Revenge, Torah and Christianity

Anger, By Shubhojoy Mitra, creative commons license
http://www.cyberartgallery.org/?gallery=portal

The movie Ajami is an Israeli-Palestinian co-production that for me is about the heartbreaking cost of revenge. Much of the plot is driven by two Arabic teenagers, one a gentle sweet faced boy of around 14 who is a bit of an artist, and their family being pursued by a Bedouin crime family bent on avenging the death of one of theirs, unless they receive a financially crippling payment of blood money. An Israeli character also has his own vengeance to attend to after his soldier-brother is found dead near a Palestinian village. I empathised with both the Israeli and Arabic characters, portrayed as every day human beings who deeply love their families. Apart from humanising protagonists from both sides, my overwhelming impression was of the horrible needless suffering directly flowing from the perceived for some kind of vengeance.

I wonder if my low tolerance for revenge is the result of Christian influences on me, particularly from a young devout Christian peace builder I greatly admire named Jarrod McKenna. I remember when I first started work as a Rabbi 15 years ago, I was teaching a young adult about divine retribution as one of the themes the Friday night prayers. At the time, I thought this idea of divine justice was quite beautiful, righting the wrongs of the world. My student challenged me, would it not be better if at the end of days no one suffered? I remember reflecting on how different my perspective had been to that of my student who was raised with more exposure to Christian and secular influences.

These influences have been blocked out to some extent in the Hasidic community in Crown Heights that I was raised in. One on level it is fair enough for communities to stay true to their own teachings, the question is how to do that while fostering respectful interfaith relationships. The International Council of Christians and Jews’ called on Jewish communities to include basic and accurate background information about Christianity in the Curricula of Jewish schools[i]. In my very orthodox Chasidic community this is simply not going to happen.  I will not argue about the core objection to learning about other faiths generally, except to share what I was told by Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks[ii] that schools could teach about other faiths in the same way as one learns about other cultures.

This post looks at Torah sources about revenge and considers the Jewish- Christian relationship in that light.  

Prohibition of revenge and promotion of forgiveness

The verse “an eye for an eye[iii]” is not about revenge but monetary compensation[iv]. Revenge and even holding a grudge is forbidden in the text of the Torah[v]. One way to overcome the urge for revenge is by considering a case of a person cutting meat that accidentally cuts his arm, would he then take revenge and cut the hand that was holding the knife[vi]?! Faith can help a person see the hand of God in the offence, and this can help him not bear a grudge against the person who ‘acts as God’s tool’[vii].  This is dramatically played out in the story of Joseph when he insists on not holding a grudge against his brothers who sold him into slavery because he sees it all as fulfilment of God’s plan so that he could save many lives during the famine in Egypt[viii]. In the prayers before going to sleep, we proclaim forgiveness for anyone who sinned against me… in this life or another life…no one should be punished on my account[ix]. 

Permission and even encouragement of revenge

The teachings against revenge need to be considered alongside other guidance such as the clear instructions to take revenge against Midiyan[x] and never to forget the evil deeds of Amalek who attacked you us when we were vulnerable[xi]. This apparent contradiction is probably the reason the Talmud gives a very mundane example to illustrate this principle, a case of two people who want to borrow tools from each other. Refusal to lend a tool should not be reciprocated or even mentioned[xii]. The definition is narrowed to exclude cases of in which there is a monetary obligation[xiii], or in offenses against one’s body where there has been no apology[xiv], or murder in which case the relative would be encouraged to “redeem the blood” of his relative by killing his relatives killer with permission of the court[xv]. Scholars are encouraged to stand up against people who disrespect them, one sage going so far as to state that any sage that does not take revenge and hold a grudge like a snake is no scholar[xvi].  This has been explained as being about disrespect of the Torah the stage studied. Even God himself is portrayed (in addition to compassionate etc) as a God of vengeance[xvii]. One explanation of this is that God conquers anger while in a person who takes revenge the anger will conquer him[xviii].

Another consideration is that the prohibition of revenge refers explicitly to “the sons of your nation” and is understood to apply only between Jews[xix]. One argument by an East European commentator of the 16^th early 17^th century is that “disputes between Jews will typically be about unimportant offenses relating to money or body that don’t merit revenge but when revenge is permitted against someone from another nation because typically he wants to cause you to transgress the commandments of God and to lead you astray from God”[xx].  In his context that was probably true, yet it is ridiculous and highly offensive not to recognise the change of heart and efforts of Christians in the 2^nd half of the 20^th century toward reconciliation with the Jews.

