Negative Framing, Fanatics, Females and Forwarding

Just as putting your head in the sand and pretending there are never any problems between groups is foolish, focusing too much on the evil in others is destructive.

I received an e-mail with a link to a disturbing YouTube video in which a woman wearing typical Western dress is asked by a woman with a veil “who are you trying to seduce?!” It shows Muslim men and women chanting “UK go to hell! UK Police go to hell!” The e-mail said simply “An eye opening video about the strength of the Muslims and their beliefs and how it gets when there are enough of them”. I was upset when I watched it. I was disturbed by the extremism of the marchers and the implied generalisation. The common thread is a narrow and negative perspective about others.

To put the clip in some context, a Gallup poll found that “About two-thirds of Muslims in London (64%) say they have confidence in the British government, compared to just 36% of the British public overall[i]”. Another survey found that while 84% of British Muslims surveyed endorsed a literalist view of scripture, “with regard to national identity, 58% reported that they “very strongly” belong to Britain and 29% “fairly strongly[ii]” a total of 87%. In another version of the video we are told that less than 100 of the 30,000 Muslims living in the area were are at the protest. In the version that I was sent, with 1.4 million views, we don’t see any of this. This post, seeking guidance in Torah sources, examines the attitudes of the protesters, the creation/editing of the clip and its circulation.

Assertiveness without prejudice- don’t you call me a racist!

It is not racist to criticise members of minority groups about specific behaviours. Although expressing hostility to the government is protected by the principle of free speech, it is right for other citizens to robustly object to these attitudes. A wholesale condemnation of the country one lives in, rather than demonstrating against specific policies should be criticised. Denigrating others for their choices, such as suggesting that someone with a different idea about clothing is promiscuous is wrong. At the same time, if a critique generalises the problem to a whole group, rather than the individuals involved, it is racism or bigotry.

Groups are entitled to assert themselves and their legitimate rights. In doing so, it is vital to keep a sense of proportion and a broad perspective of the whole picture. Exaggerating the threat posed by the “other” is apparently the reason for the killing of Trayvon Martin, and exaggeration is also reflected in the ridiculous rants of the mass murderer, Breivic, in Norway.

The divider, the law of the “Metzorah”  

One problem common to the demonstrators and their critics is divisive speech, an issue which the Torah deals with harshly. It mandates isolation for the Metzorah (problematically translated as a leper), which is a person exhibiting very specific skin or hair discoloration[iii] that does not conform to any scientifically known conditions[iv]. Predominantly, the condition is understood to be result of engaging in “Lashon Harah”, evil talk, (telling people about the bad things another person has done for no constructive purpose (among other sins)[v]. In a play on words, the word Metzorah מצורה is equated with Motzi Rah, מוצי רע one who “brings out” evil. One who highlights and calls attention to the faults and misdeeds of others.

Isolation of the divider

Isolation is declared to be a fitting punishment, “just as he separated by his evil talk between a husband and wife and between a man and his friend, so too should he be separated (from others)[vi]”. Not only must the Metzorah leave the camp and live alone, he is also forbidden to talk to others, be greeted by anyone[vii] and needs to shout out “I am impure” and dress in a way[viii] that will keep people away. The Metzorah, gossiping about the evil of others, does not value the community in which s/he lives, indifferent to the division his negative speech is causing. Being forced out of the community provides an opportunity to consider the value of community[ix].

But it’s True…

Significantly, this harsh punishment is not for slander and false accusations, the definition of Lashon Harah, “evil talk” includes talking about incidents that are true. Perhaps the problem with telling the truth about the faults of others is that it dwells on this one aspect of the subject and the narrow focus distorts that person’s reputation which should take into account the full person. Following the Yiddish saying, “a half truth is a complete lie”. It’s the missing tile syndrome. Our eyes are drawn to the one missing tile but ignore the rest of the beautiful mosaic.

