Monoculture

Driving across a beautiful bridge one morning this week, on the way to a Sydney Catholic Schools study day, I cracked the monoculture riddle.

It has been bothering me for years: the apparent justification of a monoculture in the Torah.

“If you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land before you, those whom you will leave over, will be spikes in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they will persecute you upon the land.” (1)

A compelling counterexample of approval for a monoculture is in the Book of Esther. The villain of the story argues to the King: “There is a certain people, scattered and dispersed among the other peoples in all the provinces of your realm, whose laws are different from those of any other people and who do not obey the king’s laws; and it is not in Your Majesty’s interest to leave them.  If it please Your Majesty, let an edict be drawn for their destruction (2).”

Surely, if Haman (the villain in the Book of Esther) was evil then he must be wrong.

And, of course, there is a context. “This (guidance about dealing with the Canaanite population) is an exceptional Divine decree in a particular time and context that no human ruler has the right to apply in any other situation (3).”

However, no Halachic authority of any standing that I am aware of has advocated for ethnic cleansing or mass expulsions of any population anywhere in more than 1000 years. While these words above were not written by any major classical authority, they do reflect a common contemporary attitude by religious Jews.

Still, until that morning, the idea of characterising the “other” as a thorn in the side did not sit well with me.

A day or two later, I thought about the textual and historical contexts of the verse about the “thorns in your side” and I think it makes a little more sense.

The verses (4) prior to the “thorns” comparison are clearly about polytheism or idol worship rather than ethnic difference. Having polytheists hanging around the Israelites would blind their eyes to God’s guidance (5), just as bribes cause moral blindness to the eyes of judges (6). The thorns are a type of hedge that obscures one’s view and thus can be misleading (7).

The historical context is of a people trying to create a counter-cultural ethical monotheistic society around 1300 BC, in a world in which the religious norms of the time were polytheism and (according to traditional Jewish commentaries) decadent.

It has been suggested that everyone “does religion” as a way of managing uncertainty. Polytheists in 1300 BC apparently “did’ theirs by creating many gods that they could manipulate and hopefully do their bidding in exchange for some offerings, with a bit of ritual temple prostitution thrown in on the side.  

Along comes a crazy group of people who believe in an invisible God that sets the terms of the relationship between humans and Himself. This fragile idea had to be protected for the good of humanity and the purpose of creation with extreme measures. One of these measures was the execution of a social misfit ̶blasphemer ̶, about whom I wrote about before (8); the second was a temporary measure, monoculturalism.

King Saul failed to recognise that monoculturalism was an exception rather than the rule. The focus in his policy were the Gibeonites, whom “Saul had tried to wipe [them] out in his zeal for the people of Israel and Judah.” (9) 

The punishment for Saul’s discrimination was shocking. Seven members of his royal family were executed, then hung and left for months to publicise the severity of the crime of oppressing the stranger and reinforce the message that even royalty must be held accountable for such crime (10).

The Talmud’s discussion of this episode is worth quoting.

The Talmud poses the question: How could they have left Saul’s executed sons unburied all that time?  “Isn’t it written: “His body shall not remain all night upon the tree; but you shall surely bury him the same day” (11)? … It is better that one letter be uprooted from the Torah and thereby the name of Heaven [God] be sanctified in public. How so? As the gentile passersby would say: What is the nature of these people? They were told that these are sons of kings. And what did they do to deserve such a fate? They had laid their hands upon and caused harm to the stranger.” (12).

The Torah contains repeated commandments in the Torah that call for loving the stranger and never to oppress the stranger, which in modern terms would include members of minority groups. The punishment of Saul’s family and its interpretation in the Talmud makes a strong case to me that the Torah generally rejects monoculturalism.

 Notes

1)      Numbers 33:55

2)      Esther 3:8

3)      ArtScroll Chumash commentary to Numbers 33:55

4)      Numbers 33:52

5)      Ramban on Numbers 33:52

6)      Exodus 23:8

7)      Samson Raphael Hirsch on Numbers 33:52

8)      https://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com/2012/05/outcast-offenders-understanding-and.html

9)      Talmud, Yevamot 79a

10)   II Samuel 21:2

11)   Deuteronomy 21:23

12)   The term used in the Talmud to refer to the Gibeonites here is complex, but I think the moral argument that I present here is accurate enough

Speech at the wedding of my son, Aaron, and daughter- in-law, Tzippy

Wow! What joy for the bride and groom, for family and friends! It is the happiest day of my life. Today we witnessed an outstandingly significant spiritual event. Not only were two halves of a soul reunited, but a serious spiritual wrong has been corrected.

