Responsibility and inter-group relations verses I cannot really explain

Perseverance is needed for “Intercultural Understanding” a teacher said last week at a professional development day for teachers I lead in Queensland. The teacher was born in South America, grew up in Australia and is married to an Asian woman. She nodded knowingly.

In our Torah reading this week there are several verses that I cannot ignore, yet I have little of value or new to say about them.  One approach would be to simply ignore these or pretend they are not there. I think the responsible thing to do is acknowledge that these ideas exist within our sacred text even if I can’t find some happy synthesis with my own sense of ethics.  Instead, I offer some limited comments and invite readers to share their own thoughts about these.  Relating to some of these verses and more generally in our reading is the theme of responsibility.

Harsh Revenge

Despite the general prohibition against revenge[i], God instructs Moses to "Take revenge for the children of Israel against the Midianites. Afterwards you will be gathered to your people[ii]” (eg. Moses would die). This was in relation against a deliberate campaign by the nation of Midian in which they sent women to seduce Jewish men to morally corrupt them and also to persuade the men to worship idols. When they return from the battle Moses is angry at the commanders. “Moses said to them, "you allowed all the females to live! They were the same ones who were involved with the children of Israel on Balaam's advice to betray the Lord over the incident of Peor (a form of Idol worship), resulting in a plague among the congregation of the Lord[iii]”.

The idea of going to war over men being seduced or persuaded to worship anything is jarring to people who value religious freedom, Moses’ angry outburst even more so. To modern sensibilities sexual activity between consenting adults is ok and to punish a woman for the choice of a man is deeply problematic.

Part of the context here is the weight the Bible puts on these things. Perhaps a modern equivalent would be if one nation deliberately sought to destroy another though a successful network of agents that turn citizens into drug addicts. Commentary explains that the women Moses complained about were recognised as having seduced this or that particular man[iv].  The bottom line for me is that this instruction was a once off in the distant past and I don’t think it has a direct literal message for our time. Instead I am interested in more allegorical messages these verses might contain.

Responsibility Messages in Midianite Mass Execution

If we can put aside the issues in previous paragraph there are two moral messages in this episode. The first relates to the link between Moses’ death and the Midianite mission. When Moses was first confronted by the “moral onslaught” of the Midianite women he fell apart and cried[v]. To correct his failure to act at that time God commanded him to deal with this “unfinished business” and only then would could he die[vi]. To me this is a strong message about stepping up and taking action when it is needed but difficult or showing leadership when the opportunity arises.

A second message is hinted at in the omission or mention of the sorcerer/prophet Balaam who gave advice that led to the seductions[vii]. When punishment is being discussed Balaam is mentioned prominently, seemingly bearing some of the blame for the whole episode. Yet, the role of Balaam is completely absent when the story first appears, and the balance of blame at least for the promiscuity is strongly placed on the Jewish men.  “Israel settled in Shittim, and the people began to commit harlotry with the daughters of the Moabites”. One of the foremost female Torah scholars, Nehama Liebowitz, explains that at the time of the sin the role of Balaam is irrelevant, the focus was and had to be on the poor choice of the Jewish men who could have resisted the temptation[viii].

Ethnic-Religious Cleansing

The second difficult issue is the insistence on removing the existing inhabitants of Canaan. “You shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, destroy all their temples … But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the Land from before you, then those whom you leave over will be as spikes in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they will harass you in the land in which you settle[ix]”. The research literature about racism talks about a “new racism” in which members of dominant groups argue for excluding members of minorities based on incompatibility between the two cultures. Often the differences are exaggerated and based on ignorance, prejudice and misunderstanding.  Yet here the Torah seems to be legitimizing this very argument.  I could argue that again this an instruction for a specific time. Yet, the kind of argument the Torah puts forward here seems to still be influencing decisions today[x]. I would love to hear from others about this.

Extreme idea of moral responsibly of leaders

If someone kills a person by accident they are exiled to cities of refuge which protect them from revenge by relatives of the deceased and also serve as atonement for their deed. They are allowed to leave the city only when the high priest dies.