A narrow perspective

When the demonstrators shout UK ‘go to hell’, they are dwelling on certain aspects of the UK that they object to, an arrest they don’t agree with among other things, and ignoring the virtues of that society. A Muslim friend told me yesterday about a Sheik who teaches his students that there is no need to seek Sharia law as a system of government. He argues that 95% of the principles of Sharia such as care for the vulnerable etc. are already part of Australian law.

As demonstrated in the second paragraph, the film that portrays these people is giving an extremely narrow picture of a small group of people. We also know almost nothing about the people portrayed except that they have a negative attitude and on a given day expressed their hostility. We don’t know if they are productive tax paying citizens, honest, loving family members, have a sense of humour or love cricket.

The Constructive clause

Some would argue that circulating the video is not Lashon Harah/evil speech because of the constructive purpose clause that allows reporting evil deeds to protect the innocent, eg. it is permissible to tell a prospective employer about the bad habits of the person they are seeking to employ. They would argue that this video raises awareness of an important social problem. When employing this justification, it is important to be accurate in reporting which this video is not. Certainly the comments left about the video are far from constructive; many are hateful, some even calling for extermination and mosque burnings. 

Reintegration of the “divider

The Torah response to divisive speech is assertive but humane. In spite of the gravity of the offense, and the harshness of the response, the humanity of “divider/Metzorah” is not forgotten. The Talmud sees a second purpose in his shouting out that s/he is “impure! impure!” is to make known his pain to many, and many (people) will ask for (divine) mercy for him[x]”. Once the Metzorah has “served his time” s/he must be given an opportunity to again be an upstanding member of the community. This process begins with a leader of the community going out of the camp to where the Metzorah is[xi], symbolising the leadership seeking to understand the situation of the “outcast”[xii].  Asserting a standard of behaviour does not preclude understanding the situation of those who fail to adhere to that standard. Typically the leading Kohen/priest would be joined by many other people. This meant that the Metzorah was honoured with a large welcoming delegation[xiii]. The ceremony uses a red thread, a hyssop and cedar wood. The symbolism being that the Metzorah who was previously red with sin in the sense of the verse “if your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow[xiv]”, and was humbled from being like a tall tree to a lowly hyssop through his sins can now be restored by God’s forgiveness to his place and (tree like) height. A bird is released symbolising that like a caged bird feed to socialize with its fellow birds, the former “Divider” is now welcome to be with his community[xv].

 

In conclusion

Not all criticism of minorities or government is wrong. There are some substantial issues that fuel division or anger. I think, the exaggerated perception of those differences is a far more significant factor. The Muslims at the demonstration as well those who edited, and promoted the video as being representative of all Muslims are allowing a focus on the negative to divide us.

---

[i] http://www.gallup.com/poll/27409/Muslims-Europe-Basis-Greater-Understanding-Already-Exists.aspx

[ii] http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/2010/clive-field-on-attitudes-to-islam-and-muslim-attitudes-in-britain/

[iii] Leviticus 13:46

[iv] Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsh and Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman cited in Nachshoni, Y (1991), Studies in the Weekly Parsha, Vayikra, Artscroll, New York, p. 723. At face value this would seem to be simply about the fear of contagion  (Daat Zekainim Mbaalei Tosafot, on Leviticus 13:44, Bchor Shor) of a natural disease. However, it is more useful to set aside arguments about the facts of “leprosy” and focus on how this phenomenon is understood in context and tradition, which is that these conditions are understood to be a supernatural phenomenon (Maimonides commentary to Mishna, Negaim 12:5, cited in Leibowitz, N, (1993) New Studies in Vayikra Leviticus, the World Zionist Org, dept. for Torah Education pub. p. 188). This view is not shared by all commentators, Ralbag states that it is caused by moisture and heat. Even Maimonides himself attributes some natural aspects to it in the guide for the perplexed (3:44). Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsh and Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman both argue strongly that is not a natural disease. Some of proof includes instances where concern about contagion would require isolation yet the law does not require it. If the discoloration spreads to the entire body the person is declared “pure”. A groom celebrating in the week following his marriage and anyone celebrating during the pilgrimage who has the symptoms  is exempt from being examined and declared impure until the end of the celebration (Maimonides laws of the Impurity of the Metzorah 9:8) . If we thought this was a contagious disease we certainly would not allow someone to be among so many people during the celebrations. (This over-riding of the laws of the Metzorah would only apply to an non-declared condition, if it has already been declared the festival would not over-ride the status of the Metzorah and he would remain isolated – Talmud Moed Katan 14b)The bottom line is that the predominant understanding among the religious Jews I grew up with was that this was a direct sign from God rather than some normal illness.  

