of Joseph to Pharaoh is interpreted by some, not as flattery but as a suggestion that just Pharaoh lusted after Sarah because of her beauty, Joseph’s interest in Benjamin was also based on desire for Benjamin’s beauty ([x]). Judah takes the view that when the wellbeing and safety of a child is a stake, restraint based on polite protocols must be disregarded.

The theme of disregarding protocol can also be seen earlier in Joseph’s story. After Joseph successfully interprets the king’s dream, he oversteps the boundaries and goes beyond his brief as dream interpreter. Rather than knowing his place and not “speaking before one who is greater than himself” ([xi]) as a slave and recently released prisoner in front of a king he proceeds to offer Pharaoh unsolicited advice about how to manage his economy and save his country. Even more audaciously, Joseph might have been angling for a senior government position as a prospective manager of the Egyptian economy ([xii]). “Now, Pharaoh should see (to find) a man, understanding and wise and put him in charge of the land of Egypt ([xiii])”.  Hint, hint… here Joseph broke with protocol and appropriate conduct, yet this breach saved the country from terrible starvation in a famine with the elevation of Joseph.

In the rich tapestry of views the same situations have alternative interpretations. Rather than Joseph seeking appointment to the position he suggested, he was merely doing his duty as a prophet who cannot keep back the prophecy ([xiv]). This experience of prophecy is described by Jeremiah as if “in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones and I weary myself to hold it but cannot ([xv])”.  We also find Pharaoh repeating his intention to appoint Joseph to the position as if Joseph did not believe it ([xvi]). First Pharaoh tell Joseph: “after God has made all this known to you, there is no one as understanding and wise as you (therefore) you will be (in a position of authority) over my house and according to your mouth will my nation be sustained, only in (occupying) the throne will I be greater than you ([xvii])”.  The story continues with Pharaoh speaking to Joseph again, “look, I have put you over all of the land of Egypt ([xviii])”. No Chutzpa here. Similarly, there are interpretations of Judah’s approach to Joseph that highlight his respect for the ruler and a more pleading and conciliatory stance ([xix]).

I think Chutzpa is a tool for exceptional circumstances. Perhaps the more typical stance is the one taken by Jacob when he blesses Pharaoh when he first meets him and when he leaves him ([xx]) to teach us proper conduct about how a person should enter to see the face of royalty ([xxi])”. So I defend the right of B, to ignore me if he thinks he is standing up for what is right and the “tweeters” to be insensitive to the time of mourning of some people in the sincere hope of saving others.  May we all have the wisdom to know when to be civil, proper and polite and when to scream and break down some doors with chutzpa!

---

[i] Talmud Bava Metzia 31a

[ii] Talk by Konrad Kweit and the book launch at the Sydney Jewish Museum 9/12/2012

[iii] Genesis 44:18

[iv] Bereshit Rabba 93 according to the view of Rabbi Judah

[v] Midrash Habiur, from a manuscript cited in Torah Shlaima p.1635

[vi] Sefer Hayashar

[vii] Genesis 44:18

[viii] Genesis 44:18-34

[ix] Rashi

[x] Daat Zkainim Mibaalei Hatosafot, and with variation in Bereshit Rabba 93 and other sources cited in Torah Shlaima p.1636

[xi] Pirkey Avot one of the seven definitions of the wise

[xii] Ramban to Genesis 41:33 

[xiii] Genesis 41:33 

[xiv] Abarbanel, cited in Leibovitz, N. New Studies in Bereshit p.448

[xv] Jeremiah 20:9

[xvi] Midrashei Torah by Anselm Astruc, cited in Leibovitz, N. New Studies in Bereshit p.447

[xvii] Genesis 41:39-40

[xviii] Genesis 41:41

[xix] Rashi, Bchor Shor, others

[xx] Gnesis 47:7 & 10

[xxi] Lekach Tov cited in Torah Shlaima p.1708

Dissent! When you think the Authority is Mistaken Shoftim 2011

Photo by Louisa Catlover

(Revision of post of 1 Sept 2011, Authority, Compliance, Defiance – Hazare, Gaddafi & the “Malaysia Solution” Shoftim)

I remember well, the moments in my working life when I was asked to act against my own conscience, these infuriated me or at least made me feel defiant. I thank God I was able to stand my ground. I can see the value of deferring to others and I accept that it cannot be right for everyone to do as they fit in all situations. Where does one draw the line?

In recent days we have witnessed the capture of Gaddafi’s compound, the cave-in of the Indian Government to hunger striker Anna Hazare and in Australia the successful court challenge of our Government’s strategy to transfer Asylum seekers to Malaysia. My Muslim friends have celebrated their Eid festival on two different days this week, some of them in compliance with the Australian Imam’s Council, others doing it their own way. Our Torah reading today is Shoftim/Judges, it is a good time to consider what the Torah has to say on the question of deferring to authority.