A bold idea, embracing enemies

My Christian friend Jarrod is into radical peace building. He is not a saint and felt plenty of anger when a man he knew was murdered. Yet he believes that he is called to love his enemies. The Truth and Reconciliation process in South Africa seems to be an example of the value of that kind of approach. While not the same, parallel teaching can be found in Judaism. Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi famously warned his followers about his opponents known as Mitnagdim who framed him and caused him to be imprisoned in Czarist Russia. He called on his followers not to “jeer nor whistle derisively at them, heaven forfend… (instead to respond to their opponents)… with “a soft answer [that] turns away anger[xxi],” and with a restrained spirit. And through all that, perhaps God will put [a conciliatory and loving response] into the heart of their brethren”[xxii] God tells the offended party, “let your love for me overcome the hatred you have with him and through this peace will come between you[xxiii] and in another version,” let your love with him” presumably the one who hurt you, overcome the hatred…so that peace will come to the world[xxiv]”.

Conclusion

As a Jew, I still see some merit in the arguments that retribution has its place. There is a reason for the presence of this device in so many cultures. There are flawed human beings who will only restrain their unsavoury impulses out of fear of punishment[xxv]. While my tradition provides a mix of ideas about how to respond to grievances, I think in many cases it is worth emphasising the more generous teachings and applying them to people regardless of race or religion. Yet, there is something to be admired in the bold, positive, “game changing” approach of Christians to their enemies that can be supported by teachings within my own tradition.

---

[i] A time for recommitment, the twelve points of Berlin: A call to Christian and Jewish communities worldwide

[ii] Conversation I had with the Chief Rabbi at a private visit in his home March 2011

[iii] Exodus 21:24

[iv] Mechilta on Exodus and the Talmud in Ketuvot 32b and Bava Kamma 83b

[v] Leviticus 19:17

[vi] Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 9:4

[vii] Sefer Hachinuch Mitzvah 247, Tanya: Igeret HaKodesh - Epistle 25

[viii] Genesis 50:20

[ix] Siddur Tehilat Hashem p.141

[x] Number 31:2

[xi] Deuteronomy 25:17-19

[xii] Talmud Yoma 23a

[xiii] Ramban

[xiv] Hizkuni 19:17

[xv] Ramban

[xvi] Talmud Yoma 23a, commentary then softens it to say that the sage holds a grudge but does not fight back, he simply keeps it in his heart and then if someone else takes revenge on his behalf the sage is silent

[xvii] Psalms 94:1

[xviii] Hizkuni on

[xix] Kohelet Rabba 88:8

[xx] Klei Yakar, by Shlomo Ephraim ben Aaron Luntschitz (1550 –1619)

[xxi] Proverbs 15:1

[xxii] Tanya Igeret Hakodesh 2, translation from Chabad.org

[xxiii] Bchor shor

[xxiv] Hizkuni

[xxv] Pirkey Avot 3:2

Unspoken Words

There are words that need to be said about something painful but because of fear or foolishness they remain unspoken. In other cases, tact and wisdom correctly require silence.

I was amazed by the results of people talking things out, including their emotions using the “community conferencing” model. Two young men who were working together and driving each other crazy rang me one Saturday night at midnight to tell me they had enough and will not show up to run a children’s activity on Monday. We used a process that involved speaking about their experiences, and the impact of the others’ behaviour on them, particularly how it felt. As a result they were able to move on and work side by side, although they gave each other “space”. I have also been impressed with another structured process called transformative listening[1] which enables Palestinians and Israelis from opposing camps (on the religious/secular divide) to really hear each other.

To speak to those with whom we have a conflict[2] is commandment. In order to receive forgiveness for sins between people one must seek forgiveness from the victims[3]. Yet, so much is not talked about in so many situations. In this post, I explore this theme in the lives of Jacob and his sons.