[v] Midrash Vayikra Rabba 17:3, Talmud Arachin 16a, other sins said to result in this condition in the Talmud are murder, stealing from the public, adultery, false oaths, arrogance and ungenerous attitude to others. All of these result in the destruction of community and relationships

[vi] Talmud Arachin 16b, Rashi and Baal Haturim to Leviticus 13:46

[vii] Talmud Moed Katan 15a

[viii] Leviticus 13:45

[ix] Oznayim Latorah, cited in Nachshoni, Y (1991), Studies in the Weekly Parsha, Vayikra, Artscroll, New York, p. 744

[x] Talmud Sotah 32b

[xi] Leviticus 14:3

[xii] Siach Hasadeh, cited in Greenberg, A Y (1992), Torah Gems, Vol 2, Y. Orenstien, Yavneh Publishing, Tel Aviv, p.293

[xiii] Sifsei Kohen

[xiv] Isaiah 18:1

[xv] Bchor Shor

Segregation, contagion, & preservation and the new “racism”

I am sitting in LA airport about to embark on the last leg of my round the world trip. I am reflecting on segregation.

In the UK, I met the Three Faiths Forum bringing people together, saw a photo of my Moroccan ancestor at the home of my great aunt, but I also heard a story about a man unable to enrol his children at a very religious school. Next stop was “Enemy territory”, Lakewood New Jersey, home of the Mitnagdim the sworn opponents of the Hasidim. There, at the back of a synagogue an argument is put to me about the merits of segregation. Landing in Sydney on Tuesday, the newspaper tells of a controversy involving pre-school teachers being allowed to isolate “naughty children”[1] and more on the “failure of multiculturalism”. The weekly Torah portion is also about someone who is sent away from the rest of the community.

Scenario 1 – Segregation between Sephardi and Ashekanzi[2] Jewish school children

A Sefardic Israeli man told me the following matter-of-factly, which I should try to verify before taking as fact but I still think this report is worth discussing.

“A wealthy Syrian-American Jew moved to Israel and tried to enrol his children in an Ashkenazi religious school. The school was prepared to accept his children, on condition that he changed his name to sound Ashkenazi. They had filled their (maximum) quota for Sephardic children in their school, which they kept below 10-12%. (I am telling Heshi[3] at the back of a Synagogue in Lakewood, that this is disgusting.  He thinks the policy has merit. “They have different values to us”, he asserts and suggests that if the Ashkenazi schools let in too many Sephardim then the Ashkenazi students will be influenced. “It’s better for them to have their own schools”.

Protection from being “infected”

Heshi, is presenting a two pronged arguments for segregation; protection of the majority from the influence of the minority and preservation of diversity. 

The justification of isolating someone with a contagious disease is seen in some interpretations of

the law of the “Metzorah”. A range of changes to skin or hair appearance are declared “impure” and the affected person is isolated[4].  Some commentaries explain the isolation as being about protecting others from infection[5].  While Judaism does not simply sacrifice the individual for the needs of the group, there are cases when the greater good takes precedence over the needs of the individual.  

“Difference” in the new racism

Seeking to be “nice” or politically correct can stifle legitimate discussion about what values and standards a community wants to organise itself around. The more important question is about the assumption of some kind of spiritual harm that would result from the presence of Sefardim. I concede that there may be certain stringent interpretations of law or custom that would be practiced in one community but not in another and there is merit in seeking to organize the peer influence that a child will be exposed to.  Perhaps this was the case in the controversy over segregation in the town of Emanuel. Yet, the blanket assumption of different values and using that as justification for separation raises red flags for me. 