In the story of creation (1), God looked at his creation and repeatedly said it was good, except for one thing, about which he said the opposite: “it is not good for the human to be alone (2)”.

If man is alone he can be mistaken for a God, because he would be alone on earth like God, who is alone in the heavens (3). Thus, it is not proper for humans to be alone. It does not fit the essential spiritual role of humans to be alone (4). We were meant to be social beings, not alone.

So how was this problem solved? God created a woman and marriage. Half-jokingly, I proclaim that no husband would ever make the mistake again that he is God, once he is married!

Seriously though, why create woman? If men need companionship, God could have simply created more men. But it is precisely living with someone from the opposite gender that advances personal growth (5); that is, when men and women are challenged by difference, to accommodate and negotiate different norms from their families, different ways of processing emotions, for example.

I once met an old-fashioned man, who got annoyed with his wife shortly after they got married because she opened mail that was addressed to him. His wife explained that she grew up in a big family where it was normal, when the post was delivered, for someone to run, get and open everyone’s letters. However, she changed her customary behaviour to follow her husband’s norm. I asked this man how he reciprocated his wife’s sacrifice. ‘Oh, I don’t read her mail either’ he replied! He completely missed the point about self-transcendence achieved through accommodation.

Unlike this man, what is required from us is to rise to the challenge designed for us: to put aside our ego, make space for each other and in that way grow in the way God intended for us.

This begs the question: if God knows everything, why did He create man alone in the first place and then say it was not good? Why not simply create man with a mate like He did with all the animals?

The truth is that, although in one sense it is not good for man to be alone, in another sense, for humans to be alone and unique - the quality of oneness and independence - is appropriate. “It is fitting for man to have a little oneness” (6). To be a little God-like. As the psalmist states:

מאלוקים ותחסריהו מעט

 “You have made him [man] little less than divine” (7). Just as God has the ultimate free choice, it is appropriate for a human to march to your own drum, at least some of the time to dream your dreams, to retreat into a man-cave, a little. Then, to return to marriage, to the social contract and to dissolve your ego in awareness of the other. To be “very married” (8).

To illustrate the two modes humans are meant to operate in – the independent and wild on the one hand and, on the other hand, the domesticated, interdependent and responsible - I share the following poem by Zelda.

The flame says to the cypress:

“When I see how calm, how full of pride you are,

Something inside me goes wild –

How can one live this awesome life,

without a touch of madness,

of spirit,

of imagination,

of freedom,

with only a grim, ancient pride?

If I could, I would burn down the establishment that we call the seasons,

along with your cursed dependence

on earth and air and sun, on rain and dew.”

 

The cypress does not answer.

He knows there is madness in him,

and freedom,

and imagination,

and spirit.

But the flame will not understand,

the flame will not believe. (9)

The cypress looks "very married": the epitome of the ‘baalabus’ - domesticated! But lurking beneath is the solitary man, a little crazy and wild, alive with holy craziness (10).

So, I wish the groom and bride love and companionship, spiritual growth together and, as appropriate, also separately. May you lose your egos in care for each other and find just enough ego for some individual greatness.   

Notes                             

1)     Genesis 1

2)     Genesis 2:18

3)     Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer, cited in Rashi on Genesis 2:18

4)     Maharal of Prague in his commentary Gur Aryeh about Genesis 2:18

5)     Eisenblatt, D. (1988), Fulfilment in marriage, Feldheim Publishers, p. 18- 29

6)     Maharal, ibid

7)     Psalms 8:6

8)     The term very married comes from an anecdote I heard from Sholom Popper about a young Chabadnik in Russia with limited command of the Russian language. When someone asked to speak to the Rabbi, the young fellow mixed up the words for busy and married. He told the visitor that the Rabbi was “married”. The visitor insisted they only need a few minutes. The young Chabadnik tried to explain that the Rabbi was very busy, so he told the visitor the Rabbi was very married!

9)     Zelda, Translation: 2004, Marcia Lee Falk, From: The Spectacular Difference, Publisher: Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, 2004, https://www.poetryinternational.com/en/poets-poems/poems/poem/103-3281_TWO-ELEMENTS/

10)   שטות דקדושה discussed in the Maamar Baasi Lgani, by the 6^th Lubavitcher Rebbe. 