Avoiding Dad and “that topic”

After Jacob reunited with his son Joseph in Egypt after being apart for 22 years when Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers the “elephant in the room” was the events of those lost 22 years. Jacob probably wanted to know more. According to one tradition, Joseph was so determined to avoid this conversation that he limits the time he spends with his beloved father. He is afraid that the truth might come out about the brother’s cruelty and his father will curse them in anger[4]. This would explain why Joseph needs to be told that his father is sick[5], rather than noticing this himself on what we would have otherwise assumed to be his frequent visits.

In the end it seems that Jacob knew what happened anyway. On his death bed he curses the anger of the key culprits in the sale of Joseph, his sons Simon and Levi[6]. Jacob would have realised that they had misled him when they brought him Joseph’s coat covered in blood and implied that a wild animal had devoured Joseph[7].  Yet they never admit their actions to Jacob, nor do they seek his forgiveness for his suffering in missing his son, so their sin is not forgiven[8]. Instead this issue is left to fester and even on Jacob’s death bed it is not resolved but only hinted at. Perhaps it was too hard.

Inadequate Conversation?

Unlike the situation with Jacob where it was possible to avoid talking about the sale completely, the brothers do hold some discussion with Joseph. Perhaps it is resolved too quickly. Joseph lets his brothers off the hook, even telling them “it is not you who have sent me here, but God (who intended for Joseph to be sold into slavery so that he could play his historic role in a) “great salvation[9]” during the famine. The brothers were unable to respond because they were overwhelmed[10] and ashamed[11]. Joseph reassures his brothers, he kisses all his brothers and cries on them, they don’t kiss nor cry. They do manage to talk with him but not about their treatment of him. One view was that they simply did some catching up[12] but whatever they talked about was not of enough significance for the Torah to tell us what it was they said[13].

Unfinished business

It would seem that there was no cost for the brothers being spared the embarrassment of discussing their crime[14] again their own brother, apparently not. When Jacob dies, the brothers are seized by fear that Joseph might hate them and take revenge. They concoct a false instruction[15] from their dead father which they send with a messenger to Joseph, “so shall you say to Joseph, please forgive the sin of your brothers...[16]” Joseph cries when he hears that his brothers suspect him of holding a grudge against them[17] but says nothing about this, instead he continues with the reversal of roles, the victim reassuring the perpetrators. To their credit at least they did one thing right[18], (after first using a messenger) they showed up in person.  Still, they don’t say to Joseph that they are sorry for what they have done, instead they fall to the ground and offer themselves as slaves.

Triggers – also not discussed

What triggered the brothers concern about retribution? A clue is found in the text preceding their renewed fears, “the brothers saw that their father had died”[19]. One view is that as long as Jacob was alive all of Joseph’s brothers would eat at his table but this stopped when their father died[20]. The reason for this was that as long as Jacob was alive, Joseph sat at the head of the table on his fathers instructions, now he was concerned that sitting there would be disrespectful to Reuben who was the first born...[21]. He could not change the order, as this would be considered disrespectful to their father[22], so opting out was the only option. Another interpretation is that on the way back from their fathers funeral in Canaan, Joseph stopped to recite a prayer at the pit that his brothers had thrown him into. Joseph is implicitly criticized for not ensuring that his intentions were clear to his brothers[23]. It appears that the relationship between Joseph and his brothers was a fragile one, bearing the deep scars of the unresolved trauma of selling him into slavery.

Reubens’ unspoken regret

On Jacob’s death bed another unresolved issue surfaces. Jacob harshly reprimands Reuben for his sin with one of Jacob’s wives, Bilhah. The text of the Torah tells us that Reuben slept with Bilhah[24], while according to our sages he merely moved her bed[25]. Whatever actually happened, I have not noticed in any of the sources that this awkward issue was discussed between father and son except in hints on Jacob’s death bed. The only time we find Reuben talk with his father, Reuben offers his sons as a guarantee for the safety of Benjamin[26], Jacob either ignores him[27] or calls him an “idiot first born[28]”. Although never talked to Jacob about his deed, Reuben deeply regretted it action and fasted to atone for it[29]. The deathbed treatment of Judah offers a hint about what might have been if they had talked earlier.   