Scholars studying prejudice have noticed what some might call a ‘new racism’ based on the ‘insurmountability of cultural differences’[6]. Thus ethnic minorities are no longer viewed as inferior; rather they are differentiated as threats to ‘social cohesion’ and ‘national unity’, that is, to the cultural values and integrity of the dominant (Anglo-Celtic) ‘host’ society[7] .

Secular wisdom- for ethical decision making?

I am using secular sources to make a religious point, which is not universally embraced. There is some resistance to considering secular wisdom in questions of how to live our lives, with some thinking about non-religious wisdom as being more about technology than moral guidance[8]. I think this is wrong, consider the following teaching. "If a person tells you there is wisdom among the nations of the world, believe him. If a person tells you there is Torah among the nations of the world, do not believe him[9]". The clearest example of this is when the non-Jewish Jethro tells Moses how to organise the guidance and judgement of the Jews[10]. Before I got married my grandfather, Rabbi Moshe Yehudah Blau OBM told me to read “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus”, because it could give me good advice about how to be a good husband. It would be a shame if the knowledge about prejudice from secular sources is not considered by religious authorities.

Diversity & Sectarianism

Diversity adds vitality to Judaism. A beautiful memory I have from summer camp was of a Yemenite Jew singing the Haftorah in a way I never heard before. These customs must be preserved, and in some cases it might be useful for Sefardim to create schools to immerse students in these traditions. Yet, efforts at preservation of diversity should also consider the problem of forming sperate groups within Judaism. In a play on words, the Torah’s prohibition on cutting oneself in mourning[11] which is written as Lo Titgodedu, is interpreted as “do not become groups, groups[12]”.

When I was in Yeshivah in Sydney, we had a Singaporean Sefardi student and we accommodated him by me studying the (Sefardic) Ben Ish Chai with him every day. This might not always be the right approach and I would support Sefardim who create Sefardi oriented schools to preserve their heritage but excluding Sefardic students from Ashkenazi schools or vice versa would not seem to be in keeping with these teachings.

Isolation as punishment

Writings about the isolation of the Metzorah, also shed some light on the nature of isolation itself. Many consider these “diseases” as entirely supernatural and punitive. There are various sins that are thought to bring on these conditions including gossip, or speaking badly about others[13]. Most prominent examples of this are when Moses' hand turns white[14] after he suggests that the Jews would not believe him and Mirriam is struck with “tzaraat”[15] after she speaks badly about Moses and the “black wife he took”. What I think is most useful to our discussion though, is the way in which this punishment is discussed.

We are told that the afflicted person must sit alone[16], Because he caused conflict between people and caused them to sit this one alone and that one alone[17]. The Torah states, he is a “Tzarua” rather than the condition is Tzaraat, (This links the problem with the identity of the affected person). This is because God himself is demeaning him to such an extent that this condition is seen on his head or forehead because his impurity is greater than others that would be in a hidden place. God (normally) is concerned with the dignity of people, yet this one, his actions prove that he is despised in the eyes of God who is punishing him like this…[18].

There is great harshness in this condition which is linked to the sin[19] and punishment of isolation. When teachers were forbidden to physically slap children, an alternative was found with plenty of sting: issolation. To what extent this is useful for a “naughty” child is one question, but the effects of segregation of whole communities should not be under-estimated.

Conclusion- Doing what is right and just

While there is merit in protecting certain values and ways of life, ugly prejudice can easily be disguised as being about this benign effort. If I had accepted Heshi’s approach to difference, I would not have bothered having the conversation with him. I would simply stick with my old biases about how different the Mitnaged people in Lakewood are to me. The truth is that while I strongly disagree with Hershi, I found his argumentativeness, calm logic and Brooklyn accent eerily familiar. Mitnaged or Hasid, he is a member of my tribe. The core experience of finding commonality was not dissimilar to meeting the interfaith team at Three Faiths Forum in London or knowing Mohamed, Sheiks Haisam or Ahmad here in Australia, except that the latter experiences were more enjoyable. The “cultural values” differences are usually exaggerated, the efforts to address these, while at times justified or even too meek, are more often excessive.