 

Speech to my brother and his bride at their wedding, Intra-faith diversity shining together Bahalotecha

My brother Sam got married last Sunday. I was privileged to be the officiating Rabbi. Sam has chosen an alternative path to the Hasidic and orthodox one followed by our parents and his siblings. Sam’s wedding was a blend of orthodox tradition, light even irreverent humour, Hasidic and more contemporary music and dances, gender-segregated and mixed seating tables. Here is an edited version of my speech to my brother.

Sometime in the 1970s before Dora or Sam were born, an angel thought about these two wonderful souls and paired them, Dora for Sam and Sam for Dora (1). Clever little angel, that one, I think.  I am sure anyone who has had the joy of seeing both of you together would agree. 

Today you stand here, as two half souls separated before birth only to be reunited today.

Here is some inspiration from the Torah reading this week. A candelabra with 7 branches representing diversity spread out in many different directions, but the light all shines in one direction toward the holy ark(2) that contained the tablets with the ten commandments and was covered by two cherubs looking lovingly at each other. Dora and Sam, you are very different people in perhaps somewhat superficial ways. Dora was raised in a home with a lot of music and song. I was delighted to meet your parents and to learn that caring is evident in both your parents working lives. Your dad showed caring for his staff’s happiness and wellbeing at work and your mom for her little clients’ motivation and development. Good, grounded people who have given you a firm foundation for the caring, warm, loving, sensible person that you are. I could say a lot about you Dora, but perhaps my little niece S. articulated it better than I can with her tight hug when she saw you on Thursday.

Sam was raised in the Kastel household, a world away. Yet, you can scratch beneath the surface, look beyond the long black coat and the particular Niggun-combinations our father would sing at the Shabbat table. What we got was a compelling sense of right and wrong from our mother that continues to resonate in your life as an individual, a comforter of the dying and Rabbi of your conservative Staten Island congregation. Like your father, every day of your life is dedicated to service.

Together, both of you, as your parents before you are essentially glowing with similar compassionate loving light. And yet, neither of you are your parents and as much as they are all worthy of admiration, that is still a good thing. You are also not each other. Challenging and supporting each other because you are different.

When the first man and first woman were created, our sages tell us they were created back to back (3). Eve was not Adam’s rib, but one side of this double human. Only as two separate people could they look into each other’s eyes, see each other’s faces and as the primary Kabbalistic text, Zohar puts it, “to receive light in light, face in face” (4).       

There is another aspect in this as well.  In the Torah it states that Eve would be an Ezer Knegdo, a Help Opposite. According to Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, this means that you will need to allow each other to occasionally stand opposite, to feel opposite, to think opposite. A life’s partner must be able to say no if that is necessary—the ‘kenegdo’ part—moreover, the lips may be moving one way, but the heart may be saying no silently until the heart breaks from the weight of the "nos." The couple must be able to correct each other, complement each other.  You are good at this. This is a great strength.

I wish you abundance of happiness together, everything you need and a lot of what you want. I love both of you as do so many of the people privileged to know you. Keep being you, imperfect, but beautiful in your distinct ways. It is wonderful to see you fulfilling your destiny. Mazal Tov!

This blog post is dedicated to another young man with the same Hebrew name as my brother, Shmuel Ben Rina, who died this week and to his loving partner C, and their two young children. He was planning his wedding too. May the memories of his distinct light and spirit bring some comfort to his Mother, father, partner and children.

Notes:

(1)    The Talmud Sota 2a states: "...forty days before the creation of a child, a heavenly voice calls forth and proclaims; 'So and so's daughter for so and so's son bride and groom'...."(2)    Ralbag(3)    Rashi: quoting Midrash. The word usually translated as a rib צלע, can also be translated a “a side”, as in God made of Eve out of one of Adam’s sides.(4)    Zohar part 3, 44b

Discrimination and Religious Teachings: An Exploration of One Jewish and One Islamic Tradition

Recently I attended a Muslim event. We were treated to performances of poetry and a combination of storytelling, song and music. One story about the forbearance of the prophet Mohammed included a Jew insulting and falsely accusing the prophet.   On Saturday afternoon I lead a Torah discussion group about the Sidra (reading) of the week and drew attention to the verse and associated commentary about a non-Jewish female slave that I found quite uncomfortable reading. This blog post is an exploration of the way religious leaders or teachers select texts or stories to tell that may lead people to problematic conclusions. Should there never be self- censorship? Is contextualizing enough? This is far from a complete examination of discrimination in either Jewish or Islamic texts or the issue of responsible leadership. Instead, it is an attempt to shed some light on the issues by examining my own experiences over the past few days.