Roadside harlots and burials

There are two problematic roadside events Jacobs leaves for his last moments. Judah does not know how his father feels about his having twins from a liaison with his daughter-in -law who he thought was a prostitute[30]. When Judah hears his fathers harsh words to three of his brothers “he trembles backward waiting for his rebuke, instead his father is reassuring you are not like the others[31]”. One reason given for Judah’s positive treatment is his having admitted his sin[32].

Then there is Rachel’s burial on the side of the road in Bethlehem[33]. Jacob knew that Joseph is holding a decades old grudge[34] about his mother’s lowly burial outside the family plot in Hebron. When Jacob asks Joseph to attend to his own burial in the family plot[35], Joseph asks him about this as this distressed him greatly. Jacob began to answer him…and I when I came from Padan[36], by your life just as you wanted that your mother should be buried (there) so did I want it… Joseph asks if perhaps it was the rainy season, no his father says. …It was by God’s command that she was buried there as one day her children will walk on that road and they will hug her tomb and she will stand up and pray for them[37].  One thing I learned from a leader in the field of preserving dignity in conflict, mediation expert and of ‘Conscious Connectivity: Creating Dignity in Conversation[38]’ Michelle Brenner, is that it is important to share one’s own struggle. Jacob gets this right, and also talks of Rachel’s death being the most difficult for him, even more than all his other troubles[39]. I think is sad that they both had this between them for some many years, but at least it is resolved.  

Conclusion

Managing relationships is more an art than a science. The ancients probably had some valuable insights into talk and silence. We are taught that “with many words, there will be no lack of sin[40]”, and there is “nothing better than silence”[41].  On the other hand, there is a strong case to be made within our tradition for fuller conversations about issues that are easier to avoid. We are taught about admitting guilt, admonition, and given hints about struggle as well as tact. We should also look outside our tradition[42] for practical insights into preserving dignity in situations of conflict. Our sages have identified four categories for speech[43], none of them explicitly includes structured conversation in the Community Conferencing or Transformative Listening models. Yet we are called to utilise speech for upright conduct and the development of character, to combine the wisdom of both.

---

[1]     Shalif, Y, Creating Care-Full Listening and Conversations between Members of Conflicting Groups in Israel: Narrative Means to Transformative Listening,
http://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/jsyt.24.1.35.65911?journalCode=jsyt

[2]     Leviticus 19:17

[3]    Mimonedes, Yad, Laws of repentance 2:9

[4]    Pesikta Rabbati, also cited in Daat Zekainim Mbaalei Hatosafot

[5]    Genesis 48:1

[6]    Genesis 49:6, “with their will they uprooted an ox”, Midrash Hagadol, also Rashi explain that the ox refers to Joseph, also see Midrash Tanchuma Yashan on Genesis 37:19 where he identified Simon and Levi as playing a key role in the sale of Joseph

[7]    Genesis 36:33

[8]    In the Yom Kippur Musaf prayer, we read the account of the brutal murder of 10 sages who are punished in the place of Jacob’s 10 sons

[9]    Genesis 45:5, 7, 8

[10]  Genesis 45:3

[11]  Rashi

[12]  Radak writes that they asked him about what happened with him since the day they separated and how he ascended to greatness

[13]  The major Midrashim and Rashi don’t bother with the contents of this conversation, interestingly, Bchor Shor writes that the conversation was about annulling the oath of secrecy about the sale of Joseph

[14]  Although they don’t talk to Joseph about it directly, they have at least verbalised their regret earlier saying to each other “But we are guilty about our brother, when we saw the distress of his soul, when he pleaded with us and we did not listen… “ (Genesis 42:21).

[15]  Talmud Yavamot 65b

[16]  Genesis 50:17

[17]  Beresheet Rabba

[18]  Lekach Tov

[19]  Genesis 50:15

[20]  Beresheet Rabba 100:8, Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel

[21]  Beresheet Rabba ibid, Tzor Hamor

[22]  Etz Yosef commentary on Beresheet Rabba

[23]  Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer, cited in Nehama Liebowitz, New Studies in Bereshit. Joseph is cited as an example of the need to do right not just by God, but also for people to know one has done right

