Responses to Sexual Abuse and attitudes to the secular - Mishpatim

The suffering inflicted by sexual abuse is horrific. The Jewish religious leadership in Australia has stated that the belief by some that involving secular authorities in situations of child protection is contrary to Torah is wrong. To ostracise or mistreat vulnerable people because of their speaking out in pursuit of justice and healing is both vile and a terrible sin. To protect criminals is to be complicit in their crimes. To say these things is useful, but I think it is not enough! We can’t just wash our hands of the unacceptable viewpoints that were expressed at the royal commission into Institutional Responses to Sexual Abuse. Instead we must reflect on how someone who is part of the same faith community as we are, can come to hold such views. 

One element is in this is the attitude that some religious people have to the secular world. In the Torah reading this week, laws relating to damages and similar matters are introduced with the phrase: “these are the laws you shall put before them” (1).   The words “before them” are interpreted as referring to a Torah court. "Even in cases where secular law (“of idol worshippers”) is identical to the laws of Israel, it is forbidden to use them (2)”.

Let’s look at this Torah reading a little more closely. In the first instance, context is critical. There is some value in monetary disputes (within faith communities) being resolved with the assistance of learned people familiar with the principles held dear to both parties to a dispute. The case of child sexual abuse is completely different, as has been pointed out by many Australian rabbis. The obligation to protect the innocent is paramount and must be handled by those suitably equipped, namely the police and the courts. It is outrageous that anyone could be so attached to religious authority (and mistrustful/disrespectful of secular authority) as to disregard the obvious imperative of child protection by secular authorities.    

As religious people, it is incumbent upon us to acknowledge the capabilities of the secular society that we are so fortunate to live in. Our tradition teaches that "while the Torah is to be found among Jewish scholars, wisdom is found among people of all nations" (3). When confronted with allegations of sexual abuse, we must call on those with the expertise to deal with it and the power to lock perpetrators away.

The cries of the abused are heard by God, and the response foreshadowed in the Torah is harsh and merciless. “If he cries out to me, I will surely hear his cries and my anger will flare up, I will kill you with a sword and your wives will be widows and your children orphans (4)”. I feel some sadness for one of the perpetrators, who I know. However, the welfare of survivors (and the protection of potential victims) is far more important than the suffering of the perpetrators. Our sages teach that “those who are merciful to the cruel will ultimately be cruel to the merciful” (5).

Many years ago, Jewish law developed the concept of a “Moser”, which refers to "one who hands over a Jewish person to the authorities". This law developed during a period when governments were extremely corrupt and bigoted against Jews. A Jew could not expect a fair trial. This is not the case in Australia.

My prayer is that with all the problems exposed, my community will enjoy the benefits of a culture that fosters safety for young people, encourages whistle blowers, and fosters appropriate respect for secular wisdom and authority.

(1) Exodus 21:1
(2) Talmud Gittin 88b
(3) Midrash Eicha Rabba 2:13
(4) Exodus 22:22-23
(5) Midrash Tanchuma, Metzora 1, Yalkut Shimoni, 247

Semantics? Meaning, Religion in Curriculum and Coexistence

Dr. Kevin Donnelly

“People would argue furiously, although they essentially agreed with each other” a former politician told me this week, reflecting the way that words can obscure meaning. I was thinking about this dynamic this week on my way to a meeting with, Dr. Kevin Donnelly, a critic of the Australian Curriculum along with stakeholders and academics concerned with the place of religion in curriculum. It was significant that we had all these people in the same room because on the surface it would appear that they are very far apart on the issues we were discussing. Yet, it is not clear to what extent the differences are substantial or semantic.

Dr. Donnelly’s review of the curriculum included a recommendation that many took as being about “the contribution of Western civilisation [and] our Judeo-Christian heritage” (1). This understanding was based on reading the text of a recommendation in the review which begins with a call for more “emphasis on morals, values and spirituality”, as being defined by the second part of the sentence in which the only example of this that is mentioned is that of “Judeo-Christian heritage” (2).   Donnelly has argued that he was calling for teaching about all religions.
I think the recommendation is actually advocating for three things.
 A. Students should be instructed into morality and good values.
B.  Students should learn about spirituality in its various forms.
C. The balance in the Australian Curriculum between recognition of non- Anglo/non- Christian traditions on the one hand and “Our Judeo-Christian heritage… and British” influences on the other hand, should be tipped to favour the later rather than the former.

