Struggle with Evil – thoughts about 9/11 and the Torah reading Ki Tetze

I am from New York. The twin towers that were destroyed with over 3000 lives was an integral part of my landscape growing up.

The 10^th anniversary of this indiscriminate brutal murderous act belongs first to the victims and their families.

The death of a huge number of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan does not detract from the tragedy of 9/11. I don’t believe grief should be compared. It is insensitive to say to American’s that the death that followed 9/11 should cancel their outrage about this ghastly deed. Just as it grotesque to dismiss the devastation of Iraqi and Afghan families and lives lost. I think the prophet Jeremiah was reflecting the human condition when he imagines the survivors of the destruction of Jerusalem crying out “Behold and see, if there is any pain like my pain”  היש מכאוב  כמכאובי?[i]

When I visited the site of ground Zero a year and some months after the attacks, the strange smell was still in the air. I stood at the fence around the hole in the ground and said a prayer while I contemplated the horror of the victims and their terrible horrific deaths, jumping from buildings etc.

I walked around the block and saw graffiti on a wall that said, “kill the Muslims”. I thought that there were two paths, the one chosen by Bin Laden and the brutal killers of 9/11 along with the graffiti artist, this is the path of us and them. The other path was one of reaching out to one another. I got some flack from some school friends about my work in Interfaith.  I made a vow to God at that moment that I would persevere with this work.  

The word Jihad burst into the consciousness of western world, at that point. For me, the word Jihad has come to mean something entirely different. In the 10 years since 9/11 I have made countless friends among the Muslim community. I have learned the idea of “the greater Jihad”, the battle with Evil within. I am grateful to those in Governments who take responsibility for protecting the community from violence, from wherever it comes. With the physical security being attended to, I am free to focus on the beautiful meaning of the word Jihad, the spiritual struggle against Evil. If enough people of all backgrounds, can succeed with the greater Jihad, the lesser one of violent conflict will be less likely.  

This struggle is not turn us into angels, although the complete eradication of evil is one ideal to struggle for[ii]. For most of us, our challenge is not to become something entirely different[iii] but simply to be human, half animal, half divine and to make good choices. These involve the ability to distinguish between ends and means, and no matter how pure and holy one’s cause, never to fall into the ugly place in which all the “others” are monsters are fair game and deserve to die because they are part of the dark side.

We are told twice to help a person struggling with a donkey, first we are told about a case with your enemy[iv], the second time we told about helping a brother[v]. This is interpreted as reflecting the truth that by working together we can turn an “enemy” into a brother. This will not always work, there are people for whom the blood of the others is of little consequence, these people are referred to at the end of our reading that reminds us that there are some people who attack the vulnerable, the stragglers, the tired, such as Amalek who must be fought[vi].  

Yet there are others who can be reached and improved through education and habit forming choices starting with ourselves. At first we might see the needs of another such as a lost object and be tempted to look away, but after forcing ourselves to do the right things a few times “you will not be able to look away[vii]”.

The stakes are high. Our portion talks about a rebellious child who can be put to death at his parent’s discretion if he disobeys them[viii] and he is a drunk and a glutton. On a literal level this is a pre-emptive punishment because such a person will eventually commit more serious crimes[ix]. There is an argument in the Talmud that the idea of the rebellious son is only theoretical and can never happen[x], it is only so that people learn from it and recognise that a failure to educate a child combined with indulgent habits and choices can lead to horrific outcomes.  

For me 9/11 is about the need to stand up to evil, not to be tolerant of small acts of violence which can lead to even greater violence. At the same time each of us must struggle with the evil inside of us, the temptation to paint our own as the good and see the other as collectively evil and deserving of destruction. May the victims of this tragedy not have died in vain, may bigotry and violence be removed from the face of the earth.

---

[i] Lamentations 1:12

[ii] Tanya Chapter 1, the work of the Tzadik

[iii] Tanya, part 1

[iv] Ex. 23:5

[v] Deuteronomy22:4

[vi] Deuteronomy 25:17

[vii] Alshich, a creative interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:1-3 quoted in Studies in Devarim, Leibowitz, N.

[viii] Deuteronomy 21:18-21

[ix] Rashi

[x] Talmud Sanhedrin

Dissent! When you think the Authority is Mistaken Shoftim 2011

Photo by Louisa Catlover

(Revision of post of 1 Sept 2011, Authority, Compliance, Defiance – Hazare, Gaddafi & the “Malaysia Solution” Shoftim)

I remember well, the moments in my working life when I was asked to act against my own conscience, these infuriated me or at least made me feel defiant. I thank God I was able to stand my ground. I can see the value of deferring to others and I accept that it cannot be right for everyone to do as they fit in all situations. Where does one draw the line?

