Letting the guard down? On fears and policing

Part of my mind acts as a policeman watching me. Did I do this right? Am I good enough? This self-vigilance and fear is draining.  This week, while I was walking on a nature trail in Ryde, I noticed a sign for walkers that reminded them to “control your dog”. I creatively interpreted it as the need for people to control the ”barking” in the form of repetitive and harsh self-criticism.

I deliberately suggest we “control” the critical voice in our minds, rather than eliminate it, because I think it plays a role in protecting us from wrongdoing. I have been confronted this week with some of the darker sides of humans. I was disturbed to hear about cruelty to men, women and their children who have escaped horrific oppression, because they dared to seek a better life and perhaps because of cultural differences that are seen as a threat (1). In this case, fear of people who are seen as different, is the motivator for cruelty. However, here the critical voice expressing fear of wrongdoing could have motivated these people to do the right thing. Every weekday morning during the current Hebrew month of Elul, Jews sound a ram’s horn called a Shofar, to instil “a sense of trepidation and fear” (2), even “trembling” (3), in order to lead us to repentance and introspection.

Some religious people fear the physical world - its sensual pleasures and material offerings. In a crowded Sydney Mosque, I heard a very young Imam warn against the evils of the “dunya”, the physical world, with great intensity. This week’s Torah reading tells us to appoint police officers at “all our gates” (4). In a metaphoric sense, this is interpreted to mean that we must appoint an internal ”policeman” to monitor our contact with the world that comes through our five senses (5). Societies look eagerly to police to protect them from the vices of their fellow citizens. In the US, this approach has not worked out well, in recent months, for some African Americans. 

Instead of allowing fear to justify excessive policing, we must embrace a healthier kind of fear - not of the common man but of the corruption of those in positions of power. The Torah warns of the bias that can arise from judges accepting bribes (6), which can ultimately cause even an initially righteous judge to lose his mind (7). The Torah insists that a king must be vigilant to ensure that “his heart does not become elevated above his brothers and that he does not stray from God’s commandments” (8). 

One scholar expresses deep distrust of those in power. He suggests that it would be better for those with power to be appointed for fixed terms of three years or less so that their successors could hold them to account and “investigate them to see whether they breached their trusted role”, in the way that Australian Governments often do with their predecessors.  He also insists that, when there is a dispute between one (a ruler) and many (the citizens), we should follow the view of the many. He argues that the risk of “an individual doing wrong out of foolishness, desire or anger, is greater than that happening with the many” (9). Similar sentiments were expressed last week by an eleven-year-old student from a migrant family in Western Sydney. She thought ”the Australian way was right”, because of our system of government that requires, at least in its design, that the will of the people be implemented rather than that of one despotic ruler.

In terms of the sensual temptations themselves, the Torah does not see them as simply bad. On the contrary, we are cautioned against rejecting the pleasures of this world. A person who vows not to drink wine temporarily (10), is seen as having sinned in a sense. Sheikh Soner Coruhlu has a different view of the material/physical world from the one expressed by the young Imam above. He wrote that “The ’Dunya', from my understanding of our tradition, is an opportunity…to draw nearer unto to the Creator by proving one's self worthy of drawing near. The manner in which one draws near to their Lord is … moral excellence while believing in the Most High. The “Dunya” therefore is an opportunity when one is morally and ethically inclined but a threat if one is miserly, oppressive, immoral, unethical etc.” (11).

Fear of our own human vulnerability to do wrong is a necessity and a blessing when it is used wisely and proportionately. Fear of people who appear different from us, is simply bigotry. Being wary of those in positions of power or even of our own internal policeman getting out of control, is vital. 

