Cross-cultural generosity, not mean-spiritedness

Cooking Kosher dinner,
vegetables and veggie
burgers on a sandwich maker
at the Aly home.

Last week I posted an impassioned grave side sermon by Mohammad Hoblos, a Lebanese Muslim preacher (i) on Facebook Hoblos told the mourners at the funeral of Hedi Ayoub: "there are no gangsters in paradise", "...twenty-two years old, built like a tank... (a) one dollar (bullet) brought him to the ground" and quoted a line from a rap song: "Why are we so blind to see that the ones we hurt are you and me?". He spoke against glorifying violence and materialism and stated that a Muslim who kills another Muslim will never get to heaven.  One Facebook comment, however, got caught up on the inward focus of the talk - “Why doesn’t he talk about the real issues, such as ISIS and violence against non-Muslims?”! 

It is wrong to look at Muslims in general through the lens of ISIS and terrorism. Hoblos was certainly talking about issues that are very real to people he actually knows.   A generous approach would be to look at the merit of what he was saying, at an open grave no less, rather than seeking faults in what he didn’t say.  In fact, many of my Facebook friends of Jewish and other backgrounds did make positive

and appreciative comments afterwards about Hoblos’ sermon, e.g. “that was a great post yesterday of the speech at funeral...”.

Last week I myself experienced the cross-cultural generosity of a Muslim family.  Zohra and Abbas Aly had invited me for dinner at their home, which is difficult for me because of the way I practice Kosher. I can’t eat anything cooked in pots used for non-Kosher, for example. They generously agreed to allow me to cook my meal on a sandwich maker in their own kitchen!

The theme of generosity can also be found, if one looks for it, in the Torah reading this past week. God commanded the Jews to take revenge against Midyan (ii). While a critical approach would, reasonably, focus on the revenge, a more generous approach will probe further.

The crime that Midyan was to be punished for, according to our oral tradition, was that the Midyanites and Moabites used sex as a weapon of war. Not by raping the enemies’ women, as still happens today, but as a way to spiritually destroy the Jews by having their own daughters seduce Jewish men and then pressure them to worship the gods of their enemies. 

In this context, spiritual strength or weakness was everything. The Moabites and Midyanites had sought to destroy the Jews through the curses of the sorcerer Balaam.  Balaam had let them down by blessing the Jews instead of cursing them, yet he also provided a clue to their vulnerability (iii).  He asserted that God “did not look at evil in Jacob (iv)”. Balaam went on to advise his clients that if the Jews could be led to sin this will result in their destruction (v). This plan was implemented although the Torah places responsibility (vi), at least initially, on the Jewish men who we are told “began to commit harlotry with the daughters of the Moabites. They (the Moabite daughters) invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and prostrated themselves to their gods (vii)”.

Despite the Moabites participation in this bizarre sin, they are not included in Gods planned vengeance, which is restricted to Midyan. This is for two reasons involving generous thinking. One is the fact that the Moabites legitimately feared attack by the Jews (viii).  A second is that although, technically speaking the Jews had done nothing against the Moabites, they had possession of land that had been traditionally Moabite. The Jews had conquered that land in a war with the Emorites who had themselves taken the land from the Moabites. This legitimate grievance is seen as a significant mitigating factor (ix). 

My thoughts and prayers are with the Hedi Ayoub, his family, friends and community. Just as, when I was grieving over the violent loss of my brothers’ friend, the late Gabi Holzberg, in the Mumbai terrorist attack in 2008, many of my Muslim friends sent me messages of condolence. Let us respond to each other, in good times and bad, with cross-cultural compassion and generosity.

Notes:
i.    https://www.facebook.com/theaustralianmuslim?ref=ts&fref=ts, also available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fGEwzptQew in full, or edited version at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ROpW9ygp5Y
ii.    Numbers 25:18
iii.    Chizkuni
iv.    Numbers 23:21
v.    Talmud Sanhedrin 105, also see allusion to Balaam in Number 31:16
vi.    Lebovitz, N, New Studies in Bamidbar
vii.    Numbers 25:1-2
viii.    Ralbag
ix.    Chizkuni

Handouts, the Poor and the Welfare State, Wrong and Right



 Cartoon by Nicholson from “The Australian” newspaper:

Reprinted with permission www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au

Last Friday I listened to one of Australia’s most passionate advocates for Indigenous employment as well as one of its richest men issue a heartfelt plea against welfare. Andrew, “Twiggy” Forest[1], asserted that the dead hand of welfare is killing Aboriginal people, preventing them from getting jobs and leading them into a downward spiral of Alcohol abuse, disease and death. In the US and elsewhere, the Tea party are screaming for cuts in government spending which must include  welfare, with the support of some very religious people.

