Shaming Disrupts the Flow - Moses’ Rock Strike

Image by BillVriesema - Creative Commons License 2.0

When we are provoked, we must generally respond without shaming our antagonists, nor allowing anger to cloud our judgement. 

It is not always ethical to go along with others’ wishes. Saying yes when our principles require the answer to be no, is to compromise our own integrity. In the context of marriage, saying yes against our principles or needs, has this result: “the lips may be moving one way, but the heart may be saying no silently until the heart breaks from the weight of ’nos’[i]." Sometimes, disagreement escalates into identity conflict[ii] and becomes a contest of claiming the moral high ground – each party trying to be deemed the “good one” and cast the other as the villain. It can then become especially tempting to inflict pain on one’s opponent. Especially for people who have been hurt deeply – and who hasn’t been - there can be an urge to lash out. This blog post will explore the merit of being agreeable in disagreement.  

Let us consider what happened between Moses and the Israelites in the desert. “There was no water for the people to drink, so they gathered onto Moses… (the wording in Hebrew is very similar to the modern expression “pile on”). The people quarrelled with Moses, saying, “If only we had died when our brothers died… Why did you bring [us]… to this desert… and why did you take us out of Egypt… to this terrible place with no grain or figs or vines or pomegranates? ...[iii]”.

While there was a legitimate water problem to solve, the rhetoric from the Israelites was a broad rejection of Moses and God. Let’s think of the relationship between the people and Moses and God as a marriage. Only a short time ago, God - with Moses as his visible messenger - was the knight in shining armour that rescued the Israelites – damsel in distress – from the oppression of Pharaoh. The people threw caution to the wind and displayed great faith in God and Moses, his servant[iv],  walking after Him bravely into a desert, where nothing had been planted[v]. But the honeymoon didn’t last, and the Israelites’ stance was like yelling “Why did I ever marry you? I wish I never met you.”

In response to this attack on Moses, Moses lost his temper with the Israelites, and he used a derogatory label to shame them. In his anger[vi], Moses muddled God’s instructions to him about how to miraculously draw water from a stone. Although God told Moses to speak to the rock to draw water from it, he, instead, hit the rock with a stick. God was disappointed with the way Moses handled this situation, and told him that, because of this failure, Moses would not bring the people to the promised land[vii]. 

Moses had plenty reason to feel angry. The people had, yet again, delegitimised his leadership and life’s achievements. This attack came at a particularly vulnerable time for Moses as he mourned the death of his sister, Miriam[viii]. Yet, one commentator sees Moses’ angry reactions as a significant failure.

The amazingly kind, Berditchever, taught that you can rebuke people, using two different methods. One approach is positive and builds people up. It reminds the people that their very souls originate ‎immediately beneath the Creator’s throne in heaven. It tells people about their ability and privilege to provide God with the pleasure he gets from ‎His people performing His will. The other method of admonishing people involves putting people down and shaming them.

When the positive method is used, it introduces positive energy into the physical world, so that the creations willingly provide for the people. In the case of Moses, if he had spoken positively to the people, then the rock would have responded to Moses’ words with flowing water. However, when people are denigrated, the creations are not in a state of flow. The only way to get them to provide for humans, is with great coercion symbolised by their being beaten with a stick[ix].

There will be times in our lives when others’ disrespect toward us, or unwillingness to support our wishes, might make us feel like we are spiralling down to feel small like a mouse “insignificant, under the foot, hiding, timid and on the run”. It is at such times that we overcompensate for such feelings by swinging in the opposite direction, to become a “monster… obnoxious, and overbearing”[x]. This reaction is understandable but ultimately very destructive - it interrupts the flow of the good things we need and want for ourselves and the people around us.