While there is a lot to debate here, there is also some common ground.
My optimism is based in part of the idea that words are far less important than the meaning they seek to convey. This idea is one way of dealing with a series of discrepancies in the two versions of the Ten Commandments given in the Torah (3). One version prohibits “coveting” while the other forbids desire of your fellow’s house etc.  One text commands us to remember the Sabbath while the other demands we keep it. According to prominent Jewish commentator, Abraham Ibn Ezra, this is unimportant because “the words are the body, while the meaning is the soul” (4). 

The debate about the importance of words plays out in the way another verse is interpreted. The Torah states: “and Moses went up to God, and God called him from the mountain” (5). Ibn Ezra liberally interprets this verse by reversing the sequence, suggesting that God first called Moses and only then did Moses ascend. Surely, he would not have gone up without permission! (6) What this approach gains in rational explanation it loses in nuance and potential meaning. An alternative view suggests that the sequence relates to the principle that "in holiness, there is no advance except for the one who prepares himself and is aroused..." (7) Like Moses, we are invited to take the initiative and begin to climb the spiritual mountain. If we prepare, God will respond by calling us "with endearment and greatness".

What a contrast! Of course words matter! An insightful message about spiritual growth can be inferred from the precise words. The same approaches are taken to the singular form of the word ויחן “rested” (which in Hebrew is always either be singular or plural) to tell us that "Israel camped opposite the mountain (8)". Ibn Ezra dismisses the nuance (9) while others see a hint in it, that the people overcame their differences and became “like one man with other heart” united in anticipation of receiving the Torah, (10) and “loving peace thus deserving the Torah which is all [about] peace” (11).

There are times when the words carry the meaning well, and in other times they distract from the meaning. The varying relationships between words and meaning gives me some hope that young people in Australia might one day still have the opportunity to learn about each other's inner life and be one step closer to understanding. Once we take a step ‘on the mountain’ we might be helped to go further, to truly connect with each other “as one man, with one heart” in peace and respect.

Notes:
 (1) Final Report, Australian Curriculum Review, http://docs.education.gov.au/node/36269, recommendation 15 of the review of the Australian Curriculum: “ACARA revise the Australian Curriculum to place more emphasis on morals, values and spirituality as outlined in the Melbourne Declaration, and to better recognise the contribution of Western civilisation, our Judeo-Christian heritage, the role of economic development and industry and the democratic underpinning of the British system of government to Australia’s development”.
(2) The construct of a “Judeo-Christian” heritage has been critiqued from various perspectives. The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, has reportedly expressed concern to Rabbi Avraham Shemtov about Islam being excluded from a conception of a Judeo-Christian discourse. I have not been able to verify that this is correct but I agree with the principle that there is a lot that is common to these three faiths that is not reflected in the term “Judeo-Christian”.  On the other hand I can see some merit in Christians graciously acknowledging Jewish influences on their faith. 
(3) Exodus vs. Deuteronomy…
(4) Ibn Ezra on Exodus 20:1
(5) Exodus 19:3
(6) Ibn Ezra to Exodus 20:1, the question of permission is also raised by Chizkuni, however he resolves this matter in two ways. One interpretation is similar to that of Ibn Ezra. Namely, that Moses went up in response to God’s call. In his second interpretation is that Moses went up of his own accord to ask God how he wanted to be worshiped (Chizkuni, on Exodus 19:3). 
(7) Ohr Hachayim
(8) Exodus 19:2 ויחן שם ישראל
(9) Ibn Ezra suggests, I think implausibly, that Israel refers to the elders who had a prominent place near the mountain and since there were few of them they are referred to in the singular form
(10) Rashi following the approach of Mechilta
(11) Old Midrash Tanchuma, Yisro 9, cited in Torah Shlaima

Managing the inner slave driver - Beshalach

The other night I celebrated by 45th birthday with a variation of the Chasidic “Farbrengen”. Typically, this involves a group of Jewish Hasidic men, telling stories, drinking vodka, singing songs and discussing personal growth and other spiritual themes.  We had a gathering of Jewish men, but also a Muslim cleric, and a Christian minister. We had Vodka in another room not to compromise the sheikh but still honour my tradition. Another difference was that typically one is expected to make resolutions about doing more, I chose not to.  While I sometimes find some value in ‘managing myself’, at other times the inner manager can become oppressive, leading me not to trust myself to make good choices and to feeling anxious about reasonable risks.  This is an exploration of the merits and process of breaking free and the Torah reading Beshalach.
 