This week Jews read the following passage, “If there will be among you a needy person, from one of your brothers in one of your cities…you shall not harden your heart, and you shall not close your hand from your needy brother. Rather, you shall open your hand to him, and you shall lend him sufficient for his needs, which he is lacking[2]”. Does this only apply to private giving? What is right?

Three arguments against handouts

There are three main arguments made against a government administered welfare system. 1) It harms those it seeks to help. It fosters dependence, is a disincentive to work and perpetuates disadvantage and social problems. 2) Charity should be done by individuals and community. They do it better and the community solidarity factor is removed if government takes over this function. 3) A questioning of the morality of redistributing wealth from its rightful owners to others.

Danger to life and other harmful effects

“Do not stand on your brothers blood![3]”, is a prohibition against allowing people to be harmed or die a preventable death. On the one hand we are warned to be more careful with charity then all other commandments because it is possible that by withholding it is tantamount to shedding blood with the death of the poor person[4] out of starvation. On the other hand, Forest talks about his Indigenous friends who are now deceased and puts it down to Welfare. Only 25% of Aboriginal Australians will live past the age of 65[5].

The view that Welfare is part of the problem has also been expressed by some Indigenous leaders.  Already in the Talmud it states that idleness leads to madness[6]. I don’t have the expertise for certainty about the dangers that welfare poses to its variety of recipients all around the world. Still, the harm caused to poor people themselves around the world by Welfare is a serious moral issue and the evidence must be honestly confronted.

Encouraging giving but not taking

Alongside the great value placed on giving, there is a strong message against taking unless it is absolutely necessary. “Whoever does not need to take [charity] and yet takes, will not depart from this world before being actually in need of his fellow-men; but he who needs to take and does not take, will not die before he will have come in old age to support others from his own [bounty]”[7].

This is also seen in the teaching “Make your Shabbat like a weekday and do not require [the help] of others[8]". Despite the importance of honouring the Shabbat with a beautiful meal, this requirement is less important than self sufficiency. We are taught that one should seek work even if it is to “flay carcasses in the market place (considered shameful work) and earn wages and do not say, 'I am a priest and a great man and it is beneath my dignity[9]”.

Self sufficiency and the 20 Shekel wedding

In a modern context the following harsh advice is offered to low income families. Responding to the question: If someone does not have money for a wedding, should he collect donations? Rabbi Aviner answers with an emphatic No. “Collecting donations is only legitimate for essential needs like food or medicine, a person needs to get married but he does not have to make a fancy wedding if he does not have the money to do so. I have friends who do not have a lot of money: one made a wedding in a nice outside area and brought sandwiches. The entire wedding cost 50 shekels. Another friend invited ten of us to the building of the Rabbinate which has a small hall. We drank coke, ate some cake, and the entire wedding cost 20 shekels. If a person wants to live with extras it is a personal decision, but living with extras with other people's money is unheard of[10]”.

To the degree that this Torah advice is followed the danger of falling into the welfare trap is somewhat diminished. (Yet, I think the ideal of self sufficiency is battling with a sense of entitlement among some people. I thank God I have not walked in their shoes and so I withhold judgement).

Structural difference between communal and state based welfare

Some have argued that Judaism strongly supports the essential elements of the welfare state[11]. An alternative argument is that community based giving in Judaism has two distinct dimensions and this two tier system addresses some of the problems associated with Welfare[12].

The communal system that collects communal funds is mainly focused on meeting basic needs such as food. "Every Jewish community is obliged to appoint charity administrators, respected and reliable individuals who will collect from each person what he is fit to contribute… and give to each poor person enough for his needs for the week.[13]"

More substantial support, it is argued, was more dependent on donor good will. This second form of support is related to the  words “sufficient for his needs, which he is lacking[14] and encourages more generous assistance that could go so far as to replace whatever he is missing from what he was used to. Eg. “if he was accustomed to riding a horse and have a slave running ahead of him when he used to be rich and then he became poor[15], one should buy a horse for him and a slave”[16].