1)    http://hotline.org.il/en/main/
2)    Sadia Gaon, cited in http://www.chabad.org/holidays/JewishNewYear/template_cdo/aid/4392/jewish/Sounding-of-the-Shofar.htm
3)    Amos 3:6 “If the shofar is sounded in the city, will people not tremble?”
4)    Deuteronomy 16:18
5)    Attributed to Rav Chaim Vital on http://www.shortvort.com/shoftim-parasha/11901-parashas-shoftim-guard-your-senses
6)    Deuteronomy 16:19
7)    Talmud Ketubot, 105a, referring to the taking of bribes
8)    Deuteronomy 17:20
9)    Abarbanel on Shoftim. On the other hand, the commentator Klei Yakar, seems more concerned about the independence of judges. He emphasises the need to protect judges from the potentially corrupting influences of those who install the judges, if they were to retain an influence after they complete the task of installing someone as a judge. The change in form from the beginning to the end of the verse in the Torah that calls for the appointment of judges, is instructive. “Judges and police officers shall you put in all your gates...and they shall judge the people a just justice”. 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 those who appoint them because, if they remain dependent on those people, there will never be justice. There is no naïve assumption of religious leaders retaining purity just by virtue of their office and past righteousness. The political influences on secular judges in Australia and Israel, as it relates to asylum seeker judgements, can also be considered in this light.
10)    A Nazirite who vows not to drink wine among other vows, must bring a sacrifice to atone for rejecting some of God’s gifts, even temporarily
11)    Facebook post, 18.08.2015, https://www.facebook.com/zalman.kastel/posts/10153457332070470?comment_id=10153457499415470&notif_t=like his post continues with the following. “The human being is distinct from the rest of Creation in that it has the capacity to morally judge the outcome of any action or statement it may partake in. Where most of creation will simply follow the whims of their desires, the human being will first analyse what the consequence of following one's desires may be. Will this act harm another person, another animal, the environment, me and so forth. Those who do not use this God given capacity to make such judgements and simply follow their base desires, even when it harms others, behaves in a way that is not unlike the animals”.

Facts, Prejudice & Pessimism (Pharaoh & Politicians)

"But it’s true!”, cry out those accused of racism. It seems that to avoid prejudice, we are expected to pretend certain facts are not there. Pessimists would make a similar truth argument against optimism. Martin Seligman convincingly argues in Learned Optimism[1] that we do not need to ignore the evidence to be optimistic, rather we can choose among alternative honest explanations of all the “facts”. This approach can also work with prejudice. In one of the earliest records of prejudice, against the Hebrews in ancient Egypt, some of these issues play out. The key idea in this article is that we can be truthful and still beat prejudice and pessimism by focusing, when appropriate, on positive aspects of the truth, while at other times we can choose to face up to the negatives.

Head in the sand?

Recently, Australian parliamentarian Teresa Gambaro suggested that migrants be taught about using deodorant and waiting in a que, and Rick Santorum, an American presidential candidate referred to blacks on welfare[2]. Gambaro unreservedly apologised and said she was taken out of context, while Santorum denies he said the word black. I wonder about the facts, is there a real deodorant and que problem? NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous, blasted Mr. Santorum, “In Iowa for example, only nine percent of food stamp recipients are black, while eighty-four percent of recipients are white”. Jealous ignores the fact that there are far more whites than blacks in Iowa (91% white to nearly 3% black[3]). It seems that we are all supposed to be nice and just pretend that this obvious hole in the argument is just not there. I do not think either statement as reported, was appropriate, but why not? 

Realists in Ancient Egypt?

According to the Torah’s account of “social integration” in ancient Egypt, the truth did not look good. The Hebrews were not going to fit in, it did not matter how long they were in the country they could still be described as those “coming to Egypt[4]” in the present tense, as if they always just arriving[5]. They did not change their language or their names[6]; “They did not call Reuben, Rufus, nor did they call Shimon, Lulini[7]”. In contrast to the sexually liberated Egyptians, they had very conservative attitudes to women; they would not even look at each other’s wives[8]. Shepherding, a common occupation of the migrants, was an abomination to Egyptians[9].

They were not a marginal group. These outsiders had already managed to occupy the second highest office in the land, secure the best agricultural land[10] and they were rich[11]. Their birth-rate was as high[12] as that of rodents[13] to the point where the land was filled with them[14]. It was like an infestation of reeds[15]. Whenever an Egyptian went to get some entertainment they found the theatres were full of them[16]. These internationalists could also migrate out of the land[17] of Egypt just at the moment when their labour was needed most[18]. Was it unreasonable for the Egyptians to be concerned and pessimistic about those people? 

 

Realist and pessimist

Until this week, I would have described myself as a realist rather than an optimist or pessimist. I do not agree with the idea that if you think positive thoughts about something you want, “the universe” or God for that matter will give it to you. There is evidence that pessimists are generally been better at discerning reality than optimists[19], at least when thinking about them calmly. On the other hand, pessimists are more likely to fail to achieve their goals, feel depressed and have poorer health[20].