Obeying the Guidance

If there is a matter that is hard to determine, we must come to the priests, the Levites and the judge that will be in that time...you will do according to the word they tell you...you shall not turn from what they tell you to the right or to the left[i]. The simple meaning of “to the right or the left” is that we should not deviate at all from their instructions[ii].  But, this is also the jump off point for a discussion about dissent and compliance with the ruling of the Sanhedrin, the religious high court.

Even if they are wrong?

There are four perspectives on this. 1) We obey them even if they are wrong. 2) We not only obey them in spite of being convinced that they are wrong, we are also required to assume that we are mistaken. 3) We only obey the ruling of the Sanhedrin (Torah high court) if their rulings are correct. 4) There are complex ideas to consider when thinking about Right and wrong.

Even if they tell you right is left

Sifre states, “Even if it seems to you that they are telling you that right is left and left is right, obey them[iii]”. This phrase is quoted in Rashi, with one difference; he omits the words “it seems to you” and states it as if it were a fact, that the ruling is mistaken and telling to that right is left[iv]. Rashi’s intention is not entirely clear, one commentator on Rashi states that,” even if a person had a tradition from the great Beth Din in Jerusalem (the Sandhedrin) that he was present with them and they had told him that the law and now another Beth Din (religious court) is telling him the opposite that he received from many who were greater in wisdom and number, in spite of this he should not deviate as the one who commanded him to obey the Torah about that which forbidden and allowed has commanded this too..[v]”. This staggering statement essentially says that if the religious authority instructs you to do the wrong thing you should do it anyway.

You only think they are wrong

Another approach is both more comfortable and confronting. In this view, you only think you are right, but in fact the majority is right and you are wrong. You should not attribute the mistake to them, instead attribute the mistake to yourself. ...Because God will protect them from all errors so that (nothing but) the truth will come out of their mouths[vi]. This approach is more in keeping with the original phrase that Rashi is based on, which states that even if it seems to you (that he tells you about) right is left…[vii]. The overall effect of this ideas is that while you are not being asked to do something that is really wrong, you are being told to dismiss your our own views and trust that the authority has got it right. Ouch.

A Commentary whose meaning is disputed

The most challenging for me is the explanation by the Ramban who he lived over a thousand years after Jew law courts lost the authority to carry out capital punishment. He writes, “Even if you will think in your heart that they are mistaken and this matter is a simple in your eyes as your knowledge between your right and your left you should act according to their command. You should not say how can I eat this completely forbidden fat or (how can I) kill this innocent person. But you should say this is what I have been commanded by the master who commands me about all the commandments that I should do his commands in accordance with what I will be guided by those who stand before him...even if they err...[viii]. Other commentaries debate the meaning of Ramban because at the end of his explanation he mentions that God would protect the Sanhedrin from mistakes, while others see him as supporting the need to obey even mistaken guidance. Like natural laws that are generally good such as appetite but may occasionally cause harm, the overall impact of obeying the sages cancels out the harm of complying with the rare mistake[ix].

In practice both of these approaches tells the individual to disregard his own view. If follows a view in the Talmud if the dissenter has a tradition that something must be done one way and the majority asserts that they see it differently if he acts on his view he is killed so that there should not increase disputes among Israel[x]. This view is taken to be correct and is included in Jewish law[xi]. This is in relation to acting on different views after a decision was reached, prior to that robust debate is standard practice and appropriate. 

Corruptible Sages

The idea that the sages will be given divine assistance never to get it wrong must be considered alongside other teachings that warn of the corruptibility of all people including the greats. Do not believe in yourself until the day of your death[xii]! The judge is warned not take bribes because the bribe will blind the eyes of the wise and ruin the words of the righteous[xiii]. Similarly, The Holy One Blessed be He does not called a righteous person, righteous until he has been put in the grave. Why? Because all the days of his life he is beset by the evil inclination and God does not trust him in this world till the day of his death[xiv].

                                                                 

Corruption by the King Makers

There is also concern about the influence of the people who are the powers behind the throne who might retain an influence after installing someone as a judge. The change in form from the beginning to the end of the verse quoted above is instructive. judges and police officers shall you put in all your gates...and they shall judge the people a just justice[xv]. We start with an imperative instruction to the people to תתן appoint judges, this refers to people who are in a position of influence who can help select and appoint the judges. Then the language shifts to talk about what will happen “they will judge, justly” as if by themselves with the appointers out of the picture. This hints at the need for complete independence of the judiciary from the king makers, because if they remain dependent on those people there will never be justice[xvi]. No naïve assumptions of religious leaders retaining purity just by virtue of their office and past righteousness.