What emerges for the recipient is a very basic safety net provided by the community that is not likely to prevent anyone from seeking work. There is the possibility of having more substantial needs met but this is less certain and cannot be counted on like a welfare check. There is also the recognition that one is being supported by real people in one’s own community not the nameless, faceless government[17].  

The highest form of giving

In Australia and focusing on Aboriginal people, Mr. Forest has undertaken an ambitious project to get commitments from businesses to provide jobs for Aboriginal people and to drive a campaign to train people for these specific jobs http://generationone.org.au/. Of course this approach fits well with a Jewish ideal as articulated by Maimonedes.

 “There are eight levels of charity, one greater than the next. The highest level which has none above it is to strengthen a Jew's hand and to give him a gift or loan or to partner with him or to find him some work such that his hand is strengthened to the point where he does not need to ask other people”[18].

Job, career, ownership

It was interesting to note a progression in thinking at the forum last Friday, with Mr. Forest talking jobs, Danny Lester his Aboriginal CEO for the project talking about careers rather than jobs and making it clear he had greater ambitious for Aboriginal people than simply a job. Some in the Audience took it further and envisioned Aboriginal enterprise and business ownership. It is this third option that seems the highest expression of Maimonedes’ teaching and consistent with his statements about loans and partnership.

Whose money is it?! You communist, you!

Getting the poor into business ownership is a great ideal but that does not mean that Judaism would simply embrace capitalism and leave it to the market, dismissing all ideas of equality of outcome. The Jew is warned not to think “how can I diminish my money to give it to the poor” because the money is not his it is only given as a deposit to do the will of the depositor (God) to give it to the poor[19].  

The Jubilee concept meant that every fifty years, the Jewish people did the equivalent of turning over the monopoly game board of life and redistributed all farmland on a somewhat equal basis with all lands returning to the original owners. Loans were cancelled every seventh year. Slaves were freed after six years and sent away with generous gifts[20]. In what could be an admonition to employers in our times the Torah makes clear, “You shall not be troubled when you send him free from you, for twice as much as a hired servant, he has served you six years, and the Lord, your God, will bless you in all that you shall do[21]”.

Implications for the welfare state?

I am not a fan of the status quo and welfare dependency.  I support a fearless examination of every aspect of our response to poverty and timely courageous change based on our sincere efforts to find the truth. The reform process and review must consider the dangers of both too much welfare and of substantially abandoning welfare in favour of a Torah inspired public policy based on a divided public-private sharing of welfare responsibility and getting people on their feet ideal. There is a real danger that the private sector will not meet its obligations across the board and that poor people will not in the end get jobs and will be left in dire circumstances.

There are no easy answers. Those of us who have must do what we can to provide a hand up or a hand out depending on the situation, potential harm and the need.

---

[1] Disclosure: Mr. Forest has donated funds to an organisation I lead, Together For Humanity Foundation.

[2] Deuteronomy 15:7-8

[3] Leviticus 19:16

[4] Tur Shulchan Aruch 247

[5] http://generationone.org.au/inform-yourself

[6] Talmud Ketubot 59b, see Rashi

[7] Mishnah,  Pe'ah 8:9

[8] Talmud, Shabbat 118a

[9] Talmud Pesachim 113a

[10] Aviner, R, Shlomo, http://www.ravaviner.com/2011/08/personal-debt-ceiling-advice-from-rav.html

[11] Tamari, Dr. M, The Challenge of Wealth, Parshas Ki Savo http://www.torah.org/learning/business-ethics/kisavo.html

[12] Meir, Rabbi Dr. A., Business Ethics Center of Jerusalem,  http://www.aish.com/ci/be/48883607.html 

[13] Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 256:1

[14] Deuteronomy 15:7-8

[15] Talmud, Ketuvot 67b

[16] Shulchan Arukh Yoreh Deah 250:1, this interpretation of the difference between the basic charity described in 256 and 250 is pur forward by Rabbi Dr. Meir, and fits the general context. I have not delved deeply into all the original sources but the Rema’s comment suggest that 250 is also talking about the communal charity distribution rather than the individual who could not be expected to take on such a difficult responsibiltiy. On the other hand the Taz quotes a wealth of sources and views, including Rosh, Rambam and Tur, some of which supports Rabbi Meir’s interpretation. 