The story of the Exodus from Egypt is understood in Chasidic teaching as relating to personal growth in overcoming moral or personal limitations. I have an inner Pharaoh who echoes his literal historical counterpart. When Moses suggested some time away from the grind for the Hebrews to go out in to the wilderness to worship and celebrate, Pharaoh became suspicious. He interpreted this request as evidence of laziness (1), instead of giving them a break he demands more productivity while also providing less resources.  The increased demands lead to cries of desperation by representatives of the overwhelmed slaves. Pharaoh responded with urgency and anger (2), “you are slackers, slackers (3)!  My own Pharaoh worries about me not being productive enough when I take time out for myself or my soul. In recognising this pattern I feel a bit freer, because “knowing the illness is half a remedy”(4).

One important principle that I learned is that while change takes time, changing direction can be quite quick and an important part of the process. This played out with the Hebrews after having been removed from Egypt by external factors God was concerned about them falling back into old patterns and ‘return to Egypt’ (5). The people here are referred to as “the nation” rather than their distinctive name of Benei Yisrael - the Israelites who are descendants of Jacob who was renamed “Israel” to reflect his being a champion with God and men. They were seen as not deserving this title at this time because their faith was incomplete. If they were to attempt to go straight to the Promised Land at this point they would have crumbled at the first challenge (6).

God set the former slaves a challenge and a means to grow. They would go to the Promised Land the long way, by way of a detour into the wilderness. There they would need to develop the quality of being satisfied with very little. They would get Manna every day but only for that day, if they hoarded even a bit extra as some people inevitably did, it stank and was infested with worms (7).   On this journey they would encounter their old enemies, the Egyptians at the sea, which would split miraculously allowing the Hebrews to cross while their ‘old problems’ drowned. In this way their faith would be strengthened. Remarkably, the Torah does not wait for the whole drama to play out before celebrating the change. The moment that “the people” signed up for this journey into the uncertainty of the desert, “a land that has not been planted”, their name was immediately changed to Benei Yisrael/the Israelites (8).  They had turned away from the pharaoh of certainty and control to the uncertainty of trust. 

As the work of 2015 begins, I have turned toward working in a more trusting, less anxious way. I don’t know how it will all come together but I don’t need my inner Pharaoh looking over my shoulder. I am not lazy. I am on to it. With the help of God and some good people, we will achieve important progress toward the goal of coexistence.

Notes
1) Exodus 5:8-9
2) Lekach Tov, cited in Torah Shlaima p. 225
3) Exodus 5:17 note Targum translation of Nirpim as “Batlanim”.
4) Attributed to Maimonides, on  http://www.tchorim.com/%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9A/%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%94/
5) Exodus 13:17
6) Klei Yakar
7) Exodus 16:20
8) Klei Yakar

Mockery

At times like this, murder casts a long shadow over any discussion about the mockery of religious symbols. Before I comment on mockery, I cry out emphatically: all life is sacred! Murder is evil! This is true, regardless of the motives or the identity of the victims, be they people who drew cartoons, a Muslim policeman protecting the cartoonists, Jewish shoppers, Nigerians, Assyrians in Iraq or Syrians. Closer to home, I am outraged by the domestic violence murder of Leila Alavi by her ex-husband. Enough! Enough! It is disappointing to me that some of these murders have failed to galvanize the world or communities while the free speech of the cartoonists is front and centre. Clearly, the issue of free speech relates to broader questions about extremist interpretations of Islam and, more broadly and problematically, to Muslim and non-Muslim relations in general.

As a bridge- builder and a student of the Torah, I think it is worth exploring the issue of mockery.  I am in two minds about this issue and it seems that traditional teachings are as well. The bottom line for me is that we need to uphold freedom of expression as well as peace and interfaith respect. I don’t know where to draw the lines and I don’t have the answer, but I see value in exploring the question.