In recent days we have witnessed the capture of Gaddafi’s compound, the cave-in of the Indian Government to hunger striker Anna Hazare and in Australia the successful court challenge of our Government’s strategy to transfer Asylum seekers to Malaysia. My Muslim friends have celebrated their Eid festival on two different days this week, some of them in compliance with the Australian Imam’s Council, others doing it their own way. Our Torah reading today is Shoftim/Judges, it is a good time to consider what the Torah has to say on the question of deferring to authority.

Obeying the Guidance

If there is a matter that is hard to determine, we must come to the priests, the Levites and the judge that will be in that time...you will do according to the word they tell you...you shall not turn from what they tell you to the right or to the left[i]. The simple meaning of “to the right or the left” is that we should not deviate at all from their instructions[ii].  But, this is also the jump off point for a discussion about dissent and compliance with the ruling of the Sanhedrin, the religious high court.

Even if they are wrong?

There are four perspectives on this. 1) We obey them even if they are wrong. 2) We not only obey them in spite of being convinced that they are wrong, we are also required to assume that we are mistaken. 3) We only obey the ruling of the Sanhedrin (Torah high court) if their rulings are correct. 4) There are complex ideas to consider when thinking about Right and wrong.

Even if they tell you right is left

Sifre states, “Even if it seems to you that they are telling you that right is left and left is right, obey them[iii]”. This phrase is quoted in Rashi, with one difference; he omits the words “it seems to you” and states it as if it were a fact, that the ruling is mistaken and telling to that right is left[iv]. Rashi’s intention is not entirely clear, one commentator on Rashi states that,” even if a person had a tradition from the great Beth Din in Jerusalem (the Sandhedrin) that he was present with them and they had told him that the law and now another Beth Din (religious court) is telling him the opposite that he received from many who were greater in wisdom and number, in spite of this he should not deviate as the one who commanded him to obey the Torah about that which forbidden and allowed has commanded this too..[v]”. This staggering statement essentially says that if the religious authority instructs you to do the wrong thing you should do it anyway.

You only think they are wrong

Another approach is both more comfortable and confronting. In this view, you only think you are right, but in fact the majority is right and you are wrong. You should not attribute the mistake to them, instead attribute the mistake to yourself. ...Because God will protect them from all errors so that (nothing but) the truth will come out of their mouths[vi]. This approach is more in keeping with the original phrase that Rashi is based on, which states that even if it seems to you (that he tells you about) right is left…[vii]. The overall effect of this ideas is that while you are not being asked to do something that is really wrong, you are being told to dismiss your our own views and trust that the authority has got it right. Ouch.

A Commentary whose meaning is disputed

The most challenging for me is the explanation by the Ramban who he lived over a thousand years after Jew law courts lost the authority to carry out capital punishment. He writes, “Even if you will think in your heart that they are mistaken and this matter is a simple in your eyes as your knowledge between your right and your left you should act according to their command. You should not say how can I eat this completely forbidden fat or (how can I) kill this innocent person. But you should say this is what I have been commanded by the master who commands me about all the commandments that I should do his commands in accordance with what I will be guided by those who stand before him...even if they err...[viii]. Other commentaries debate the meaning of Ramban because at the end of his explanation he mentions that God would protect the Sanhedrin from mistakes, while others see him as supporting the need to obey even mistaken guidance. Like natural laws that are generally good such as appetite but may occasionally cause harm, the overall impact of obeying the sages cancels out the harm of complying with the rare mistake[ix].

In practice both of these approaches tells the individual to disregard his own view. If follows a view in the Talmud if the dissenter has a tradition that something must be done one way and the majority asserts that they see it differently if he acts on his view he is killed so that there should not increase disputes among Israel[x]. This view is taken to be correct and is included in Jewish law[xi]. This is in relation to acting on different views after a decision was reached, prior to that robust debate is standard practice and appropriate. 

Corruptible Sages

The idea that the sages will be given divine assistance never to get it wrong must be considered alongside other teachings that warn of the corruptibility of all people including the greats. Do not believe in yourself until the day of your death[xii]! The judge is warned not take bribes because the bribe will blind the eyes of the wise and ruin the words of the righteous[xiii]. Similarly, The Holy One Blessed be He does not called a righteous person, righteous until he has been put in the grave. Why? Because all the days of his life he is beset by the evil inclination and God does not trust him in this world till the day of his death[xiv].

                                                                 

Corruption by the King Makers

There is also concern about the influence of the people who are the powers behind the throne who might retain an influence after installing someone as a judge. The change in form from the beginning to the end of the verse quoted above is instructive. judges and police officers shall you put in all your gates...and they shall judge the people a just justice[xv]. We start with an imperative instruction to the people to תתן appoint judges, this refers to people who are in a position of influence who can help select and appoint the judges. Then the language shifts to talk about what will happen “they will judge, justly” as if by themselves with the appointers out of the picture. This hints at the need for complete independence of the judiciary from the king makers, because if they remain dependent on those people there will never be justice[xvi]. No naïve assumptions of religious leaders retaining purity just by virtue of their office and past righteousness.