Only when they get it right

The same phrase telling us not to deviate right or left is interpreted in the exact opposite way by the Jerusalem Talmud to mean that you must only obey them when they get it right, and declare right to be right but not when they tell you that right is left[xvii]. This view is echoed in a later work “If they truly tell you that right is left eg. They allow the eating of forbidden fats…it is certainly forbidden to obey them[xviii]”.

More Complex than simple right or wrong/A need for Adaptation to Circumstances

Another explanation is that being that these are matters of logic, there cannot really be a “right and left”[xix], perhaps a warning to those who reduce complex judgements down to a simple right or wrong, just like right and left instead of recognising the nuances and validity of arguments to support either conclusion[xx].  Another view by Abarbanel[xxi] is that in normal circumstances the norms of Jewish law are “right”, such as the very narrow set of circumstances that would allow a court to execute a murderer, needing him to be warned right before the act etc. This “right” approach is completely wrong (or Left) in a situation of rampant murders when there is a need for greater deterrent[xxii].  The temple was destroyed because they judged (matters) by the (normal) law of the Torah[xxiii], rather than being adaptive.

Civil Disobedience

Despite the strong guidance about the need to obey the sages, obeying political leaders is quite a different matter[xxiv]. This is especially true with the midwives in Egypt who defied the evil king Pharaoh’s order to kill Jewish baby boys[xxv]. Even the generally righteous King Saul could get it wrong and his guards are seen to have done the right thing by refusing to obey his orders to kill priests in the city of Nov[xxvi]. Maimonides makes it very clear that when a King’s instructions contradict those of the Torah, the king is to be disobeyed[xxvii]. This follows the Talmudic idea, “the words of the teachers and the words of the students, which is to be obeyed?[xxviii]” 

Conclusion

There is value in the preservation of authority but this is not an absolute value. The difference between following the sages when you think they are wrong or actually wrong is hypothetical, in both cases from the perspective of the dissenter the experience is the same. There must be recognition that the feeling that my perspective is as absolutely correct as my knowledge of my right and left hands is foolish. Every situation is different and requires flexible and sometimes subtle as well as bold judgement that will deviate from normal procedures. It can appear to an individual that left is being labelled as right, when in fact ultimate justice is being served by subverting normal Torah procedures. Deference and humility are useful here as is robust discussion where appropriate. Yet, there are certainly situations where human authority is overridden. I am not across the details of Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption efforts in India, but I think he is acting appropriately by fighting corruption, even if he is holding democratic institutions to ransom with his hunger strike. The rule of law is important but conscience and the rule of God must be given a lot of weight against simply “following orders” as we heard in the infamous Nuremburg defence. Further study would be useful as this topic is far from closed for me.

---

[i] Deuteronomy 17:9-11

[ii] Oonkelus translation, Bchor Shor

[iii] Sifre Piska 154

[iv] Rashi on 17:11

[v] Gur Aryeh, Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel, (c. 1520 –1609) widely known as the Maharal of Prague, or simply The MaHaRaL

[vi] Sifse Chachamim

[vii] Sifre

[viii] Ramban on 17:11

[ix] Rabbenu Nissim

[x] Talmud, Sanhedrin 88a, the view of Rabbi Elazar

[xi] Maimonides, Yad Hachazakah, Hilchot Mamrim, 4:1

[xii] Pirkey Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) 2:5

[xiii] Deuteronomy 16:19

[xiv] Midrash Socher Tov 61a, cited in Weiss, Rabbi S, (1990) Insights: A Talmudic Treasury, Feldheim, Jerusalem,  p.41

[xv] Deuteronomy 16:18

[xvi] Klei Yakar

[xvii] Jerusalem Talmud Horiyos 1:1

[xviii] Torah Temima, Rabbi Baruch ha-Levi Epstein 1860-1941

[xix] Sifse Chachamim

[xx] Klei Yakar

[xxi] Isaac ben Judah Abrabanel, (1437 –1508),

[xxii] Let us put aside contemporary arguments about the actual deterrent value of capital punishment, this was written over 500 years ago

[xxiii] Talmud, Bava Metzia, 39b, a statement by Rabbi Yochanan which is applied to the need for going beyond the letter of the law but lends itself quite plausibly to this interpretation as well

[xxiv] The material in this paragraph is based on the work of Amsel, N, (1996) The Jewish Encyclopaedia of Moral and Ethical Issues, Jason Aronson, Northvale NJ, USA, p.43

[xxv] Exodus 1:15-19

[xxvi] Samuel I, 22:16-17

[xxvii] Maimonides, Yad Hachazakah, laws of Kings 3:9

[xxviii] Talmud, Kiddushin 42b