The case for mockery:
Abraham is a hero to Jews (1) and Muslims (2) for his mockery. In a story that is found in both traditions, Abraham smashed the idols in an idol- worshipping society and then satirised the people’s beliefs by sarcastically setting up the scene to make it appear that the biggest idol smashed the smaller ones.  Rather than criticize him for his rudeness or disrespect of the religious symbols of his neighbours, we see this violent expression of intolerance of “wrong religion” as virtuous. Elijah, the prophet, sarcastically taunted the worshippers of Baal at a public gathering. "Call with a loud voice, for he is a god. [Perhaps] he is chatting or he is chasing [enemies] or he is on a journey; perhaps he is sleeping and will awaken (3)”. Perhaps, God Himself used some harsh humour. When God sent Moses to Pharaoh, he told him that there will be resistance, followed by miracles.  “I will place my signs (or miracles) in his midst and so that you will tell in the ears of your sons and your son’s son, how I toyed (4) with Egypt…(5)”. Humour and mockery can be a tool in the battle of ideas. Because we value truth, we must allow cartooning and satire as one means of teasing out the truth.

The case against mockery:
Despite the value of robust pursuit of truth, Moses seemed to call for tact toward the religious sensibilities of the Egyptians. When Pharaoh suggested that the Hebrews could worship in Egypt, Moses objected to this, stating that “it is not right to do it like this” (6). Moses had two reasons for his assertion that is was “not right”, both relating to the fact that, at that time, Jewish worship involved slaughtering sheep which were worshipped by the Egyptians. One reason was “on principle and out of respect… being that they worship the constellation of Aries and sheep are holy for them, it is not proper to denigrate their faith in their faces… the second, and a separate reason, was the danger of a violent response by the Egyptians”. The respect that Moses calls for, is not an absolute principle of interfaith respect. A short time after Moses asserts the inappropriateness of the Hebrews’ disrespect for the Egyptian God, the Hebrews are instructed to slaughter a lamb for each family (8). Tact, it would seem, is more important in some circumstances than others.

Response to Mockery:
There can be no justification for murder as a response to blasphemy on the part of non-adherents to any particular faith in a world with differences of belief. (Whether punishment for blasphemy is ok within single faith populations is a separate question.) My unqualified outrage against murder motivated by intolerance, does not prevent me from seeking to understand why someone who does not share my perspective on this, might see it differently. The Pope compared the cartoonists to someone insulting his mother and suggested that he would be tempted to punch someone like that in the nose. In the case of the possible Egyptian reaction to the provocation of seeing their gods slaughtered, Jewish scholars suggest that “by law and by right, the Egyptians would pelt us with stones (9)”. In my view, this sort of violence can be understood AND is absolutely wrong.

Conclusion: Navigating the rights and wrongs of mockery is difficult and contestable. Anger about opposing views about what to allow or not allow is to be expected, especially from those on the receiving- end of mockery. Wherever people stand on this issue, they are entitled to hold their strong views, but no one is entitled to use violence or threats of violence to impose their views on others. At the same time, no one should use this debate or the crimes of some people as justification for generalised hatred. We can agree to disagree, agreeably.

Notes:
1) Bereishit Rabba 38:13
2) Qur'an 21:51-70
3) Kings I, 18:27
4) Rashi, Chizkuni, also Ramban who refers to psalms (2:4) “the one who sits in the heaven, will laugh, the Lord will mock them”. Haemek Davar suggests that Pharaoh was given the opening to follow the path he had chosen for himself, the path of Mockery of the Hebrew slaves, but he was now the butt of the joke.  Another view is that the Hebrew word התעללתי that these commentators translate as ‘mocking’, actually means “deeds” – Rashbam or miracles – Unkelus, Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel
5) Exodus 10:1-2
6) Exodus 8:22
7) Malbim
8) Exodus 12:3
9) Targum Yonathan Ben Uziel, Biur Yonasan, Sechel Tov

“Girly Men’s” Redemption - Vayeshev

The strip search of "Love Makes A Way" protesters
this week and the broader asylum seeker  policy
debate in Australia illustrates the soft vs hard debate

Although I like to think that I am happy with my mix of strengths and weaknesses, I occasionally feel concerned about being “a soft person”. I can sometimes be indecisive, spontaneous, impulsive and conciliatory. I find that my energy levels fluctuate. There are times when I am filled with hope. At other times, I feel daunted by my work challenges and life. Occasionally I feel envious of successful “hard men”. They are decisive, disciplined, determined and consistent. They know what they want, and appear able to bend people to their will. I suspect however that redemption - whenever it comes - might be due more to the influence of women (or “girly men”) than “hard men”.