I did a test to measure my degree of optimism and pessimism, particularly the degree to which I think of both good and bad events as being permanent, pervasive and personal. I found that in some ways I think like an unrealistic pessimist. With negative events, I have been likely to think of them as reflective of what happens generally (permanent), as them being part of a broader pattern rather than isolated to that particular issue (pervasive) and I tend to take responsibility for it (personal). With positive events, I am more likely to think of it as a fluke or a lucky break (neither permanent nor personal) and more specific to that issue rather than thinking of it in a broader sense (not pervasive). I was not being consistent or logical and that alternative explanations could be even more realistic so I was free to choose those[21].

Methods for honest positive living

In some cases, our negative perception is backed up by a set of facts. With those situations, it depends on the context and the timing. If a lot is at stake, we might do well to take a pessimistic view about the risks, rather than just hope it will all take care of itself. If we are in a position to take action and deal with it, we can replace our worry with determination to address the problem[22]. If we are worrying about them when we are in middle of something else, it would be sensible to tell ourselves that this not the time for thinking about this, and actually schedule an alternative time to deal with it[23].

Other than dealing or delaying dealing with the problem itself, Selikman’s main strategy for dealing with pessimistic beliefs is disputation with oneself, which can still be relevant in spite of a negative set of facts. Disputation has four main components, i) evidence, ii) alternatives, iii) implications and iv) usefulness. For example, it is late at night, I am feeling washed out and I notice that I am doing less than my fair share of the house work, so I think I am lousy person and feel sadder still. I can challenge the idea that I am a lousy person with evidence; “no I am not a selfish person there are other times when I do pull my weight or act altruistically, although I can do better in doing my fair share of house work”. When the evidence is against an optimistic view, I can still question the usefulness of a negative view, consider its implications and look for alternative ways of explaining the event. Eg. seeing myself as a lousy person will not motivate me to do anything about it, like the Chasidic saying “to be depressed is no a sin, but the harm it can cause, no sin can cause[24]”. It is more useful to think of my selfish act as a wrong choice, which I can make differently next time.

Application to Prejudice – then and now

There is a clear application of these types of arguments to prejudice, especially the usefulness and implications arguments as well as the possibility of change. The ancient Egyptians had their negative facts, but in a remarkable midrash, Pharaoh first tells his people they would be crazy to act against the nation that produced Joseph who saved them. They responded by deposing him for three months. He then agreed to see it their way[25], so he was reinstated as if he was a new king[26] and became the fear monger in chief. Their conservative family life could be seen as an asset, people in stable relationships are likely to be less distracted and more productive at work. Their abundant children and wealth could be seen as opportunities for Egyptian business, the Hebrews were not shopping on-line! In fact our sages say that the land was blessed because of the Hebrews[27].   

Mr. Santorum is not factually wrong when he refers to blacks on welfare, nor can one argue with his ethical point about wanting to replace welfare with work[28]. The problem is the implication of his statement; it reinforces a negative image of blacks. A more useful alternative would be to talk about people on welfare generally and as Mr. Jealous pointed out the total number of whites in this predicament is greater than that of blacks. If the context was different, if it was a conference about the welfare of blacks, that statement would have greater justification. Similarly, I was involved in a work situation where someone who happened to be a migrant had a problem with hygiene, if this was found to be a broader problem than addressing this in a focused, tactful way is appropriate. The way it came across in the media, it reinforced some prejudices about smelly foreigners[29].  

The Torah prohibits speaking about the faults of others unless it is for a legitimate purpose[30], eg. providing accurate information about a prospective marriage partner or to deal with a crime. It even avoids denigrating anything, except where this is needed for a purpose[31]. If we are convinced of a fault in another group and we can do something practical about it then we should, otherwise we need to consider additional evidence about whether it is as pervasive, permanent, or essential to people as it seems. Not everything that is true is worth saying. We also need to be mindful of the implications of what we might say and seek the most useful way to talk about it. Often it is optimistic.