One explanation for the surprising link between the date of release and the death of the high priest relates to a very high standard of responsibility. The reason to keep the accidental killer in the city until that time is so that “they do not ridicule the high priest when they see the killer going outside the city of refuge and people would say “did you see this person who killed an innocent person and now goes out and comes among the people and the high priest does not take revenge against him, (assuming) this is something which he is responsible for. This is not the case the case with a new High priest who cannot be criticised about something that did not happen during his time in office[xi]”.

Conclusion

The Talmud teaches “it is not for you to complete the work, but neither are you free to desist from it”[xii]. This week I have also been reading about research relating to business failure that found that the collapse of great companies has been due less to lack of boldness and more to lack of discipline and perseverance with core activities[xiii]. I have been privileged to be called to a leadership role in the field of diversity. As I go about the business of this work, I will meet many texts and people who will not fit neatly into the roles I would like them to play. I will not fix them. I will seek a point of light, redeeming qualities and beauty. To do less would be irresponsible.

---

[i] Leviticus 19:18.

[ii] Numbers 31:2

[iii] Numbers 31:15-16

[iv] Rashi to 31:16

[v] Numbers 25:6 and as interpreted by Rashi and Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsh

[vi] Ohr Hachaim

[vii] Numbers 31:16

[viii] Leibowitz, N Studies in Bamidbar Numbers, p.377-378

[ix] Numbers 33:52 & 55

[x] http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/segregation-contagion-preservation-and.html
http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/fear-of-other-in-sefad-ancient-egypt.html

[xi] Chizkuni

[xii] Pirkey Avot 2:21

[xiii] Collins J, (2009), How the Might Fall and Why Some Companies Never Give In, Random House Business Books

Limitations of the Legal

A buck brazenly flaunts the law of the land
photo & title by Jason Molenda http://www.molenda.com/
used under creative commons license

I read some parenting advice from a psychotherapist in a Jewish newspaper column[i] that really annoyed me. A mother is driving her 10 year old daughter who has fallen asleep in the front seat of the car. Three minutes from her home she stops to pick up her 11 year old son. He is furious when he sees his sister in the front seat. Their family has a rule that the oldest child sits in the front seat. He hits his sister and begins shouting “you’re sitting in my seat! You’re sitting in my seat!” The mother shouts at him and he finally gets into the back.   

The advice given is that although the violence of the son was wrong, the situation could have been avoided if the mother was “more sensitive to the dynamics of sibling rivalry…you could have woken your daughter shortly before arriving at your son’s friend’s house…” and ask the daughter to move to the back because she would have to wake up in a few minutes anyway.

Follow the rules?

The question of how much importance we should give to rules is a difficult one. On one hand there are times when the law needs to be the primary consideration.  Laws are one great way to pursue justice. Disregarding laws out of compassion for one side of a dispute is unjust toward people on the other side[ii]. Despite the importance of laws, we are taught that thinking; “what is mine is mine, what is yours is yours”… is the attitude of the people of the wicked selfish city of Sodom[iii]. Failure to go beyond the letter of the law is given as one of the causes of the destruction of the Jewish temple[iv]. In the case of the “oldest in the front seat rule”, I would not be telling the mother to be more sensitive to the sense of entitlement her older son feels. I would be more concerned about his rigid insistence on getting everything he is entitled to under “the rules” and helping him work on developing a more flexible attitude.

Challenging the rules from within– the first feminists

An important variable is the option not to challenge the system of laws but instead seek “clarification” or reinterpretation for an equitable outcome. This was the case with a woman named Noa and her four sisters known as the daughters of Zelophehad who challenged the position of the inheritance law that only men could inherit a portion in the land of Canaan[v]. Initially, the sisters were given the run-around, first going to Moses to be told to speak to leaders of hundreds, only to be told that this is a difficult matter that only Moses can deal with. Eventually they approached them all at the same time. Moses is so taken with their argument that he wished to advocate for them before God but he is told that they are right and don’t need an advocate[vi].