Only when they get it right

The same phrase telling us not to deviate right or left is interpreted in the exact opposite way by the Jerusalem Talmud to mean that you must only obey them when they get it right, and declare right to be right but not when they tell you that right is left[xvii]. This view is echoed in a later work “If they truly tell you that right is left eg. They allow the eating of forbidden fats…it is certainly forbidden to obey them[xviii]”.

More Complex than simple right or wrong/A need for Adaptation to Circumstances

Another explanation is that being that these are matters of logic, there cannot really be a “right and left”[xix], perhaps a warning to those who reduce complex judgements down to a simple right or wrong, just like right and left instead of recognising the nuances and validity of arguments to support either conclusion[xx].  Another view by Abarbanel[xxi] is that in normal circumstances the norms of Jewish law are “right”, such as the very narrow set of circumstances that would allow a court to execute a murderer, needing him to be warned right before the act etc. This “right” approach is completely wrong (or Left) in a situation of rampant murders when there is a need for greater deterrent[xxii].  The temple was destroyed because they judged (matters) by the (normal) law of the Torah[xxiii], rather than being adaptive.

Civil Disobedience

Despite the strong guidance about the need to obey the sages, obeying political leaders is quite a different matter[xxiv]. This is especially true with the midwives in Egypt who defied the evil king Pharaoh’s order to kill Jewish baby boys[xxv]. Even the generally righteous King Saul could get it wrong and his guards are seen to have done the right thing by refusing to obey his orders to kill priests in the city of Nov[xxvi]. Maimonides makes it very clear that when a King’s instructions contradict those of the Torah, the king is to be disobeyed[xxvii]. This follows the Talmudic idea, “the words of the teachers and the words of the students, which is to be obeyed?[xxviii]” 

Conclusion

There is value in the preservation of authority but this is not an absolute value. The difference between following the sages when you think they are wrong or actually wrong is hypothetical, in both cases from the perspective of the dissenter the experience is the same. There must be recognition that the feeling that my perspective is as absolutely correct as my knowledge of my right and left hands is foolish. Every situation is different and requires flexible and sometimes subtle as well as bold judgement that will deviate from normal procedures. It can appear to an individual that left is being labelled as right, when in fact ultimate justice is being served by subverting normal Torah procedures. Deference and humility are useful here as is robust discussion where appropriate. Yet, there are certainly situations where human authority is overridden. I am not across the details of Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption efforts in India, but I think he is acting appropriately by fighting corruption, even if he is holding democratic institutions to ransom with his hunger strike. The rule of law is important but conscience and the rule of God must be given a lot of weight against simply “following orders” as we heard in the infamous Nuremburg defence. Further study would be useful as this topic is far from closed for me.

---

[i] Deuteronomy 17:9-11

[ii] Oonkelus translation, Bchor Shor

[iii] Sifre Piska 154

[iv] Rashi on 17:11

[v] Gur Aryeh, Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel, (c. 1520 –1609) widely known as the Maharal of Prague, or simply The MaHaRaL

[vi] Sifse Chachamim

[vii] Sifre

[viii] Ramban on 17:11

[ix] Rabbenu Nissim

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

[xi] Maimonides, Yad Hachazakah, Hilchot Mamrim, 4:1

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

[xiii] Deuteronomy 16:19

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

[xv] Deuteronomy 16:18

[xvi] Klei Yakar

[xvii] Jerusalem Talmud Horiyos 1:1

[xviii] Torah Temima, Rabbi Baruch ha-Levi Epstein 1860-1941

[xix] Sifse Chachamim

[xx] Klei Yakar

[xxi] Isaac ben Judah Abrabanel, (1437 –1508),

[xxii] Let us put aside contemporary arguments about the actual deterrent value of capital punishment, this was written over 500 years ago

[xxiii] Talmud, Bava Metzia, 39b, a statement by Rabbi Yochanan which is applied to the need for going beyond the letter of the law but lends itself quite plausibly to this interpretation as well

[xxiv] The material in this paragraph is based on the work of Amsel, N, (1996) The Jewish Encyclopaedia of Moral and Ethical Issues, Jason Aronson, Northvale NJ, USA, p.43

[xxv] Exodus 1:15-19

[xxvi] Samuel I, 22:16-17

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

[xxviii] Talmud, Kiddushin 42b

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

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

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



Photo by Josh Lopez Used with General Permission

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

Value of authority

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

Even if they are wrong?