In this week’s Torah reading we are introduced to a puzzling story about a family whose two oldest sons marry the same beautiful (1) woman (named Tamar); one after the other. Both brothers die young (2). Eventually Tamar, pretending to be a prostitute, seduces and later marries her father in law, giving birth to twins, after having narrowly escaped being burned alive. What is even more intriguing for me is that this adventure is understood by the Jewish sages as God being “occupied with creating the light of the Messiah” (3). This is because one of the twins (that were born out of wedlock) is the ancestor of King David, who in turn, is professed to be a predecessor of the Messiah! 

This ancestor of the Messiah is named Peretz, which means “to burst forth”. His twin brother is Zarach, which means “to shine”. The children’s names are linked to the sun and the moon. The name Zarach/Shine is associated with the sun that shines consistently, while Peretz, the ancestor of the Messiah, is connected with the moon (4), which waxes and wanes, just as the passionate King David’s royal dynasty fluctuated over history (5). This suggests that those “who live the ups and downs” are closer to the character of the Messiah than those who appear to consistently “shine brightly like the sun”. 

In addition to the value placed on those of us who fluctuate, which is arguably a sign of living to the full,  there is also emphasis on the feminine. In patriarchal societies there is a sense that men are the ones to take the initiative in relation to sex and marriage. Men propose. Yet when it comes to the ancestors of the Messiah (who are also the ancestors of King David from whom the Messiah descends), there are three strong women who take the initiative in orchestrating a sexual encounter or marriage (6), as pointed out in an article by Rabbi Arthur Waskow. 

Ruth, the Moabite takes the lead in initiating a relationship with Boaz. She sleeps at his feet (7) uninvited. When Boaz wakes up frightened, Ruth invites him to “spread his coat over her” (8), which is an expression of marriage (9). Ruth descends from the daughter of Lot. She and her father (and sister) escaped the destruction of Sodom and thought all the men had perished. So she got her father drunk and was impregnated by him (10). Moab, the baby born of that liaison, is another ancestor of the Messiah; his existence the result of an assertive woman taking the lead. 

According to Kabbalistic traditions, in the Messianic era, women will be in an elevated position compared to men (11). One Rabbi put it simply: “In Messianic times, the female's superiority will be apparent” (12). As we strive for a more redemptive way of being, as represented by the Messianic age, it makes sense to prioritise feminine perspectives and ways of being. 

Of course, one can argue that the traditions should allow for the possibility of a female messiah, but this is a topic for a separate discussion. The material in this blog is sufficient to inspire me to harness and assert my more feminine or softer characteristics, to nudge the people in my sphere of influence slightly and gently closer to the way of redemption.

Notes:
1) Midrash Hagadol, cited in Torah Shlaima, vol. 2, p. 1449
2) Genesis 38
3) Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya Ben Hakaneh, cited in Ramban to Genesis 38:29,
4) Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya Ben Hakaneh, cited in Ramban to Genesis 38:29,
5) Rabbenu Bchaya, he also suggests that the twins were reincarnations of the two older sons of Judah who died, Er and Onan. These two were either ego centric, in the case of Onan, who did not want to have children “for his brother” (Genesis 38:8-9) or, Er who commentary tells us did not want to have children lest it make Tamar ugly (Midrash Hagadol). It could be argued that both of these men, were what might be termed as very masculine in their approaches and needed to be reincarnated to correct these flaws before one of them could be the ancestor of the Messiah.
6) Rabbi Arthur Waskow, https://theshalomcenter.org/content/lots-daughter-tamar-and-ruth-mothers-messiah, accessed 10/12/14
7) Ruth 3:7
8) Ruth 3:9,
9) Taking her ‘under his wing’ by spreading the corner of his coat over her is an expression of marriage (Rashi). According to one opinion the Jewish wedding custom in which the groom put a vail over the brides face is a variation of this theme in the book of Ruth, and is in fact the true expression of the significant marriage ritual referred to as Chuppah (Meiri, Ketubot 7b, Piskey Riaz Ketubot 1:11, Sefer Hamanhig 109, Avudaram order of blessings of Erusin, and Maharil laws of marriage all cited in Hanesuim Kehilchatam, Adler, B, (1985) Hamesorah,  Jerusalem
10) Genesis 19:30-38
11) Often cited in Chabad teachings, Rabbi M. M. Schneerson, Likutei Sichos vol 11, p. 62,
12) Markus, Rabbi Y, http://www.kabbalaonline.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/379377/jewish/Elemental-Strengths.htm

Bigger than that! Jacob mode vs interfaith embrace and the inner Jihad of Yisrael

An edited version of my speech at the Together For Humanity Interfaith dinner, 30 Nov 2014. 