The sisters don’t challenge the legitimacy of the system of law. According to commentary Noa et al. displayed great tactical and legal wisdom. “Their petition followed a razor-sharp line of reasoning that incorporated all the relevant laws and principles, and even formulated the proper decision. This is why Scripture says, “And Moses brought their judgment before G‑d”—their judgment, not their question, for their petition included the legal argument and its ruling[vii]”.  This approach assumed that they did not overcome the law but that in response to their complaint the existing but not yet revealed law was uncovered. “The daughters of Zelophehad speak rightly” is explained as God saying: “[As they spoke it,] so is this section of Torah written before Me on high[viii].” This approach could be applied to divine laws, when it comes to man-made laws, of course they can be wrong and often are, it is then a question of the principle and value of the rule of law vs. a particular poor law.

Parallel in Islam?

An intriguing idea in Islam that seems related to this is the principle of Maqasid[ix] (Maqasid at Shari’ah). My understanding of this approach is that it considers the broad purposes of the law alongside the letter of the law. Key purposes are compassion and benefit. “A mere conformity to rules that went against the purpose and vision of the Shari’ah was therefore generally unacceptable”. An Imam I know suggested that the Malaysians liberal approach to a widow’s rights to the family home might be following Maqasid[x].

Justice seen to be done

Perhaps what is most challenging is when law appears legalistic and out of touch with “common sense”. Insisting on following the rule about who sits in the front seat when another child is half asleep, I think would qualify. Either way, legalistic or “common sense” the losing party is likely to feel resentful. With self-interest bias, there is the danger that justice will not appear to have been done to those who have lost and may result in conflict. The Truth and Reconciliation process in South Africa is one example that appears to have transcended the normal legal process and whatever its imperfections, South Africa seems to be in a much better place than many have feared it would be when the blacks came to power.

Laundered land? Perfectly legal

This dilemma is the background to the dramatic story of Balaam and his donkey. He is recruited by the king of Moab and ends up blessing the Israelites instead of cursing them. Prior to this we have a brief battle in which an area in present day Jordan between the rivers Jabbok and Arnon, thought to be the modern Wady Mojib[xi], is conquered from an Emorite king[xii]. This area was originally Moabite land and the Israelites had kinship ties [xiii]and strict instructions from God not to distress or provoke them to war[xiv]. Despite these ties the Israelites feel justified in holding on to the land because it has been conquered from them by the Amorites and so he “purified it for Israel”[xv]. It has been described as “theft that is without wrongdoing[xvi]”. What a fascinating phrase!

The Israelites saw this as Kosher but the text does not tell us how the people of Moab-Amon felt about it[xvii]. A midrash suggests that they felt afraid because they saw the Israelites have conquered “our land”[xviii]. A few verses later, their king hires Balaam the sorcerer to try to harm the Israelites. 300 years later, the king of Amon refers to this conquest “Because Israel took away my land, when they came out of Egypt, from Arnon and up to the Jabbok…and now restore them peacefully [xix]”. Jephthah, the Israelites’ leader, counter this claim, “Israel did not take the land of Moab and the land of the children of Ammon… the God of Israel, delivered Sichon (King of the Amorites) and all his people into the hand of Israel, … and Israel possessed all the land of the Amorites…from the Arnon up to the Jabbok…when Israel dwelt in Heshbon and its towns…and in all the cities that are along Arnon, three hundred years; why did you not recover them at that time”? In Jewish law about land quarrels, undisputed occupation for three years is seen as proof of ownership[xx].  This argument does not persuade the Amonites, instead they go to war.

Conclusion

The informed view in my community is that going even to a religious court to resolve a dispute is a very bad outcome.  Laws are great things, but in the real world their value is sometimes, somewhat limited.

[i] Wikler, Dr. M, Hamodia 28 June 2012, p. C14

[ii] While Jewish tradition encourages charity, mediation and compromise it warns against “glorifying the poor” in legal disputes, which means that if a very rich person is legally correct in a dispute with a poor person the judge would still decide in favour of the rich person and cannot change the ruling out of compassion.