[24]  Genesis 35:22

[25]  Talmud Shabbat 55a

[26]  Genesis 42:37

[27]  Avot Drabbi Natan, cited in Torah Shlaima p. 1590

[28]  Beresheet Rabba 91

[29]  Beresheet Rabba 84

[30]     Genesis 38:6-30

[31]    Beresheet Rabba cited in Rashi

[32]    Midrash Tanchuma, Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel

[33]     Genesis 35:19

[34]     Rashi

[35]     Genesis 47:30

[36]     Genesis 48:7

[37]     Pesikta Rabbati 3

[38]    http://www.amazon.com/conscious-connectivity-creating-dignity-conversation/dp/1453815171/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1325756946&sr=8-3

[39]     Ruth Rabba 2:7

[40]    Proverbs 10:19

[41]  Pirkey Avot 1:17

[42]    Eicha Rabba 2:13, if someone says there is wisdom among the nations you should believe him

[43]     Both cited in Beit Habechira on Pirkey Avot 1:17, Mivchar Hapeninim, gate of silence 12, lists 4 types of words,
a) that we can anticipate benefits and fear of their consequences, eg. speaking against one person to help another.
b) that we anticipate damage but no benefit at all, such as profanity and tale bearing.
c) that we can anticipate neither damage nor benefits, such as telling what happened, news in the time of war.
d) that we can anticipate only benefit and no damage at all eg. re: wisdom and about good character. He advocates that we limit speech to the fourth category. 

Shiktzeh! Imposing One's Beliefs & Morals – Joseph & Beit Shemesh

By Seth Frantzman, licensed for
non-commercial reuse under terms as per
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en

A shocking example of seeking to impose religious standards on others was reported recently in Beit Shemesh, Israel. A seven year old girl who is afraid to go to school because of harassment by zealots has really brought this question home. (See video) With the qualification that media reports always only show part of the story, I think it is reasonable to assume there is a serious problem. Of course the behaviour we are seeing is absolutely wrong. 

My heart is with the demonstrators who asserted on Tuesday night that anyone who spits on a seven year old girl, spits on the beauty of Judaism and destroys its values[1]. They are right. This behaviour is not justified by the Torah “whose ways are pleasantness and all its paths are peace[2]”.  It would be wrong to blame whole communities for this and turn this into an anti-Haredi issue. Still, I think that before we can wash our hands of this, we need to consider the context out of which this outrage has come, as part of a strategy to prevent it in the future.    

This post explores whether the behaviour we are seeing is to be understood as an extreme manifestation of a broader rejection of pluralism. I think that because some traditional sources reflect anti-pluralist perspectives, work must be undertaken to establish and promote a compelling religious argument within a Torah perspective for greater tolerance of more practices[3] and beliefs that differ to ones own. Exhibit A. is the case of Joseph (Jacob’s son) and the degree to which his own beliefs influences his rule of a society who did not share his beliefs.

Ruling Egypt from a Jewish perspective – Mass Circumcision?

One surprising commentary about Joseph’s rule of Egypt is the suggestions that Joseph forced the Egyptians to circumcise themselves as a condition for being allowed to purchase food[4]. This baffling idea is offered as an explanation[5] for the odd wording with which Pharaoh responds to his people who cry out to him for food, “go to Joseph, whatever he tells you, you shall do[6]”. A simpler interpretation of this verse is that Pharaoh advised them to pay whatever price Joseph demands[7]. The idea that Joseph would impose his own religious practice on the people of Egypt is problematic on many levels[8]. While one commentator limits this idea to tribes related to Abraham that had previously undertaken the practice of circumcision[9], this is a bit of a stretch, with the simple meaning being that Joseph imposed this on Egypt as a whole. Why?

An Anti-Promiscuity Measure

One relatively recent view with echoes in the controversy in Beit Shemesh is that Joseph was concerned about the Egyptians who were steeped in promiscuity, so he introduced circumcision as a counter measure presumably to decrease desire[10].

Ironically, our sages never thought of as circumcision as a guarantee against sexual sin. This is the reason for the Yichud laws, which prohibit a Jewish man from being alone with a strange woman[11] with the door locked. In some there is significant segregation of the sexes in many aspects of life among the ultra-orthodox. While these varied measures have served the communities well and helped minimize if not prevent adultery and promiscuity, it’s imposition on others is wrong. Yet, this commentary can be taken to suggest otherwise. It also positions the other as promiscuous while viewing “us” as chaste. I am afraid there is too much in our tradition that the Beit Shemesh zealots can take further than reasonable people have in the past. 