 

---

[i] Rabbi Shlomo Riskin

[ii]  Heen, S. Patton, B. Stone, D. 2021, Difficult conversations, Penguin

[iii] Numbers 20:2-5

[iv] Exodus 14:31

[v] Jeremiah 2:2

[vi] Sifre to Numbers 31:21, see also Talmud Pesachim 66b, every man who rages, if he is wise his wisdom will leave him…

[vii] Numbers 20:7-12

[viii] Numbers 20:1

[ix] R. Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev, Kedushas Levi, on Chukas, Vdibartem El Haselah, p. 303, Sifrei Ohr Hachayim edition, Jerusalem

[x] Brenner, M (2011) Conscious Connectivity, p.70, drawing on the work of Pat Palmer

Body Parts Flung Heavenward and Jewish Sexual Ethics

In the synagogue, a fellow congregant showed me a surprising interpretation of a verse in the Torah about Amalek’s attack on the Israelites in the desert. This is based on Deuteronomy 25:18[i], which is usually translated as Amalek “surprised you on the march, when you were famished and weary, and cut down all the stragglers in your rear".” However, there is an interpretation of this verse that reads  as Amalek “cut off the Israelites’ penises and flung them heavenward, [to God] saying, ‘This is what You have chosen, take for Yourself what You have chosen[ii].”

This bizarre interpretation leads one to wonder what moral teachings are to be inferred from the symbolism in this story. In understanding Jewish sacred text, it is useful to remember that there are 70 faces of the Torah[iii], eg. Every verse has multiple meanings.  Perhaps, one meaning of this story is alluding to a Jewish approach to sexuality that is nuanced, in that it affirms a positive attitude to sex as joyful, loving, wholesome and even holy, but also harmful if not constrained and directed.  

Amalek performed this brutal gesture to make a point in a culture war against the Israelites. “Amalek was opposed to Israel, and the form of Israel is that they [the males, of course] are circumcised. It is with circumcision that they are Israelites. This is the reason why Amalek cut off their circumcised penises because Amalek was opposed to circumcision[iv].” According to this teaching, circumcision is essential to the identity and idea of the Jewish people.

One way to explain this is to consider Maimonides’ explanation of circumcision. “As regards circumcision, I think that one of its objects is to limit sexual intercourse, and to weaken the organ of procreation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate regarding the sexual act…This commandment… is a means for perfecting man's moral shortcomings. The bodily injury caused to that organ does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of procreation. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust…[v]”.

This teaching is one half of the picture when it comes to Judaism’s approach to sex. A call to the Jew for moderation in sex and other means of enjoying life makes it possible for him to achieve a measure of holiness[vi].

On the other hand, we have the very positive approach to sex in Judaism. Sex is portrayed as joyful in the verse: “Abimelech, king of the Philistines, looked through the window and behold, Isaac was playing/making laughter [having sex] with Rebecca his wife[vii]”.

Sex is not just a Mitzvah, a positive commandment, when it leads to procreation[viii], but it is regarded as a Mitzva (commandment) and obligation for a man to please his wife and honour her right to sex[ix]. This obligation is understood more broadly as requiring the man to prioritise the woman’s pleasure during sex before his own[x], and an overall responsibility for a man to show understanding and be responsive to a woman’s emotional need to feel loved[xi].

Maimonides provides the following guidance: “[a man] should not be intimate with her [his wife] unless she is willing, and out of chatting and joy. Marital relations are forbidden while [he is] thinking of another woman, nor while drunk, while they are fighting, or in hatred, nor may he force her nor while she is afraid. Nor after he has decided to divorce her[xii]”. I understand this as affirming the value of bodily pleasure while also emphasising the emotional experience of making love and connecting. This is elegantly reflected in the use of the word “knowing” as a euphemism for sex[xiii]. “One should not think that there is anything disgusting, or any ugliness, God forbid, in the proper union[xiv]”, if it is done “as it should be” at the right time and with the proper intent.

One of Judaism’s aims is for us to be part of the world and partake of its pleasures in a measured way. We are invited to appreciate the flavours and textures of food[xv], but also to rise above our urges and bodily needs to attach ourselves to God, and to hold both seemingly opposed stances at the same time.