[iii] Pirkei Avot 5:13

[iv] Talmud Bava Metzia 30b

[v] Numbers 27:1-7

[vi] Abarbanel

[vii] Anaf Yosef commentary on Ein Yaakov, Bava Batra 119b, cited by Schneider, S, http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2222/jewish/A-Daughter-of-Zelophehad-Speaks.htm

[viii] Rashi to Numbers 27:7; Targum Yonatan ibid.; Yalkut Shimoni ibid.; Sifri ibid cited in Schneider

[ix] Kamali, Mohammed Hashim (2010), He is Professor of Law at the International Islamic University Malaysia. He is author of numerous articles published in learned journals and many works including Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, Criminal Law in Islam and Freedom of Expression in Islam.  http://www.faithinallah.org/higher-objectives-of-islamic-law-maqasid-ash-sharia/

[x] http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/inheritance-laws-gender-sharia-halacha.html

[xi] “A river and wady of eastern Palestine, the modern Wady Mojib (or Wady el-Mojib). The name means perhaps "noisy," a term which well describes the latter part of the course of the river. Its length is about 45 miles, from its rise in the desert to its entrance into the Dead Sea. It spreads out to a breadth of 100 feet here and there, but for the most part is narrow; and though low in summer, in the winter season it is in places 8 or 10 feet deep. It runs at first north-westerly, but afterward its course becomes westerly. Its striking feature is the steepness and narrowness of the ravine through which it passes shortly before it empties into the lake, opposite Engedi. Between the lofty limestone hills, which cause this precipitous descent, and the lake, the river expands into a shallow estuary nearly 100 feet wide. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1799-arnon

[xii] Numbers 21:25

[xiii] Moab and Amon were descendants of Abraham’s nephew Lot

[xiv] Deuteronomy 2:9

[xv] Talmud Hulin 60b, Rashi to Numbers 21:26, I found it interesting to read that Rabbi Shimon Ben Lakish states that there are many verses that are fit to be burned but they are in fact the body of the Torah such as the verse explaining the legal basis for the annexation of these lands

[xvi] Midrash Tanchuma Balak 2

[xvii] A midrash states that Balak saw Israel sitting calmly, surrounded by the clouds of glory, Manna falls on them, the Slav birds rise, a well (in a rock) goes with them… (cited in Torah Shlaima Vol. 42, p.6)

[xviii] Midrash Tanchuma Balak 2

[xix] Judges 11:13

[xx] Talmud Bava Batra chapter 3

A shrug, a Serpent and Embracing Uncertainty

Our challenge is to embrace uncertainty. There are some things we can’t understand or control that we need to accept and run with. In coming days a cancer survivor and former student of mine is heading to the London Paralympics to play wheelchair tennis, a barely imaginable dream come true. A devout Muslim Arabic friend shares his worries about what the Muslim Brotherhood will mean for Egypt. The organisation I lead is preparing to launch an on-line diversity education resource for every school in the country with events in seven cities. I trust the work of our excellent team over the last two years will pay off, but I wish I could predict exactly how it will be received.  

Beyond Logic

The unknown is a theme that runs through our reading this week of the Sidra Chukat[i], which begins with the least understandable commandment, concerning a red cow’s ashes mixed with water that spiritually cleanses one person but contaminates the one who prepares it[ii]. The name of the portion, Chukat, means a law that we cannot understand. Some would assume that the logic is absolutely clear but simply hidden from us. The Lubavitcher Rebbe goes further; “these commands have no rational explanation; (emphasis mine) moreover, they defy reason… the Divine Will has not clothed itself in the garments of rationality[iii]”.

A copper serpent and letting go

The incident with the copper snake also sits outside common sense. The people had spoken against Moses, "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in this desert, for there is no bread and no water, and we are disgusted with this rotten bread[iv] [v]”. It seems the people craved the solid certainty of degradation of Egypt in comparison to the uncertainty of freedom in the desert and the still unseen “promised land”. (So) “God sent the venomous snakes against the people, and they bit the people, and many people of Israel died”. After the people sought forgiveness, “Moses made a copper snake and put it on a pole, and whenever a snake bit a man, he would gaze upon the copper snake and live[vi]”. The object that brought healing was symbolic of the one that brought illness[vii].

The serpent had no magical powers, when the Israelites looked at it they were also looking upward (to God) and committing their hearts to their father in heaven and they were healed[viii].  The choice of the Serpent specifically as symbol reinforces the point, as if to say “surely you realise it is not the object that is the active ingredient”, because the snake is the problem, yet it is the solution[ix].Centuries later, Elisha puts salt in the ‘bad water’ of Jericho which fixes the problem[x]. The very counter-intuitiveness of it is a lesson that there are times when we need to let go, and for believers this means to trust God.