---

[1] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/naughty-corner-clampdown-a-fad-says-child-psychologist-john-irvine/story-fn59niix-1226033615074

[2] Jews originally of Spanish and Arabic lands are called Sephardi which literally means Spanish, also referred to as Mizrahi which literally means Eastern, while Jews of Central or Eastern European origin are referred to as Ashkenazi, which means German

[3]  Not his real name

[4] Lerviticus 13

[5]  Daat Zekainim Mbaalei Tosafot, on Leviticus 13:44, Bchor Shor and others

[6] Markus 2001, cited in Dunn Dr K. M., Forrest, J, Burnley, I,  McDonald, A, (2004) Australian Journal of Social Issues Vol.39 No.4 November 2004

[7]  Jayasuriya, L. (2002) “Understanding Australian Racism”, Australian Universities, Review, 45 (1), 40-44, also cited in Dunn et al.

[8] http://www.torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter3-11.html, and http://www.inner.org/torah_and_science/converting-wisdom-nations-1.php

[9] Eichah Rabbah 2:13

[10] Exodus, discussed by Sacks, Rabbi Jonathan, http://www.chiefrabbi.org/ReadArtical.aspx?id=745 citing the Ohr Hachayim

[11]  Deuteronomy 14:1

[12]  Talmud Yevamot 13b, it points out that for the simple meaning of prohibiting cutting, it could simply say, Lot Tegodedu, which would mean do not cut, Titgodedu, implies becoming something and allows for an additional meaning. There is discussion of the technical implications of this teaching, with a distinction between having different customs or religious courts in the same place which is more problematic and in different places which could be ok (Talmud Yevamot 14a). Still there is a broader message here about the community not being divided (Rashi for example cites Lo Tisgodedu in a different context altogether in Talmud Sukka 44a. For more on this see http://www.dafyomi.co.il/sukah/insites/su-dt-044.htm)

[13] Talmud Arachin 16a, Vayikra Rabba 16:1

[14] Exodus 4:6

[15] Numbers 12:10

[16] Leviticus 13:46

[17] Baal Haturim

[18] Ohr Hachayim on Leviticus 13:44

[19] This is taken further in the affected person being forbidden to engage in marital relations with his wife, and this is understood to be measure for measure in that he separated men from their wives through his tale-bearing

Blood and its uses- killing for ritual retribution or redemption

Two weeks ago Mehdi Mohammed Zeyo (49) blew himself up at the entrance of a Libyan Army base, enabling the rebels to follow and take it over[1]. This is also the time of year Jews start reading the book of Leviticus with all its sacrifices. This got me thinking about ‘blood’ in the Jewish tradition, particularly when it is shed for some purpose or cause, such as retribution or redemption. 

We Jews think of ourselves as people who solve problems with words, rather than the sword[2]. A concern I have is that one of the features of the prejudicial mindset is to have an idealized vision of ones own group along with a negative view of the other[3]. In our case, this can be expressed in the view that Arabs are all or mostly blood thirsty killers but Jews are essentially gentle, non-violent accountants. It is perfectly appropriate for Jews to celebrate our strong emphasis on the sanctity of life, and even to argue for the merits of killing in certain circumstances as long as we don’t adopt a sanitized, “koombayah” view of our tradition, which in many cases does in fact condone or even mandate the killing of both people and animals. 

A Jewish high school girl is upset after an activity at an interfaith program. They were told to look at images and write their gut reactions. A young Muslim man, helping on the day, wrote “brutal killers” about an image of Israeli Soldiers holding big guns and prayer shawls. He said, he thought anyone who killed was brutal. “But they don’t want to kill anyone, they are just protecting us[4]”.