  

When Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Beditchev saw a wagon-driver, wearing tallit and tefillin (holy prayer objects, normally only worn during prayer and treated with respect) whilst oiling the wheels of his wagon, Reb Levi Yitzchak exclaimed, “What a holy people is Israel! Even when they oil the wheels of their wagons, they are praying![32]”

---

[1]     Seligman, M, E, P, (1990), Learned Optimism, Random House, Australia

[2]     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxBiyb3gR3k&feature=related

[3]     http://www.drudge.com/news/152110/naacp-calls-santorum-outrageous

[4]     Exodus 1:1

[5]     Rabbi YY Tronk of Kutno, cited in Greenberg, A. Y.,  (1992), Torah Gems, Y. Orenstein Yavneh Publishing, Tel Aviv

[6]     Mechilta Mesechta Pesachim Bo 5

[7]     Shir Hashirim Rabba, cited in Torah Shlaima, Shemot, p 9, note that the rejected names were latin, which was relevant to the times in which this was written

[8]     Yelamdenu

[9]     Genesis 46:34

[10]    Genesis 47:6

[11]    Lekach Tov

[12]    Midrash Tanchuma Pekudei 9 ,states that there are some Rabbis who state that they were giving birth twins while others say they were having sextuplets

[13]    Midrash quoted in Rabbenu Bchai, and Daat Zekainim Mibaalei Hatosafot, cited in Torah Shlaima, Shemot, p 15

[14]    Exodus 1:7

[15]    Midrash Tanchuma Shemot 5 eg. bamboo is considered a weed in Australia, we have some growing on the side of our driveway and we have seen them grow and spread very quickly).

[16]    Old Midrash Tanchuma Shemot 5

[17]    Exodus 1:10

[18]    Bchor Shor

[19]   Seligman, p.109-111

[20]   Seligman

[21]   Seligman addresses the question about the need for taking personal responsibility, which is a strength. In some situations it is the right way to think about a problem so that we can solve it. In other situations, one can take a disproportionate amount of responsibility for things that are not entirely under our own control, in such cases one cannot correct the problem and instead it is just demoralising and depressing. A variation of this dilemma is discuss in Tanya, if I see myself as wicked I will become depressed, but if I am happy despite seeing myself as wicked then I will become callous  or irresponsible (Rabbi Schenur Zalman of Liadi, chapter 1).

[22] Tanya, Rabbi Schenur Zalman of Liadi, chapter 31,

[23]  Tanya, chapter 26, Seligman p. 218

[24]  R. Shlomo of Karlin, http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/the-chassidic-approach-to-joy/02.htm same statement with different wording,

[25]   Midrash, Shemot Rabba 1:9, Midrash Tanchuma 5

[26]  Exodus 1:8, and there arose a new king over Egypt who did not know Joseph

[27]  Midrash Chefetz, from a manuscript cited in Torah Shlaima, p.18

[28]  Mimonedes’ highest level of charity is to help someone get on to their own feet.

[29]  Professor, Andrew Jakubowicz http://www.smh.com.au/national/truss-raps-gambaro-for-migrant-hygiene-remark-20120110-1ptjs.html

[30] Hilchot Lashon Hara, sefer Chafetz Chaim, http://www.torah.org/learning/halashon/chapter10.html

[31]  The Lubavitcher Rebbe

[32] http://www.oztorah.com/2008/10/noah-was-a-righteous-man-noach/ with some variation in details reflecting the way the story was told to me 

Authority, Compliance, Defiance – Hazare, Gaddafi & the “Malaysia Solution” Shoftim

I have seriously revised this post, after writing the first version of this. We had a great discussion on Shabbat afternoon at Chabad House about dissent. Added a whole bunch of new sources. Also learned some things from the other participats in our group today. Thanks to loyal attendees. Here is the link,  http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com/2011/09/dissent-when-you-think-authority-is.html

There was a moment in my working life when I was ordered to act against my own conscience, this infuriated me. I thank God I was able to stand my ground.



Photo by Josh Lopez Used with General Permission

In recent days we have witnessed the capture of Gaddafi’s compound, the cave-in of the Indian Government to a hunger striker and in Australia, the successful challenge of our Government’s strategy to transfer Asylum seekers to Malaysia in the courts. My Muslim friends have celebrated their Eid festival on two different days this week, only some of them in compliance with the Australian Imam’s Council. Regardless of what one thinks about each of these cases, I think, that just as defying authority is noble in some situations, there are times when falling into line is wise, pragmatic, or just plain right. It is a good time to consider what the Torah has to say on the topic.