Jacob, the grandson of Abraham, was afraid of his own brother Esau (1). It is the same today: Australians fear their fellow Australians. 

Jacob offered a heartfelt prayer, “Save me, please, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau, for I fear him, lest he come and strike me, (and my family too) a mother and children”.

The dreaded moment arrived. Jacob met his brother Esau, who, because of an event in another time and another place, hated him.  Jacob bowed respectfully to his brother seven times (2).

“Esau ran toward him and embraced him, and he fell on his neck and kissed him, and they cried”.  We, Australians, need to meet our fellow Australian brothers and sisters respectfully to address the fear and embrace one another.

Before Jacob was to meet his brother, there was some internal work he needed to do, late at night, when he was “alone” (3). This is illustrated in an encounter he had with a “man”, who is said to be the guardian angel of his brother Esau (4). Jacob intended to run away from the encounter with his brother, but the angel was sent to prevent this. Jacob needed to show up and see that he would not be harmed (5).  With his escape cut off, Jacob wrestled with the angel. He asked his brother’s guardian angel to agree with his side of the argument (6). “Bless me,” (7) he pleaded, as if to say ‘tell me that I am right and my brother is wrong’.

The angel asked Jacob, “What is your name?”
“Jacob,” he replied.
The angel declared, “No more will your name be said as Jacob!” (8) The name Jacob means the one who holds others back, who plays a petty game, trying to prove that his/her group “are really the good ones”. “No!” the angel insisted, as if to say ‘it is time for you to embrace a bigger vision about who you are. Your new name, your new identity, is now Yisrael, the one who strives with God, who succeeds in an inner struggle/jihad in matters of the spirit and with men. You have a great purpose as the father of the Bnai Yisrael, (Banei Yisrael), to spread belief in God and promote righteousness.

Greg Barton, an Anglican Professor and expert on radicalisation, told me recently that, as he reads the story, Jacob had a cognitive opening. His thinking expanded. This is exactly what Australians of many backgrounds need. We need our thinking expanded. We need to be bigger - not allow our fears or the failings of some to define us or one another. We need to get to know the other as the other truly is and can potentially be, by stretching out a hand of friendship and showing respect. This has been the work of Together For Humanity, with over 75,000 children across Australia, many of whom had never met a Muslim or a Jew before. These children have participated in Together For Humanity programs facilitated by a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew and sometimes others.

Of course, there are reasons for hate, fear or avoiding embracing each other. Things have happened, thousands of miles from here that are unjust. There are legitimate concerns for many of us. It is not racist to say so. Things also happen in Australia that worry us - words spoken and prejudice. People wonder and worry about what people “here” think about what is happening “there”. Do they condemn it? Do they agree with it? How strong is the commitment to coexistence “on the other side”? Are they sincere?

Mistrust has deep roots. Esau’s embrace, kiss and weeping with Jacob have also been questioned. Some commentary suggests that Esau intended to bite Jacob’s neck (9). Esau is portrayed as telling himself, “I will not kill Jacob, my brother, with arrows and a bow, but I will kill him with my mouth and suck his blood!” (10). However there are other traditions that teach that, in that moment, Esau kissed Jacob sincerely “with his whole heart” (11).

The debate rages on in the Torah. The next verse tells us that “Esau lifted up his eyes, saw the women and the children and asked who they were” (12). The words “he saw the women” are interpreted to have sexual connotations - “Cursed are the wicked, that even during a time of trouble, their (evil) desires rules them” (13). Commentary ascribes this kind of thinking to Jacob as well. His daughter, Dina, is completely absent from the narrative. Even when it explicitly lists Jacob's wives and his eleven sons (14), there is no mention of his daughter, Dina. According to the Midrash (commentary), “Jacob put Dina in a box and locked it”, to protect her from Esau. However, this fear is met with divine disapproval and given as a “reason” for Dina’s eventually ending up in a “forbidden marriage” (15) with Shchem, the local prince, who abducted and abused her (16).  The ambivalence lingers on, thousands of years later.