Other views about Joseph’s “Virtue Policy”

One manuscript that softens this idea is that Joseph inspired Egyptians to want to circumcise themselves[12]. Another view is that as it was a time of hunger, it was important for the people to exercise restraint in terms of their eating and it was deemed useful to more generally initiate ‘character repair’ with the father of the fathers of this process being circumcision[13]. This links with the idea that a famine increases hunger so that people would eat three times as much[14] (if and when they can). The implications of these interpretations are still conducive to “us good and them not as good” thinking.

God doesn’t feed Heathens?

Another version of the circumcision story includes Joseph telling the Egyptians my God does not feed the uncircumcised, go and circumcise yourselves and I will give you[15]. The idea that God does not feed the uncircumcised, contradicts our belief that God feed all his creatures.

A “Muslim/Sufi story

Judaism has compelling ideas about the value of all people, yet for me in spite of almost 40 years of immersion in the world of Torah, what comes to mind is a Muslim story. “The Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) would not eat unless there was some guest at his table. Once,  Abraham went out in search of a guest and he found one very old man. He invited the old man to dine with him and the man agreed. When Abraham asked him to pray before eating the man refused, Abraham was angry and refused to feed him. When he did so he heard a voice from above: “Abraham, how old is that man? I tolerated him, (the old man) fed and sustained him for seventy years despite his disbelief and you could not tolerate him for seven minutes?! Abraham repented and took the old man home for dining[16].” I wish I had a ready Jewish response of equal strength, I believe we need to find one and ensure it is well known.

Egyptian law and custom rather vs. own faith? – The Property of the Priests 

We have another case, this time in the Torah itself. We are told that Joseph was entrusted with sweeping powers over Egypt; no man will raise arm or leg without your permission[17].  Despite these powers, when Joseph effectively nationalises all land in Egypt in exchange for food and seeds, he excludes the priests. Because it is a fixed settlement for the priests from Pharaoh and they ate their fixed portion that Pharaoh gave them, therefore they did not sell their fields… Joseph set this as law… only the land of the priests did not become the possession of the Pharaoh[18]. This suggests that Joseph’s set aside his personal religious views, because he was acting not as a private individual but on behalf of the Egyptian state and Pharaoh.

Alternative Explanations

Traditional commentaries offer other explanations, eg. Joseph returned a favour to the priests for speaking out in his favour when he was accused of attempted rape by the wife of Potiphar[19]. His master had sought to have him executed but because of the priests he was saved from execution[20]. A minority view goes so far as to suggest that we are not talking about priests at all but rather officials of war and the royal chariots[21], this is based on the multiple meanings of the Hebrew word כהנים (Cohanim is plural of Cohen, which can either mean priest or official). It seems that the idea of Joseph paying respect to the priests of idol worship is too offensive and implausible.

The light of Chanukah

The demonstration in Beit Shemesh happened on the last night of Chanukah, and was said to be bringing the light on the festival to the city[22]. Chanukah could be about affirming a live and let live approach. We could celebrate the triumph of religious freedom and the victory of the weak minority against those who sought to impose their way of life on them. Yet, for many it is not so much about the few resisting the many but more about the “the defiled being (given to defeat in) the hand of the pure[23]”.  

Limits of tolerance

It is necessary for communities to establish standards. I think it is right and proper for communities to decide how to deal with various challenges such as lust and assert their views. If religious Jewish men and women want to sit separately on a bus and cover up almost all their skin, that is their right. If people object to the imposition of standards on others, they have a right to make and enforce laws that prevent people being harassed for how they dress in public spaces or where they choose to sit on a bus. We need a robust tolerance that respects ourselves as well as the other.  

A choice between risks – shiktze vs. relativism  

Orthodox Judaism is committed to the idea that it has the absolute Truth. This is not going to be negotiated. In view of this, I can think of two significant options, one is to rely on teachings like “greet all people with a friendly face[24]” to counter the implications in sources such as those quoted above. The risk is the doubly offensive use of words like “Shiktzeh”. This is a yiddish version of a hebrew word being something disgusting that some people have used to refer to a non-Jewish woman. Thankfully, many orthodox Jews do not use this word. In situations like Beit Shemesh it has been unforgivably used interchangeably with words like promiscuous or slut.