A descendent of Amalek, Haman, argued that “there is one nation [the Jews]… whose religious laws and ways were different from other nations[xvi]” and this difference was a valid reason for them to be annihilated. Perhaps the Jewish approach to be in the world and beyond it, unsettles the intolerant Amalekite who requires conformity for his own emotional security. By throwing the modified sexual organ toward the sky, the Amalekite is asserting there is no place for this ‘deviation’ from his norms, on his earth, but only in heaven. If you choose not to conform fully to the norms of the earth and you choose heavenly approaches, do them there not here[xvii]!  

On Thursday 17 March 2022, we celebrated victory over Amalek and Haman with the religious festival of Purim, which is marked by wine, feasting and food gifts, as well as charity and storytelling. And except for any Jewish astronauts, we do this right here on earth! 

 

Notes

---

[i] Midrash Tanchuma, Devarim, Ki Tetzei 10, cited in Rashi on 25:18, this translation is more of an interpretation than a translation. It is based on a verb related to the word “tail” (Zanav in Hebrew), that could be translated literally as “he tailed you”. The usual way of reading this verse is that Amalek attacked the tail end of the Israelite people, the stragglers as interpreted by Ibn Ezra, Ralbag, Chizkuni, Ohr Hachayim on Deuteronomy, 25:18

[ii] Midrash Tanchuma

[iii] Bamidbar Rabba, 13:16

[iv] Gur Aryeh on Deuteronomy, 25:18

[v] Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, 3:49, 11

[vi] Ramban on Leviticus, 19:2

[vii] Genesis 26:8

[viii] Talmud, Yavamot 65b

[ix] Exodus 21:10, Raavad cited in Lamm, M. (1980), The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage, Jonathan David Publishers, p. 137

[x] Talmud, Brachos 60a

[xi] The Stiepler gaon, igeres Hakodesh, in cited Abramov Y., & Abramov, T. (1994) Two halves of a whole. Feldheim, p. 178

[xii] Maimonides, laws of marriage 15:17-18, forbidden intercourse 21:12, drawing on the Talmud Nedarim 20b

[xiii] Me’iri, cited in Lamm, M. (1980), The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage, Jonathan David Publishers, p. 135

[xiv] Ramban, Iggeres Hakodesh, chapter 2, cited Abramov Y., & Abramov, T. (1994) Two halves of a whole. Feldheim

[xv] Seforno on Genesis 25:30

[xvi] Esther 3:8

[xvii] Be’er Basadeh, on Deuteronomy, 25:18

 

What do Jews wish for from Catholics?

My remarks on 24 February 2022, as part of the Synod of Bishops discussion at the Columban Centre for Christian-Muslim Relations, Sydney, Australia

Context

On 24 February 2022, a Muslim Academic Dr. Mahsheed Ansari, and I were invited to speak to a group of Catholics, including a bishop, priests, and others, about the attitudes and behaviour Muslims and Jews wish for from Catholics.  This was an extra-ordinary meeting. Often faith communities talk among themselves about how to relate to others but, on this occasion, the organisers, led by Reverend Dr. Patrick McInerney, went further and asked, “the others”. This is a variation on the questions often asked in Together For Humanity programs: “What do you want people of other faiths to know about yours?” and “what do you want to never hear said about your faith by others?”

The context for this meeting was that, in March 2020, Pope Francis initiated a global multiyear process related to the Synod of Bishops in October 2023. The theme is “For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation and Mission”. Pope Francis has invited the entire Church to reflect on this theme. All Catholics were invited to take part in the diocesan consultation process to promote a sense of communion and journeying together (1). In Sydney, two non-Catholics were also included in this consultation. The following is an excerpt of my talk.

Concept

I felt daunted by the topic. My work is more about encouraging dialogue and understanding than about the specifics of the Catholic-Jewish dynamic. I am grateful to Rabbi David Rosen, a world leader in Catholic Jewish relations, who took the time to talk to me about this, and I credit him for some of the content of my remarks.

There is much to celebrate about Catholic-Jewish relations in recent years. Let us notice that the human family has come a long way from the time when the approach to religious difference was, “I am right, you are dead”!.