Unpacking both sides of this exchange is beyond the scope of this post. Suffice it to say that while the intention of Israeli soldiers is protecting Israelis, they very likely want to kill when they think they must. For this student the idea that they would ideally want to have their land and safety without resorting to violence, equates to not wanting to kill. If she thinks the same way about Arab violence then her opinions reflect a generous view of people. If she doesn’t, she has a mindset that is conducive to perpetuation of conflict.

Life- an absolute value?

The sources seem to tell a more balanced story. It is not correct that Judaism values life over every other priority. Yes, the murder of Abel is condemned by God's telling Cain, the “Voice of your brothers bloods, are screaming to me from the earth”[5]. On the other hand, it must be said that “Do not kill” is not one of the Ten Commandments. The Hebrew word for killing is Horeg, do not kill would be Lo Taharog לא תהרוג. The actual commandment is Lo Tirtzach, לא תרצח do not murder. Killing is often condoned, eg. when killing in self defence, it states “he has no blood[6]”. 

Shedding blood to address the shedding of blood

Another example is capital punishment. God tells Noah that “one who spills the blood of a man, by man his blood shall be spilled[7]”. It seems to be a way or making things right again, at least in part.

An old man from the inhabitants of Jerusalem told me that in this valley Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard (of Nebuchadnezar) killed 2,110,000 people… He (had) noticed the blood of Zechariah bubbling up warm, and asked what it was. They said: It is the blood of the sacrifices which has been poured there. He had some blood brought, but it was different from the other. He then said to them: If you tell me [the truth], well and good, but if not, I will tear your flesh with combs of iron. They said: What can we say to you? There was a prophet among us who used to reprove us for our irreligion, and we rose up against him and killed him, and for many years his blood has not rested. He said to them: I will appease him. He brought the great Sanhedrin and the small Sanhedrin and killed them over him, but the blood did not cease. He then slaughtered young men and women, but the blood did not cease. He brought school-children and slaughtered them over it, but the blood did not cease. So he said; Zechariah, Zechariah. I have slain the best of them; do you want me to destroy them all? When he said this to him, it stopped[8].

This seems to relate to the idea of the “Redeemer of the blood[9]”. When someone is killed (or murdered), the relatives of the deceased are called the “Redeemer of blood” and it is proper for them to kill the murderer after he is convicted and sentenced[10].

Animal’s blood and its use for atonement

When a man seeks closeness to God, or atonement for sins, the process in the Torah is to bring an animal sacrifice, and the sons of Aaron will bring close the blood, and sprinkle the blood on the altar, around[11]. Judaism contains a range of views about sacrifices, here are a few.

Vicarious

Even today in the lead up to our day of atonement some Jews rotate a live chicken above our heads, (Many Jews use money instead) while we recite this is my atonement, this is my exchange…this chicken will go to death while I go on to good life[12].  This echoes the idea that sacrifices are an “exchange for his soul, and through this he will be saved from the decree that has been decreed about him in heaven…[13]

Educational

There are views that see the sacrifices as serving educative, spiritual or psychological purposes. One argument is that it was just to help the Jews get over sacrifice centred idol worship[14], (A bit like a ritualistic nicotine patch, to deal with animal sacrifice addiction). There is discussion of the unusual sequence of words that introduce the sacrifices. “A man, who will bring close, from amongst you, an offering to God[15]”, this suggests that the sacrifice is really about man sacrificing his inner animal. It can be a violent or aggressive nature like that of a bull, or docile but self centred character like that of a sheep, these need to be brought close to God[16].

The use of blood is explained by pointing out that “the blood is the soul/spirit[17]”, “The blood,… is the visible messenger of the soul, which is also present throughout the body and controls the body but cannot be seen. It is indeed fitting, therefore, that the blood as the visible substance representing the soul, should be used in the offerings to symbolize the elevation and devotion of the soul to G-d, and the soul’s steadfast adherence to Him[18]”.

Mystical

There is a strong mystical tradition about what the offerings achieved. Perhaps linked to the phrase “my offering, my bread[19]” there is an interpretation that “the connection between the divine presence and the Israelite nation was (maintained) through the means of the offerings…just as the thinking soul will be found with the body through food[20]”.