What I take from all of this, are three lessons: 1) Conflict transformation is possible. 2) It is not easy to overcome fear and suspicion. 3) There are often ambiguities and judgement calls, such as, ‘do we ignore the elephant in the room, Israel/Palestine, for example?’ ‘do we feed it and allow the problems half a world away to take over and destroy the bridges we have so carefully built here?’  

At the dinner, Sheikh Ahmed Abdo suggested that “it is time that we stopped building bridges and started walking across the bridges we have already built”. Together For Humanity in its thirteenth years is attempting to walk across these bridges. Our vision is to ensure that every child and every teacher experiences an opening of their mind and expanding of their spirit, so that no-one needs to be afraid, no-one will choose to hate any group and we all have a sense of belonging together.

וַיָּרָץ עֵשָׂו לִקְרָאתוֹ וַיְחַבְּקֵהוּ וַיִּפֹּל עַל צַוָּארָיו וַֹיִֹשָֹׁקֵֹהֹוֹּ וַיִּבְכּוּ

“Esau ran toward him and embraced him, and he fell on his neck and kissed him, and they cried”. We Australians need to meet our fellow Australians, our neighbours, our brothers and sisters, respectfully, to address the fear, and to embrace one another!

Notes:

1) Genesis 32:8
2) Genesis 33:3
3) Genesis 32:25
4) Beresheet Rabba 77
5) Rashbam on 32:23 & 25, Chizkuni on 32:25, this is similar to an angel being sent to stop Balaam on his journey to curse the Israelites which was also contrary to God’s will.
6) Rashi to Genesis 32:27, also in Midrash Aggada and Zohar part 1, 144 cited in Torah Shlaima, vol. 1 p. 1284, footnote 136
7) Genesis 32:27
8) Genesis 32:28-29
9) Beresheet Rabba 78
10) Avot Drabbi Nathan, cited in Torah Shlaima, vol. 1 p. 1302, footnote 16
11) Rabbi Shimon Ben Elazar in Beresheet Rabba 78
12) Genesis 33:5
13) Midrash Habiur from an ancient manuscript, cited in Torah Shlaima, vol. 1 p. 1302, 18
14) Genesis 32:23
15) Beresheet Rabba 76
16) Genesis 34

Preserving Relationships Here - Refusing to Demonise

Craig Laundy MP (Member of Australian Parliament) in a
Hug with Sheikh Wesam Charkawi in a hoola hoop as part of a
Together For Humanity bridge building day between
students from different backgrounds

As a bridge- builder working for a Christian, Jewish and Muslim organisation, it is unwise for me to offer comments on conflict overseas. An exception to this rule would be to reflect on the ways in which we ensure that our ties to, and concerns about, what happens elsewhere do not destroy relationships in Australia.” The Australian” newspaper quotes me making such a comment this week to students from Granville Boys and Cronulla High Schools, referring to the deadly attack in a Jerusalem synagogue this week. “If I didn’t know these guys, ”I said, gesturing to my Muslim friends, “I would probably feel very distant because of the stuff that happens overseas. But, because of these connections, I’m able to continue to be friends with these guys, because we’ve got nothing to do with things happening thousands of kilometres away.” As my colleague Sheikh Ahmed said, “we need to localize” our thinking.

It is tempting to paint the “race” or “religion” of those on the opposite side of a conflict, no matter how far away, as monstrous and to essentialise the problem as being the rotten core of the “enemy religion or culture”. This is something that should not happen anywhere, certainly not in far-off Australia.

This relates to a theme in the Torah reading this week. Jacob, through various means, including impersonation of his brother, manages to acquire the blessings intended for his older brother Esau, which earns him his brother’s enmity (1). In later times, Esau would come to represent Rome, an empire known to have done terrible things to the Jews and others.