Papal and Vatican announcements, sermons and declarations express positive attitudes and sentiments that are important to Jewish people.

Some of the key elements of these have been:

1.    That Jews should not be blamed for the killing of Jesus.

2.    Calling for mutual understanding, respect for, friendship and brotherhood with Jews.

3.    An abhorrence of antisemitism specifically.

4.    An affirmation of the continuation of the divine covenant with the Jewish people, rejecting the idea that Jews have been cursed by God.

5.    Respect for Jewish interpretations of the Torah.

I want to call particular attention to the declaration that recognises the legitimacy of the Jewish faith as a way of worshiping God, that is not regarded as second rate because of our refusal to accept Christian beliefs about Jesus.

The significance of this point cannot be overstated. It is not for Jews to seek to influence Christian beliefs, nor is it reasonable for us to expect Catholics to embrace relativism. However, we could wonder how it is possible for Christians to respect Jews as fellow believers if Christians affirm the truth of the statement by Jesus “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me” (2). Does this not mean that Jews cannot find salvation as Jews?

On 10 December 2015, the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews issued an unprecedented declaration (3). In this document, the Pope addressed document addresses this problem as follows: That the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery.  

This document also contains the following, inspiring sentence: ‘One can only learn to love what one has gradually come to know, and one can only know truly and profoundly what one loves’.

The main questions – as pointed out by Rabbi Rosen (4) - that arise now are: How have the unprecedented changes occurring within the Church, been implemented? Have they filtered down to the vast number of Catholic believers and changed the deep-seated, centuries-long negative attitudes towards the Jewish people?

We hope that these noble sentiments do not remain words on paper but are instead carried in the hearts of every Catholic, beginning with priests, schoolteachers and other people of influence, and then in the hearts of children and adults.

I acknowledge that many good actions are already underway. Together For Humanity has been invited to many Catholic schools to have dialogue with students and to build bridges in this way. I would not normally presume to offer advice, but since I was explicitly requested to share my thoughts, I offered the following suggestions about what can be done:

1. The teachings – including the Pope’s statement about salvation and divine mystery - need to be communicated widely in simple language that lay people can understand.
   
   
2.  The education and formation of priests is to be done in such a way as to advance these sentiments. This means that learning about interfaith forms a compulsory element of their education rather than an elective. 
   
   
3. The education and professional development of educators in Catholic schools is to be done in such a way as to advance these sentiments.  Again, as a compulsory element.  
   
   
4. Catholic schools are to be supported and directed to ensure these sentiments are successfully implanted in the hearts of students, and to allocate time and money as required to get this result.  
   
   
5. This means ensuring that Catholic students engage with Jewish people by visiting synagogues and Jewish museums, participating in cultural exchange programs with Jewish schools, and inviting speakers into their schools, such as those offered by Together For Humanity. We stand ready to assist and support Catholic churches, schools or other organisations to replicate or adapt elements of our programs as they see fit.

“God did not find a vessel to hold blessings … other than peace”. (5) I commend the Catholic Church for substantial efforts toward peace and brotherhood, and wish them every success.  My prayers are for peace for the entire human family, in Ukraine, the Holy Land - Israel/Palestine, and wherever this blessing is lacking.

Notes  

1)    https://www.catholic.org.au/synodalchurch

2)    John 14:6

3)    ‘For the Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable' (Rom.11:29): A Reflection on Theological Questions Pertaining to Catholic-Jewish Relations, point 36, http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/en.html

4)    Rosen, D. Paper not yet published.

5)    Mishna, Masechet Oktzin, 3rd chapter

 

Emotional blindness. The Case of Isaac – Toldot

Alienated. Feeling alone and disconnected from the people who used to provide connection and a sense of belonging. Perhaps there is a vicious cycle - feelings of alienation in an individual alienate the people they might otherwise connect with. Don’t we like to hang out with happy people? Surely, the alienated one needs to get over it! Look on the bright side! Which also means don’t dare look at what feels wrong and misaligned. Turn a blind eye, mate. That’s the winning strategy. Perhaps it is.