[17] Tamari, Dr. M, ibid

[18] Maimonedes, Yad Hachazaka, Laws of Gifts of the Poor 10:7

[19] Tur Shulchan Aruch 247

[20] Deuteronomy 15:14

[21] Deuteronomy 15:18

Men diminished by their motives. Being Good, or just Looking Good? (Chaye Sarah)

This week I enjoyed a 7 minute report on National TV about my work and friendship with a Sheik. It seems inappropriate to admit this, I am supposed to pretend that I dislike publicity, but I think being aware of our less noble motives is the first step to keeping them in check.

This leads me to wonder about the ways that people act “nice”, satirized in this joke.

Mother in Law shows up at the door of her son in law.

Son in law: Hi, what a nice surprise, how long are you staying?

Mother in Law: Oh, I don't want to trouble you, as long as you are happy for me to stay.

Son in law: What?! You won't even come inside for a cup of tea?!

There are dances of repeatedly insisting on giving and refusing to take that are common to many cultures. I have a vague idea of an Arabic custom of a prospective host offering three times, initially the guest insists on not wanting to trouble him/her and on the third bounce the offer is accepted. Is this inspired social glue, or dishonest game playing?

We see this playing out in a negotiation over a burial plot between Efron, the Hitites & Abraham¹. In response to Abraham's request for a “a possession (of land for a) grave”, the Hitities say; listen my master, you are a prince of God among us, in the choices of our graves you can bury your dead. None of us will withhold their grave from you.

Subtext: As a prince you can take whatever you want, the flip side is that in the future your right to it can be contested, they can say that you used your position to take it and not one could refuse you, but it is not yours by right². 2) You can just have one of our graves, but not a burial plot³.

Abraham then argues with Efron, who insists that he would be happy to give the land away for free, while Abraham insists on paying the full price. In the end Efron nonchalantly⁴ says; “a land of 400 silver Shekels, between you and me, what is it?!” Abraham then pays him the equivalent of up to a million silver shekels⁵ and Efron is condemned in our tradition for talking a big generous game in front of all the people of his city, but then naming a high price in the end. In fact his name is spelled with a letter missing from his name (the letter Vav is missing) which makes his name sound like Afrn, related to earth as if he was talking with dust in his mouth⁶.

The missing letter theme plays out in the Servant Eliezer's negotiation with Abraham about finding a wife for his son. Abraham wants his servant to bring a foreign wife from the home country and tribe, not a local “from the people among who I live⁷”.

But, “Oolai” what if she will not want to come? He asks. The spelling here again, is missing a Vav, so the word can be read a Alai, - to me- and is interpreted as his hoping that his mission will be a failure, and instead the match will come to him and his daughter. Interestingly, although the story is told twice in the Torah⁸ the variation of the spelling only appears in the text when he retells the story after finding Rebeccah and his conflict of interest is not longer a practical issue. This demonstrates that ulterior motives are very difficult to spot in the moment, although, they could be easier to spot once the situation is no longer practical.

The final grand dance, is when Eliezer devises a test of generosity to see which girl should be a wife for his master's son. He notices a beautiful girl, and asks her for “a little bit of water from his jug” when what really wants is to see if she will offer water not just for him but also for his camels. She modestly, says drink my master and says nothing more but goes on to bring water for all his camels.

It is proper for the asker to ask for less than s/he needs so as not to trouble (the other person), but it is proper for the giver to give more and do for the asker, enough (to supply that which s/he) lacks or more⁹.

There is a logic to the game, it helps if it is played sincerely by all the players.

1Genesis 23:3-16.

2Oh Hachayim.

3Malbim

4As explained by R. Arye Kaplan in Living Torah.

5Rashi.

6Bartinura quoted in ArtScroll Bereshis book 3, page 882.

7Genesin 24:3.

8Genesis 24:5 & 24:39.

9Seforno, on Genesis 24:14