Further clues can be found in other practices that are equated to sacrifices, from prayer[21], repentance[22], humility, and even suffering “afflictions are precious, just as sacrifices reconcile (a person with God), so do afflictions, not only that but in fact afflictions are most precious because sacrifices are with money while afflictions are in the body[23]”.  All of these suggest a deeply moral purpose to the sacrifices[24].

I have more work to do to figure all this out. However, what is clear to me is that there is more to it than it seems. I think this is true of so many things. I object strongly to the racist idea that Arabs simply love death, while Jews simply love life. The fact that an utter creep of a man, a savage murderer who happens to be an Arab and considers himself a Muslim told an interviewer after 9/11: "We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us”[25] does not make it true for anyone except him and his fellow evil savages. 

In spite of the need to kill animals and even people in particular circumstances, the sanctity of life is a very important principle in Judaism, but it is not an absolute. The notion that life is sacred, is a view that is embraced by people of many faiths and none. Every bereaved mother has a massive hole in her heart, even while many nations honour those who killed and died to protect them. As king Solomon said, “Everything has an appointed season… A time to kill and a time to heal....A time to love and a time to hate; a time for war and a time for peace[26].

(Artwork, a team effort between Nachman and his dad :)

---

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022805873.html

[2] Midrash on Genesis 27:22 on the voice is the voice of Jacob and the hands are those of Esau, that the way of Jacob and his descendent is to use their voices in prayer, as opposed to Esau who is seen as the one who resorts to the sword. 

[3] In data gathered by Together For Humanity Foundation, we found that students would expressed far more positive views about others as well as slightly more negative views about their own group after they interacted with the “out” group. For example one group of Muslims students who spent 4 days with Jewish students, had the following shifts in attitude. Before the interaction, 68% of responses associated Jews with “Friendly” and “kind and caring”, afterward it was 80%.  In relation to their own group, Muslims. before the interaction,  100% of responses associated Muslims with the “Friendly” and “kind and caring”, afterwards it was 92% and 76% respectively.  

[4] Heard by the Author.

[5] Genesis, 4:10

[6] Exodus 22:1

[7] Genesis 9:6

[8] Talmud Gittin 57b, translation from http://www.come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_57.html#57b_1, the story has another twist. “Straightway Nebuzaradan felt remorse. He said to himself: If such is the penalty for slaying one soul, what will happen to me who have slain such multitudes? So he fled   , and sent a deed to his house disposing of his effects and became a convert.”

[9] Numbers 35:19

[10] Maimonide, Yad Hachazakah, Book of Nezikin, Laws of a Murderer and protecting souls. 1:2

[11] Leviticus 1:5

[12] Machzor

[13] Rema, Torat HaOla, chapter 1, cited in Torah Shlaima, volume 25, p265

[14] Maimonides, in the guide for the perplexed, this view is hotly contested and mostly rejected based on the great emphasis on sacrifices in the Torah and the fact that sacrifices were offered by Abel before idol worship was an issue (Ramban and others).

[15] Leviticus 1:2

[16] Likutei Torah, Vayikra, Adam Ki Yakriv

[17] Tanchuma 96:14

[18] Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, cited in Rabbi Aharon Tendler, http://www.torah.org/learning/rabbis-notebook/5766/vayikra.html

[19] Numbers 28:2

[20] Kuzari, cited in Kasher  M (1992/5752), Torah Shlaima, volume 25, p265, He argues that “just as we cannot understand the reason for the sustenance of the soul with physical food, yet we see their use, similarly we will now know the reason for the need of divine presence for these offerings, yet we find the attachment of the divine presence with us, through them”.

[21] Talmud Brachot 26a

[22] Vayikra Rabba 87:2

[23] Shocher Tov 94, Torah Shlaima, volume 25, p270

[24] less obvious, but relating to giving is the idea “that filling the throats of priests with wine is like pouring wine on the altar (Talmud Yoma 71)

[25] http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,189648,00.html#ixzz1G0SzGdOn

[26]  Ecclesiastes – 3:1-8