I wonder about the merits of focusing on the positive to such a degree that we stop seeing disturbing facts or fears. I want to explore this by looking at the metaphoric hints in our teachings about Isaac’s blindness.

Isaac is one of Judaism’s three patriarchs. He was literally blind[i], but Isaac also seems to have been blind to the true evil[ii] nature of his oldest son, Esau[iii], who he wanted to bless at the end of his life[iv] rather than his good son, Jacob.

The meaning of Isaac’s blindness is hinted at in various teachings of the Midrash. One approach is that God brought blindness down on Isaac as a way of shielding him from the shame of Esau’s behavior. Easu abducted married women and raped them. If Isaac would walk in the marketplace, people would ridicule him as the father of that scoundrel. By making Isaac blind, God caused Isaac to stay at home and thus avoid the experience of shame[v]. This seems to endorse the proposition that one way to deal with shame is to avoid exposure to it and escape from it.

I read a charming articulation of this approach from the Breslov school of Chasidism. “You may remember … from the early childhood of some little person in your vicinity, that closing one’s eyes was a strategy often employed to ward off the threat of seeming doom. It may not have always worked, but then again you might not have known how to do it properly.” [vi]The Breslov approach emphasises seclusion and talking to God like one would to a friend.

The Rebbe Nachman stated 'And if things get very bad, make yourself into nothingness.’

I asked him, 'How does one make himself into nothingness?’

He replied, 'Close the mouth and eyes – nothingness!’

They advise, “One has to hide inside the house to keep himself from feasting his eyes on this world. The walls of the house serve as blinders.”

An alternative view is that Isaac’s blindness was a consequence of his experience being offered as a human sacrifice by his own father[vii]. At the time the angels wept, and their tears entered Isaac’s eyes and eventually blinded him[viii]. The angels could not bear the injustice of a father’s cruelty to his son. Isaac tuned into the outrage of the angels to such an extent that his mind was closed to any form of parental rejection of a child. He could not see that Esau was an undeserving son, unworthy of the blessings he wished to give him[ix]. Following this interpretation, turning a blind eye is unwise.

Still another approach links Isaac’s blindness to the experience of bitterness of spirit[x] caused to him and Rebecca by the idol worship of Esau’s wives. This made Isaac angry, which led him to become blind[xi]. Anger, sometimes caused by being confronted with something we really wish we could pretend was not there[xii], can cause us to not ‘see things clearly’ and significantly distort our perception of reality, rendering us emotionally ‘blind.’

I am not sure exactly what guidance to draw from all this. However, a few things are clear to me. A lot of the time, it is useful to look away and tell ourselves that the time is not right for exploring depressing matters[xiii], on condition that we do look at them from time to time. If we never deal with painful issues, denial is likely to end in tears when reality crashes through and needs to be dealt with. Despite turning a blind eye, we still have some awareness of the problems we are choosing not to see so the emotions of anger, resentment and shame bubble away in the shadows, and in the subconscious and can’t be addressed. The suppressed rage and fear seep out in unspoken ways, through tone and body language and cause distress to people around us and to ourselves. Perhaps, the answer lies in mixing blindness with clear-eyed exploration of the painful things we wish to avoid.

---

[i] Genesis 27:1

[ii] Midrashic sources, Midrash Rabba and others

[iii] Lamm, N. 2012, Derashot L’dorot, a commentary for the ages: Genesis, OU press, p. 114

[iv] Genesis 27:4

[v] Bereshit Rabba 65

[vi] https://www.breslov.org/dvar/bereishis/toldot_5761.html

[vii] Genesis 22:1-12

[viii] Bereshit Rabba 65:5

[ix] R. Ezra Bick, https://www.torahmusings.com/2013/10/the-blindness-of-yitzchak/

[x] Genesis 26:35

[xi] Midrash Tanchuma toldot 8

[xii] Toldot Yaakov Yosef, I don’t remember the exact reference

[xiii] R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi, Tanya, chapter 26

Strength in the face of the deluge of the deep dark chaos - Noah

It is 4 am and I can't sleep. Thoughts and worries rob me of much needed sleep.