The other option is to embrace an ethic that requires us to think about the other and their beliefs and practices as equal at least in the sense that we must treat their choices as we would like them to treat ours. A strong secular education that values the wisdom of all nations would be essential for the second option to succeed. This option carries the risk of slipping into relativism or at least weakening the degree to which Judaism is seen as a superior path. I am in favour of the second option.

... in today's multicultural world, the truly reliable path to coexistence, to peaceful coexistence and creative cooperation, must start from what is at the root of all cultures and what lies infinitely deeper in human hearts and minds than political opinion...It must be rooted in self-transcendence. Transcendence as a hand that reaches out to those close to us, to foreigners, to the human community, to all living creatures, to nature, to the universe; transcendence as a deeply and joyously experienced need to be in harmony even with what we ourselves are not...[25]"
-Vaclav Havel

---

[1] Tzviki Levin, http://www.facebook.com/groups/LightBetShemesh/permalink/271476442910094/

[2] Proverbs 3:17

[3] This tolerance does not need to be absolute. People of all persuasions find certain behaviours intolerable, eg. incest, theft, or indeed the behaviour of the zealots in Beit Shemesh. I would argue that the tolerance threshold needs to be higher and more open minded, with fewer behaviours being deemed intolerably offensive

[4] Midrash Beresheet Rabba, As mentioned elsewhere, the Midrash is not about what literally happened at the time but rather about teaching us something

[5] Rashi, Rabbenu Bchai

[6] Genesis 41:55, This implausible scenario is explained by Midrash Tanchuma by the sheer terror felt by the Pharaoh. Pharaoh asks the people why they did not store grain them selves? When they reply that they had stored grain but it rotted, Pharaoh is afraid that it is Joseph’s powers that caused the rot and that if the people disobey him, Joseph might decree that they should all die

[7] Chizkuni

[8] There is the ethical obligation of Joseph toward Pharaoh and the Egyptian people to carry out his duties in accordance with the purpose for which he was given his role, eg. to ensure that the Egyptians had what to eat. It is an obvious abuse of that trust and the office to use it for advancing some other agenda, regardless of how holy the thinks it is. There is also the concept in Judaism of 7 universal commandments that are applicable to all people which does not include circumcision.  

[9] Torah Shlaima, p. 1563 based on the view of the Rosh that the sons of Ishmael and Keturah were obligated to circumcise themselves

[10] Klei Yakar, in addition Klei Yakar explains that there was a direct causal link between Joseph’s stored wheat being persevered and the fact that he was circumcised.

[11] eg. A woman he is not married to, nor a direct relation such as sister, daughter, mother

[12] Torah Shlaima p. 1563

[13] Yefat Torah, cited in Torah Shlaima p. 1563

[14] Lekach Tov

[15] Midrash Tanchuma Miketz 6

[16] I heard this story from a religious Muslim, also http://www.bodhicitta.net/Compassion%20in%20Islam%202.htm

[17] Genesis 41:44

[18] Genesis 47:22 & 26 A careful reading of the verses could yield the explanation for Joseph not buying the priests land, being because the priests did not need to because they got food directly from Pharaoh, as mentioned in Bchor Shor. Yet, this royal stipend was presumably also administered by Joseph and he would have had the power to cancel it, this view is implied in the question of Sechel Tov, “Why did Joseph agree to give wheat to the priests?” and the interpretation of Yonatan Ben Uziel in the following paragraph

[19] Sechel Tov, cited in Torah Shlaima p. 1716

[20] Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel, They suggested Joseph’s garment be examined to see how it was torn when he got away from her. If it is torn from the front then her story was correct but if it was torn at the back then Joseph was obviously running away from her and she was chasing him. The tear was found at the back of the garment (Tur)

[21] This is the view found in a Manuscript of Moshav Zkainim cited in Torah Shlaima and Chizkuni, the view that we are discussing priests is found in Rashi, Sechel Tov, Midrash Hagadol, Unkelus, Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel, Bchor Shor and Radak  

[22] Tzviki Levin, as above

[23] Al Hanisim prayer recited during Chanukah

[24] Avot 1:15

[25] http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/historical/biography/vaclav_havel_civic_forum.html