From rigidity and domination to Persuasion and consensus building

A variation of this theme is when Moses is told a second time to make a miracle to get water from a stone, but to do it differently this time. The first time just after the exodus from Egypt Moses was told to hit the rock, now leading a new generation he was told explicitly to take his staff[xi] but to talk to the rock. Moses became very angry with the people and their complaints, and this led him to make a mistake[xii]. He hit the rock instead of talking to it. Because of this seemingly small error Moses is told he will not be the leader[xiii] to take the people into the Promised Land.

One interpretation of the problem in hitting the stone (which was previously the right thing to do) is that it was a different time, the people had changed and Moses failed to change his style accordingly[xiv]. It was appropriate for Moses to use rigidity, symbolised by hitting with a stick, as a leadership approach at the time he was leading recently freed slaves who were not yet ready for ambiguity and responsibility. For the generation that grew up free in the desert, they needed a leader whose style was one of persuasion of thinking independent people, this style would be symbolised by talking rather than striking, a much more murky process with far less control or certainty.

Conclusion

It is amazing to see Adam Kellerman who was diagnosed with Cancer in his right hip not long after I taught him for his Bar Mitzvah in 2003. It was an extremely difficult road, longs stints in hospital, hope, disappointments, chemo, infections, and 25 operations at the end of which he had difficulty walking and could never play his beloved soccer again. Somehow out of it all, Adam has created a stellar wheelchair tennis career[xv] and is soon heading off to the Paralympics. A scenario we would never have imagined in those difficult days. I am now keen to help him reach 500 likes on his Facebook page[xvi] (he has 359).  In Egypt, there are now promises of Coptic and female vice presidents. Who knows what will really happen there? In terms of our diversity education resource, we will make our best effort and then I need to trust teachers to make the right decision. There is much that is out of our hands, there is not much point worrying about it. It is not for us to complete the work, nor are we free to desist from it[xvii].

If the Lord will not build a house, its builders have toiled at it in vain; if the Lord will not guard a city, [its] watcher keeps his vigil in vain.

It is futile for you who rise early, who sit up late, who eat the bread of tension, Indeed the Lord will give sleep to his beloved [xviii].

---

[i] Numbers 19:1 – 22:1

[ii] Numbers 19:10

[iii] Schneerson, Rabbi MM, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, based on Likkutei Sichos, Vol. IV, pp. 1056-1057 as adapted  http://www.chabadworld.net/page.asp?pageID={2F39F577-95B6-40DA-BFCD-81DC8BAECB5B}

[iv] referring to the Manna

[v] Numbers 21:5-6

[vi] Numbers 21:9

[vii] An explanation of the serpent offered in the Zohar is that it reminded people of the punishment like a child who sees his father’s strap if afraid and behaves (Sehlach 175)

[viii] Talmud, Mishna Rosh Hashanah 3:5

[ix] Bchor Shor

[x] Kings II, 2:19-22

[xi] Numbers 20:8

[xii] Sifre Matot 157

[xiii] I find the situation with Moses in this reading really interesting. Moses, the great leader who defied Pharaoh, bargained with God, and successfully argued with angels tragically cannot see the completion of the journey of his people from Egypt to the Promised Land.  Moses faces complaints, loses his cool, both his siblings; Miriam and Aaron die. He approaches the king of Edom requesting passage for his people through that land, but this initiative falls flat, Moses’ polite request is met with a threat about which he can do nothing. Strangely, when his people are attacked by the king of Arad, Moses seems missing in action, his name is not mentioned. Instead the people themselves make a wow and pray to God (Numbers 21:1-3) without Moses playing any role (Aviya Hacohen, http://www.vbm-torah.org/parsha/37shelah.htm. Yet, despite Moses’ disappointment and bereavement he ends our reading in triumph. The Israelites sing a song of praise (Numbers 21:17) . There is a victory in a battle against Sichon the king of the Emorites. They then confront the giant Og. God tells Moses not to be afraid and again the Israelites are victorious. Moses himself is credited with personally slaying the giant (Talmud Brachot 54b)