One view is that we only obey the sages if they are correct. We are instructed to come to the priests, the Levites and the judge that will be in that time...you will do according to the word they tell you...you shall not turn from what they tell you to the right of to the left[ii]. This is interpreted by the Jerusalem Talmud to mean that you must only obey them when they get it right, and declare right to be right but not when they tell you that right is left[iii].

This same phrase is interpreted in the exact opposite way by Rashi. He takes it to mean that even if he tells you about right, that it is left and that left is right...[iv] This staggering statement essentially says that if the religious authority instructs you to do the wrong thing you should do it anyway. According to one view in the Talmud if the dissenter has a tradition that something must be done one way and the majority asserts that they see it differently if he acts on his view he is killed so that there should not increase disputes among Israel[v].

The most challenging for me is the explanation by the Ramban. He lived over 1000 years since Jewish law courts had the authority to preside over capital cases, so his talk about killing an innocent person had no bearing on practical on actual decision making. With this disclaimer in place, let us explore his words. “Even if you will think in your heart that they are mistaken and this matter is a simple in your eyes as your knowledge between your right and your left you should act according to their command. You should not say how can I eat this completely forbidden fat or (how can I) kill this innocent person. But you should say this is what I have been commanded by the master who commands me about all the commandments that I should do his commands in accordance with what I will be guided by those who stand before him...even if they err...[vi]. I have to assume that this very different to the Nuremberg defence of “I was just following orders”, perhaps the distinction is between religious and secular orders but I have don’t find that a compelling difference.     

Are they really wrong?

Another approach is both more comfortable and confronting. In this view, you only think you are right, but in fact the majority is right and you are wrong. The original phrase that Rashi quotes is even if it seems to you (that he tells you about) right, that it is left and that left is right, listen to them. [vii]Or this interpretation, if he tells you about right, which you thinks is left, or about left which you think is right you should listen to him and not attribute the mistake to them, instead attribute the mistake to yourself. ...Because God will protect them from all errors so that (nothing but) the truth will come out of their mouths[viii]. The overall effect of these ideas is while you are not being asked to do something that is really wrong, you are being told to dismiss your our own views and trust that the authority has got it right. Ouch.

Relativism?

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

Corruptible Sages

The idea that the sages will be given divine assistance never to get it wrong must be considered alongside other teachings that warn of the corruptibility of all people including the greats. Do not believe in yourself until the day of your death[x]! The judge is warned not take bribes because the bribe will blind the eyes of the wise and ruin the words of the righteous[xi]. Similarly, The Holy One Blessed be He does not called a righteous person, righteous until he has been put in the grave. Why? Because all the days of his life he is beset by the evil inclination and God does not trust him in this world till the day of his death[xii].

                                                                 

Corruption by the King Makers

There is also concern about the influence of the people who are the powers behind the throne who might retain an influence after installing someone as a judge. The change in form from the beginning to the end of the verse quoted above is instructive. judges and police officers shall you put in all your gates...and they shall judge the people a just justice[xiii]. We start with an imperative instruction to the people to תתן appoint judges, this refers to people who are in a position of influence who can help select and appoint the judges. Then the language shifts to talk about what will happen “they will judge, justly” as if by themselves with the appointers out of the picture. This hints at the need for complete independence of the judiciary from the king makers, because if they remain dependent on those people there will never be justice[xiv]. No naïve assumptions of religious leaders retaining purity just by virtue of their office and past righteousness.

Civil Disobedience

Despite the strong guidance about the need to obey the sages, obeying political leaders is quite a different matter[xv]. This is especially true with the midwives in Egypt who defied the evil king Pharaoh’s order to kill Jewish baby boys[xvi]. Even the generally righteous King Saul could get it wrong and his guards are seen to have done the right thing by refusing to obey his orders to kill priests in the city of Nov[xvii]. Maimonides makes it very clear that when a King’s instructions contradict those of the Torah, the king is to be disobeyed[xviii]. This follows the Talmudic idea, “the words of the teachers and the words of the students, which is to be obeyed?[xix]”  

Conclusion

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

---

[i] Deuteronomy 16:18

[ii] Deuteronomy 17:9-11

[iii] Jerusalem Talmud Horiyos 1:1

[iv] Rashi on 17:11

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

[vi] Ramban on 17:11

[vii] Sifre

[viii] Sifse Chachamim

[ix] Sifse Chachamim

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

[xi] Deuteronomy 16:19

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

[xiii] Deuteronomy ibid

[xiv] Klei Yakar

[xv] The material in this paragraph is based on the work of Amsel, N, (1996) The Jewish Encyclopaedia of Moral and Ethical Issues, Jason Aronson, Northvale NJ, USA, p.43

[xvi] Exodus 1:15-19

[xvii] Samuel I, 22:16-17

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

[xix] Talmud, Kiddushin 42b