Value of authority

We are commanded, judges and police officers shall you put in all your gates...and they shall judge the people a just justice[i]. Clearly the value of maintaining order is high.

Even if they are wrong?

One view is that we only obey the sages if they are correct. We are instructed to 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 of to the left[ii]. This is interpreted 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[iii].

This same phrase is interpreted in the exact opposite way by Rashi. He takes it to mean that even if he tells you about right, that it is left and that left is right...[iv] This staggering statement essentially says that if the religious authority instructs you to do the wrong thing you should do it anyway. According to one 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[v].

The most challenging for me is the explanation by the Ramban. He lived over 1000 years since Jewish law courts had the authority to preside over capital cases, so his talk about killing an innocent person had no bearing on practical on actual decision making. With this disclaimer in place, let us explore his words. “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...[vi]. I have to assume that this very different to the Nuremberg defence of “I was just following orders”, perhaps the distinction is between religious and secular orders but I have don’t find that a compelling difference.     

Are they really 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. The original phrase that Rashi quotes is even if it seems to you (that he tells you about) right, that it is left and that left is right, listen to them. [vii]Or this interpretation, if he tells you about right, which you thinks is left, or about left which you think is right you should listen to him and 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[viii]. The overall effect of these ideas is 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.

Relativism?

Another explanation is that being that these are matters of logic, there cannot be a “right and left”.[ix]. I understand this to be bringing in the principle that matters of logic are open to debate and are not to be thought of absolutes.

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[x]! The judge is warned not take bribes because the bribe will blind the eyes of the wise and ruin the words of the righteous[xi]. 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[xii].

                                                                 

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[xiii]. 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[xiv]. No naïve assumptions of religious leaders retaining purity just by virtue of their office and past righteousness.

Civil Disobedience

Despite the strong guidance about the need to obey the sages, obeying political leaders is quite a different matter[xv]. This is especially true with the midwives in Egypt who defied the evil king Pharaoh’s order to kill Jewish baby boys[xvi]. 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[xvii]. Maimonides makes it very clear that when a King’s instructions contradict those of the Torah, the king is to be disobeyed[xviii]. This follows the Talmudic idea, “the words of the teachers and the words of the students, which is to be obeyed?[xix]”  

Conclusion

There is value in the preservation of authority but this is not an absolute value. There are certainly situations where human authority is overridden. Is Hana Hazare acting appropriately by fighting corruption or wrongly by holding democratic institutions to ransom? I am not across the details of that situation, nor do I have much more to contribute to the other instances I mentioned of defiance of the powers that be. I am still challenged by the sources I have gathered about this whole issue from Torah sources. Further study would be useful as this topic is far from closed for me.

---

[i] Deuteronomy 16:18

[ii] Deuteronomy 17:9-11

[iii] Jerusalem Talmud Horiyos 1:1

[iv] Rashi on 17:11

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

[vi] Ramban on 17:11

[vii] Sifre

[viii] Sifse Chachamim

[ix] Sifse Chachamim

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

[xi] Deuteronomy 16:19

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

[xiii] Deuteronomy ibid

[xiv] Klei Yakar

[xv] 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

[xvi] Exodus 1:15-19

[xvii] Samuel I, 22:16-17

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

[xix] Talmud, Kiddushin 42b

Guilt, Pride, Rats and thoughts for my friend the next premier of NSW

While the state of NSW prepares for an election where the next premier will be certainly be an Irish Catholic[i] "friend" of mine, Jews continue to read about sacrifices in the yearly Torah reading cycle. Among the varied purposes of sacrifices, one is to make sinners more aware of the seriousness of their sin, particularly accidental sins[ii]. In a society that sees guilt as a very bad thing, this post seeks to explore what guidance Torah offers on this issue for all of us and particularly political leaders.

The case against wallowing in guilt can be based on it's consequences. If people sees themselves as wicked they will either feel depressed and be prevented from serving God with joy, or if they remain cheerful in spite despite their perceived wickedness they will come to callousness[iii]. While some would think that religion wants people to be miserable, Hasidim say that feeling depressed is not a sin, but it can be more damaging than any sin. R. Shneur Zalman likens the spiritual struggle of life to a wrestling match. If one of the fighters is sluggish and miserable, he will easily be overpowered by his opponent. He argues that one must seek ideas to rid oneself of sadness relating to shortcomings in spiritual matters, except in certain set times[iv].  