Esau, symbol of Rome, is born hairy and red (2).  This is taken to mean that “all of him was a spiller of blood” (3), and that “he was filled with blood…he hates blood as it stands in the human body (4)”. Strangely, we are told that “even while in his mother’s womb he drank her menstrual blood” (5). A Dracula foetus! Esau then marries women who are an “embittering of the spirit” for Esau’s parents with their intentionally difficult behaviour in the larger family home (6), further casting Esau in a negative light. 

Yet, there is an interesting counter lesson. The Torah tells us that Isaac, Esau’s father, became blind, which enabled Jacob to impersonate Esau and get the blessings. There was an easier way for Jacob to get the blessing. God could have simply told Isaac that Esau was evil and deceiving his father with his false piety. Yet, God chose not to speak badly about Esau and, instead, opted to make Isaac blind and leave him in ignorance of his son’s wickedness. Isaac’s blindness is, therefore, interpreted as a lesson in not speaking “Lashon Harah”, evil talk, even about Esau (7). While there are certainly very real problems for people to engage with constructively, care needs to be taken not to demonise a race or religion, but rather to “fight fair”, if one thinks one can right a wrong through “fighting”.

There is a touching story in our tradition about one of our sages, who helped a naked Roman survivor of a shipwreck. The sage saw him as a human being rather than as the “evil other”.  Perhaps, the easiest way to recognise each other’s humanity is by interacting. This was the experience of the students this week, as described in  ”The Australian” article below. If you live in Sydney, you are invited to have one more cross-cultural experience of your own at Together For Humanity’s fundraising dinner with former Governor Marie Bashir on 30th November in Auburn. (Details at this link http://togetherforhumanity.org.au/get_involved/dinner.php)  

(1) Genesis 27:41
(2) Genesis 25:25
(3) Midrash Rabbah 63
(4) Midrash Hagadol, cited in Torah Shlaima vol 2, p 1020, note 133
(5) Midrash Abchir, cited in Torah Shlaima vol 2, p 1020, note 131
(6) Genesis 26:35, commentary of Radak
(7) The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Likutei Sichos vol 15, p 215.


THEIRS are friendships formed across culture and religion in the wake of one of the ugliest ¬episodes of -racial violence in the nation’s history.
By Natasha Robinson, originally published in the Australian Newspaper 21/11/2014, reprinted with permission.

Now, Jewish, Christian and Islamic leaders are uniting again to connect the children of the southern Sydney beach suburb of Cronulla — barely old enough to go to school at the time of the riots eight years ago — with the boys from Granville in the city’s southwest, a heartland of Arabic, Islander and pretty much every other culture.

This week, at the home of the AFL’s Western Sydney Giants, students from Cronulla High and Granville Boys High hung out, kicked a footy and bemoaned the lack of teenage freedoms. It could have been any other day at school.

The Granville boys thought kids from “The Shire” were the children of “like, rich people”. They soon learned the Cronulla crew were a lot like them, and from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, too.

The boys from Granville spoke about the threat of Islamic State and how it had affected everyday lives. Joseph Valu, 15, recalled the day 800 police descended on the homes of young terror suspects.“When that ISIS thing happened, my mum called me three times. She was like, ‘Come home. Now’. She told me to be careful.”

Run by the interfaith Together for Humanity Foundation, this is the kind of cross-cultural program those with long experience in combating extremism and social alienation say works.

Craig Laundy, federal MP for Reid, which takes in swaths of Sydney’s ethnically diverse western suburbs, is pushing for the government to fund the program more widely using a pool set aside for the counter-radicalisation programs, which are unpopular among many Muslim leaders.

“We don’t acknowledge each other by what makes us different, we identify what unites us,” Mr Laundy says. “This is a perfect ¬example of how we as a federal government should work with people with great ideas.”

Rabbi Zalman Kastel, who runs Together for Humanity, spoke to the children about the deadly ¬attack in a Jerusalem synagogue this week. “If I didn’t know these guys,” he says, gesturing to his Muslim friends, “I would probably feel very distant because of the stuff that happens overseas. “But because of these connections I’m able to continue to be friends with these guys because we’ve got nothing to do with things happening thousands of kilometres away.” He met one of the co-ordinators of the cross-¬cultural program, Emad Elkheir, after the Cronulla riots.

Mr Elkheir — now a community engagement co-ordinator with the Giants — was then a 17-year-old at Granville Boys and took part in a similar program. “I guess you could say of September 11 … It was a disgusting event, but it woke up those that were sleeping.”