The Story

A young Sheikh named Omar, told a story that essentially went as follows: A Jewish convert to Islam named Abdullah once entered a Mosque and saw another Jewish man named Zaid sitting among Muslims. Zaid explained to Abdullah that "that I knew from reading my scriptures that we expected a Prophet and the characteristics of this prophet. I noticed all the attributes in the Prophet Mohammed except for one: forbearance. I decided to test him”.

Zaid approached the Prophet Mohammed and offered him a loan, which the prophet accepted and agreed to repay the load in dates. Three days before the load was due for repayment Zaid walked up to the prophet as he was surrounded by his companions and many people. He made derogatory statements about the tribe of the prophet, accusing them of being dishonest and stealing the wealth of others and made accusations relating to the failure to repay the loan.

 

Umar, a companion of the prophet was outraged and drew his sword. But the Prophet Mohammed stopped Umar and insisted that Zaid be talked to about dealing with issues using honourable speech and noting that there were still three days left under the terms of the loan. In spite of this the Prophet instructed Umar to immediately give Zaid 1½ times the original amount of dates. This was to compensate Zaid for the trauma of being threatened by Umar.  

Making sense of the story

Listening to the story, I first took it at face value, a story about the virtue of patience. It echoed, for me, a Talmudic story about how the patience of the sage Hillel was tested by a man pestering him with inane questions to win a bet that he could make Hillel angry[i]. Yet, it also struck me that the two Jews in the story both converted to Islam, which made me just a little uncomfortable. In subsequent conversations about the story, some people commented about the portrayal of the Jew in the story as disrespectful to the prophet and money driven or being cast in the role of the villain.

A key strategy for positive inter-group relations is curiosity. Yishai Shaliff taught me the concept of asking from “a place of not knowing[ii]” which is essentially about asking open question without any implicit assumptions. I asked Sheikh Omar to tell me more about this story.  He shared with me that this was the first Hadith he learned as a child. But when he first heard it, it was missing both the beginning and the end and seemed to be just about the loyalty of Umar to the Prophet. On a trip to a small village with many devout descendants of the prophet in Yemen, Omar was thrilled to discover the full story. For him this story is about the importance of non-violence and calm responses to provocation. We also found common ground in discussing the laws against taking interest in both our traditions. I wonder how the prophet was allowed to give Zaid the extra 50%? In Jewish law, even being more social with the lender could be construed as interest[iii]. Sheikh Omar told me that this was the very same question he wondered about when first hearing the story but concluding that the additional 50% was a separate transaction to the loan itself.

I can relate to Sheikh Omar’s excitement about uncovering a fuller understanding of a sacred story or text, especially as this leads to a rich practical message about non-violent responses to provocation.  Still, I wonder about whether young people who attend Sheik Omar’s classes who hear this story, will also get an unintended message that Jews might be worthy of the noble prophet’s patience but are also the ones who might insult the Prophet.

Laws related to Discrimination in the Torah reading

In seeking to understand the other, it is important to reflect on ourselves and our own frame of reference. Returning to my own text, our reading this week is emphatic in the prohibition of discrimination against the stranger[iv]. “And you shall not mistreat a stranger, nor shall you oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”. And again: “And you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the feelings of the stranger, since you were strangers in the land of Egypt”. The second verse seems to be an appeal to empathy, you know “how hard it is (for the stranger) when he is mistreated[v]”. These instructions are related to the issue of power and powerlessness[vi] and the moral imperative of treating the powerless newcomer well, never abusing the power imbalance. It also reflects a need for sensitivity to the suffering of dislocation experienced by a stranger far from friends and home[vii]. 

The Non-Jewish Slave Woman’s “Physical relationship[viii]”

One of the most difficult theoretical aspects of Jewish law comes up in the same reading.  I say, theoretical because these laws have not been practiced for some two thousand years. Most of the commentary was written over a thousand years after the practice was abolished. Yet it remains part of our tradition. The Torah tells us something about the treatment of a Non-Jewish Slave Woman, but she is not the subject of the verse but rather one whose fate is secondary. This is a discussion about a Jewish slave, the Torah tells us that “If his master gives him a woman/wife[ix](?), and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone[x]”. The “woman” is a Canaanite (non-Jewish) slave woman, who is “given” to the Jewish slave for a period of six years but when her partner goes free she and their children remain behind as property of their owner.  