[xiv] Sacks, Rabbi J, http://www.ou.org/index.php/torah/article/14695/#.T-wh2LWdmvY

[xv] http://www.adamkellerman.com/my-story.html

[xvi] http://www.facebook.com/adamkellermanwheelchairtennis

[xvii] Pirkei Avot

[xviii] Psalm 127:1-2, my translation follows Targum, Radak and Ibn Ezra which seem to be more in line with the simple meaning of the Hebrew and the flow of the content from verse 1, Rashi, Metzudat David, Metzudat Zion and Minchat Shai render is as “so will the Lord give sustenance/pleasure in the world to come, to one who banishes sleep from his eyes to occupy himself with Torah/service of heaven”.

Condemnation and Disassociation

Zbyszek reading a rescued Jewish tombstone previously
used as paving, image from film Shtetl: a journey home

A few days ago I was inspired by the action of Mousa[i], a nine year old Arabic-Australian boy who spoke up when he heard his school friends denigrating Jews. I was also moved by the reflections of a group of teenagers about their burden of knowing that they failed to stand up against injustice. Then there is the guy who both does and doesn’t stand apart, Zbyszek Romaniuk[ii]. He is a Pole from the small town of Bransk, Poland who despite his communities’ unwillingness to talk about its Jewish past makes a great effort to discover it, resulting in graffiti on his walls and threats against him. Yet, in his role as deputy mayor is arguably complicit with the silence. 

This is a discussion about the merits of standing apart from one’s group to challenge the group’s common prejudices or narrative, it is also an argument against condemning people for their failure to disassociate or condemn their own. I draw on the story of Korach.

Beyond “us and them”

Mousa’s example is inspiring, his stance is very important for overcoming divisions. Mohamed Dukuly[iii] is a dear friend who lived through the Liberian civil war but came out a champion of bridge building. He told me how he questioned his own group’s narrative. He wanted to know why the others hated his people, rather than just accept that it was simply because he was Muslim and they were Christian. He talked to members of the enemy tribe and learned about their experiences of arrogant behaviour by many of his tribesmen toward the tribe that was now hunting and killing his people, expressing rage felt for generations. He is one of those who are breaking the cycle.

I am trying to this as well. I have examined some of the hostility my people faced from Blacks in my native crown heights, in Brooklyn New York. Was it just bigotry or did some Jewish behaviour contribute? There were Apartment buildings that mysteriously ended up with exclusively Jewish residents. When I was in Kiev I was shocked to see a statue to Bogdan Chmielicki who I always thought of as a monster for murdering and attacking Jews. I still believe that this is true, but he was also a hero to the downtrodden serfs who were treated terribly by the “nobility”. Jews themselves oppressed, played the role of middle man, thus seen as complicit with the oppression and some doing well relative to the peasants. In the current conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and other Arabs I have also tried to understand both perspectives[iv].

Limits of being open to the other side and opposing one’s own

I am not convinced that challenging my own communities’ narrative is always the right thing to do. There are some arguments about our relationships with various others that I find compelling, convincing, or at least plausible. Some would argue that it is because of my biases, perhaps they are right. My point is that it is wrong to assume that whenever someone is unwilling to condemn their own community it is because they are a bad person. In some cases it is because they are sincere in their view that condemnation is not appropriate.

Besides principles or conviction, it difficult to be open to the other side when one’s own have been harmed, oppressed and even killed. In the film Shtetl, in which Zbyszek appears, at least some of the Jews show little willingness to consider Polish perspectives. Considering the way many Poles treated Jews (certainly not all Poles, many risked their very lives to save Jews, in defiance of the Nazis), I can strongly relate to this reticence even as it disturbs me. In one of the most shocking examples, we hear from a woman who returned to her town in Poland as a girl after surviving the concentration camps only to be hunted by locals whose names they knew, they were found hiding in a closet and killed by their neighbours.