Some of the flood of thoughts are personal and internal, combining with the troubles of others. 

Yesterday I learned about the death of a 60 year old spouse of someone in Western Sydney that I have known through work for many years. He died of COVID.

According to a tweet by BBC reporter (of Afghan heritage) Yalda Hakim, the 5th of October was “Day 17 of Taliban ban on girls returning to secondary school in Afghanistan. Millions of girls across the country continue to be confined to their homes, deprived of an education” . An assistant principal in Kabul told Yalda "Today most of our teachers were crying for their students, when are they going to start studying above grade 6?”

I have been thinking about the idea that there is an alternative reality to the ordered world many of us spend time in. There is something beyond experiences of delicious, sufficient food, prioritised to do lists, walking in nature and spending time with people we love or like.“In the beginning of God’s creation of heaven and earth, [He first created]  chaos and void, and darkness upon the face of the deep (1)”.

This chaos is not an event of the past but of the present. The energies of chaos and void, negation and destruction continue to lurk in the netherworld of reality and in the deep shadows of individual human hearts and subconscious minds (2). These forces pose an ongoing threat to burst out and submerge the world and our minds in a flood of destruction or upheaval (3). One role of the human being is to hold this chaos at bay and to actively work on creating all that is good, beautiful and nourishing (4).

Humans have often failed to contain the destructive forces. Many women continue to suffer sexual harassment. This is an ancient problem: “the sons of the powerful ones saw the daughters of man that they were good, so they took women from all that they chose” (5), including by force (6). The world was corrupted and filled with robbery (7). This ethical collapse was followed by a flood arising from the deep (as well as rain from above) and destroying everything (8).

Yet, as terrifying as the deep chaos is, we must resist the temptation to gather bricks and make towers (9) of false security. Police states preserve “order” with evil and harsh measures. Some of their rulers also create extra “security” for themselves in massive off-shore accumulations of wealth or other kinds of ‘towers’ to feed illusions of greatness and immortality (10).

Punitive self-talk mimics the tactics of the KGB by shaming and berating us every time a chaotic thought of self-doubt surfaces, arising from our dark shadowed subconscious. To overcompensate for the gnawing self-doubt and even loathing, some will display arrogant or narcissistic “bigness”, or hyper busyness.

But the chaos and “the deep” is not a fault but a design feature of creation and what makes us human. When we overcome or redirect misdirected desires or lusts this brings delight to our creator (11).

The floodwaters from the deep that brought destruction in the time Noah, represent the constant worries that threaten to overwhelm us. But as in the story of the flood, for those who responded appropriately with an “ark”, - wise or prayerful words for example- the waters raise the ark to a higher level representing the growth we can ultimately achieve prompted by the worries we might not have otherwise attained (12). Let us accept the chaos and shadows in ourselves and the inherent nature and realities of the world as the arena we are invited to play in and contribute to. Let’s add as much light, love, and learning as we can. 

 

Notes

 

 

1)     Genesis 1:1-2, my translation paraphrases the interpretation of Rashi.

2)     Soloveitchik, J.B. (1983) Halakhic Man, the Jewish Publications Society, p. 102

3)     Talmud Succa 53a-b

4)     Soloveitchik, J.B., p. 105

5)     Genesis 6:2

6)     R. Bachaya

7)     Genesis 6:11

8)     Genesis 7:11

9)     Genesis 11:3-4

10)  Leibowitz, Nehama (undated), New Studies in Bereshit- Genesis, Production Zion Ezra, p. 103

11)  R. Levi Yitchak of Berditchev in the name of his father in Kedushas Levi, Noach, p. 18

12)  The Chabad - Lubavitcher Rebbes, see for example this adaptation by Loshak, A. https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/5258597/jewish/When-Times-Are-Tough-Be-Like-Noah.htm