On the other side of this argument, we learn that regret about past misdeeds is critical to addressing   them and personal redemption. One difference between a completely wicked person and a “Wicked person with some good[v]” is that (some of)  “the wicked are filled with regrets”. King David speaks movingly about his regret about the incident with Bat-Sheba when he says “my sin is always before me[vi]”.

Two of the types of sacrifices offered in the temple related to sin, the Chatat and Asham. The Zohar talks about the verse “the sacrifices of God, are the broken spirit[vii]”.  “I heard from the holy luminary, that when a person comes to be defiled in his sins he brings the spirit of impurity upon himself…when the temple stood, a person brought a sacrifice and his atonement was left hanging until he becomes regretful and breaks the spirit from the spirit of impurity. If the spirit of impurity is not broken the sacrifice is nothing and it is given away to the dogs[viii]”.

It can be argued that personal failings might be an asset to a leader, perhaps helping her/him understand the challenges of the people they seek to lead[ix]. The Talmud seems to be suggesting just that when it asks “Why did the Kingdom of the house of Saul the son of Kish, not continue? Because he had no “taint” or reproach[x]”. This is contrasted with David who had some type of skeleton in his closet. The Talmud asserts that we do not appoint an administrator of the community  unless he has a box of rodents hanging on his back[xi]”.This is so that if he became arrogant he can be told to turn around.

The theme of humility seems to compete with messages of Kings or leaders asserting themselves.  We have the commandment that a King must write a Torah scroll for himself so that his heart is not elevated above his brothers. On the other hand, we are taught “every scholar who does not take revenge and holds grudges like a snake is not a scholar”[xii]. This surprising teaching is challenged by the commandment “do not take revenge and do not hold a grudge[xiii]”. And the teaching that “those who are embarrassed but don't embarrass others and do not reply, acts out of love and rejoice in suffering, it is about them that the verse states “those he loves like when the sun comes out in it's strength[xiv]”the conclusion is that depends on whether the scholar is appeased, and if the offender asked for forgiveness[xv]. This offers an interesting mix of advice to our leaders, with some thoughts our next premier might want to consider.

Cynics might question the sincerity of the politicians’ friendship I referred to. After all, we are taught, “Be careful with the ruling authorities, as they don't bring a person close except for their own purpose, they seem like loving friends at the time when it is for their benefit, but do not stand by a man in his time of pressure[xvi]”. I trust that be it Barry or Kristina, they will defy the trend to the best of their ability. My prayers are with them to navigate the challenges of the coming days and weeks.

---

[i] Observation by NSW Premier Kristina Keneally at St. Patricks day celebration that with two candidates one named Keneally and the other O'Farrel the winner of the election will be Irish. I have had several friendly conversations with the present premier and the opposition leader and consider them friends in the broad sense of the word.

[ii] Rema, Torat HaOla, chapter 1, cited in Torah Shlaima, volume 25, p265, ”that a person should be careful to avoid accidental sins, because he will see that he will be punished with his money because of his accidental sin, because also one who sins accidentally is called a sinner because a person is always a Muad (completely responsible, as opposed to the owner of a goring ox, whose ox is declared a “Tam”, and must only pay ½ the cost of damages caused the first three times before it's problematic nature is established).

[iii] Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, Tanya chapter 1

[iv] Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, Tanya chapter 26

[v] As reflected in the concept of Rashah Vra Lo, vs Rasha Vtov Lo.

[vi]  Psalm 51

[vii]  Psalm 51

[viii]  Zohar Pinchas 203, in Torah Shlaima vol.25, p 275

[ix] R. Itamar B. Yisroel, Mishmeret Itamar, Beshalach, cited in Weiss, S. (1990), Insights A Talmudic Treasury, Feldheim, Jerusalem, Israel  p.32

[x]     Talmud Yoma 22b following translation by Jastrow, M. (1989), A Dictionary, Judaica Press New York

[xi]    Talmud Yoma 22b

[xii]   Talmud Yoma 23a

[xiii]  Leviticus 19:18

[xiv] Judges 5, Talmud Shabbat 88b

[xv]  Rashi on Yoma 23a

[xvi] Pirkey Avot (Chapters of the Fathers) 2:3