The relationship between this slave woman and the Jewish male slave is centred on the production of slave children[xi].  This relationship is only permitted if the Jewish male slave is already married[xii] ‘because his soul is already attached with his love toward his Jewish wife’ but if he is not already married we need to worry that he will become attached to his Cananite slave partner[xiii]”. The quality of their relationship does not seem to matter at all. The master is allowed to compel the union between the slaves if it is against the wishes of the male slave[xiv]  (I have not found anything written that is explicit about requiring her consent[xv]).  There is no requirement for this sexual union to become a marriage between the slaves.  ‘The Jewish slave should not be separated by his master from his Jewish wife to be required to become one with and sleep with the Canaanite slave instead of his Jewish wife, but the Jewish male slave does have discretion in this matter[xvi]’. The only restriction is that this slave woman cannot be “given” to two slaves at a time[xvii]. Perhaps somewhat reassuringly, the Torah text itself, as opposed to the commentary, does envision that the two slaves might come to love each other to the point that in some case the Jewish slave would be prepared to continue to be a slave because he declares “I love my (Canaanite slave) wife and my children[xviii]”.

Conclusion

When I think about this text, I have no neat way to explain it away. It says what it says. While it is convenient that this all theoretical and is no longer practiced and has not been practiced for thousand years, the more important point for me is that the total moral message of Judaism is one of human dignity and embracing all human beings. Yet, there is the danger that other Jews will take these Jewish teachings as legitimising prejudicial attitudes. As a Rabbi and a Jewish educator this is something I am concerned about. Since Saturday, I have been thinking about this a lot, consulting a trusted colleague and asking participants in the Saturday discussion group what their conclusions were. Not one participant got the message that racism is ok. Our youngest participant merely thought “it was weird”. While I despise censorship by religious leaders, deciding what part of the tradition the masses can be trusted with, I am still grappling with the merit of highlighting the most difficult passages. This is one reason I have delayed publishing this article till now.

When it comes to the texts of others there needs to be a genuine curiosity to learn what these mean for those who follow those texts. This is what I did with my conversation with Omar in which I was moved by what this story means to him. I also think it is legitimate for Jews or anyone to be concerned about the ways negative portrayals of minorities in the sacred texts of faiths other than one’s own might be understood and applied. This needs to be handled with care. I am not sure about the best way to approach an Inter-faith discussion with him about this, in which I show respect for the sacredness of this story for him while also exploring possible misuse of the story.  I trust that with good will, a bit of skill, sincerity and openness we can have a fruitful discussion.

---

[i] Talmud Shabbat 31

[ii] Shalif, Y, Liviatan, I, Paran, R. (2007), "Care-full Listening and Conversations", Creating Dialogue between Members of Conflicting Multi-Cultural Groups Publication Department, Israel Ministry of Education

[iii] Maimonides Laws of the Lender and Borrower, 5:12

[iv] Exodus 22:20, and Exodus 23:9, this translation is from chabad.org. There are traditional sources that interpret the Hebrew word Ger, which literally means stranger, as convert and focus their commentary on the particular situation of a convert, the commentary cited above relates as much to a newcomer to a religious community as it would to any marginalised person.  

[v] Rashi

[vi] Ibn Ezra

[vii] Sefer Hachinuch

[viii] This way of describing the relationship is used by Munk, Rabbi E, in the Call of The Torah and Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch in his commentary to the Torah following earlier sources.  

[ix] The Hebrew word, Isha, means both woman and wife. Which one is the correct translation?

[x] Exodus 21:4

[xi] Maimonides, Laws of Slaves 3:3, Chizkuni, p. 263, Mosad Harav Kook edition, 2006, Jerusalem

[xii] Mechilta Drashbi

[xiii] Klei Yakar, referring to Exodus 21:5 and Chizkuni ibid.

[xiv] Maimonides ibid, Rashi on Talmud Temura 30a,

[xv] There is an implication in Chizkuni, p.264 that her consent was not required

[xvi] Ramban, Mechilta Drashbi

[xvii] Mechilta Drashbi, Maimonides, Laws of Slaves 3:5

[xviii] Exodus 21:5