When Zbyszek, in conversation with a Jewish historian, raises the issue of Jews being less than enthusiastic about Polish independence from Russia some years prior to WW II as a factor in Polish gentile resentment, this is dismissed by the Jewish historian, as justified by Polish anti-Semitism. Later when Zbyszek seeks to explain to Israeli teenagers the unwillingness of some Poles to save Jews at the risk of their lives, they dismiss his arguments. Finally at the end of the film Zbyszek himself fails to stand up for the other, despite his passionate interest in the Jewish past of his town. The contrast is stark, early in the film we see him digging out disgraced tombstones and collecting names to discover Bransk’s Jewish past, which is never discussed except in whispers. At the 500 years celebration of Brank he has an opportunity, as deputy Mayor, to mention the murdered Jews in his speech but he argues that as a public servant it is not his task to tell people what they are not prepared to hear. Instead he proclaims, “Bransk was always Polish and will forever be Polish”.

Without equating different situations as there are so many significant differences, as a general principle expecting people to challenge their own side all the time is not only unrealistic but it can itself be divisive. Muslims are continuously called on to condemn every violent act by anyone claiming to be a Muslim and assumed to be guilty until the condemnation quota is satisfied. Jews who do not want to see Israel dismantled completely or at least not prepared to condemn every Israeli action against Palestinians are seen as evil by many Arabs and Muslims. The common denominator is the ‘condemnation criteria’ which becomes a barrier to coexistence acceptance and interaction. The logic and merit of the argument against raising the disassociation bar must compete with the ethical argument against complicity with evil and the compelling craving to hear someone from the other side acknowledge what we see as a terrible injustice and condemn “his/her own”.

The Disassociation imperative in Torah

In the Torah there are three references to a call for disassociation in the case of Korach. He was a relative of Moses who challenged the legitimacy of his leadership and prophecy[v]. Korach ambushed Moses on a busy day when the presence of so many people would seem like business as usual[vi]. As the situation heats up the entire community gathers to see the showdown between the two men. First God tells Moses about people separating themselves from the wicked people[vii], Moses then tells the community "Please get away from the tents of these wicked men, and do not touch anything of theirs, lest you perish because of all their sins[viii]. Just as Korach had separated himself from the community to oppose Moses, it was important that the community separate from him[ix]. The fact that the people were standing with Korach’s group listening to them silently[x], is interpreted as implied agreement with their words and denial of Moses’ prophecy. They had to move away physically to symbolically distance themselves from Korach[xi].

In Jewish law this principle is expressed in the obligation to reproach sinners and the prohibition against flattery of evil doers (Chanifa). If someone violates certain prohibitions it is forbidden to give them honour or do anything that might imply approval of their deeds. An example of this is a wealthy donor who is involved in domestic violence. An organisation that would give him honour at their fundraising event would be in breach of the laws against Chanifa/flattery[xii]. One who justifies the wicked, or condemns the righteous-both are an abomination to the Lord[xiii].

Arguments against condemning people for failing to condemn or disassociate

The danger is that if we take the argument for disassociation to the extreme then people attached to either side of a conflict that see some merit in their own group’s claims or narrative can never reach out and connect with people on the other side because they would think that the other must be avoided. Of course that is wrong. Moses himself seeks dialogue with his detractors[xiv], which teaches us that one should not continue conflict[xv]. At a later point in the story Moses and Aaron are invited to separate themselves from the community and God would destroy them all[xvi]. The response is to do the exact opposite, Moses instructs Aaron to “rush into the midst of the people[xvii]” with incense to achieve atonement. In this case the loyalty to the people was the most important virtue.

We must differentiate between active participants in a conflict and the general group who have not condemned. In the case of the crowd standing near Korach, Moses argues “O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, if one man sins, shall You be angry with the whole congregation?” Moses differentiates between the active Korach and those who may have sinned in their hearts by doubting their teacher[xviii]. An alternative interpretation is that “although the whole congregation gathered, they did not sin[xix]”.

We also must consider the possibility that people are not sure what is right. One commentary explains the doubts people had about whether to side with Moses against Korach because they misunderstood Moses’ statement that “"In the morning, the Lord will make known who is His, and who is holy”.  They thought that if Korach and his group were wrong they would not get up from their beds the next morning.  Seeing Korach still alive, they thought that perhaps Korach would be proven right[xx]. We can give the benefit of the doubt to people who do not condemn what we think is wrong; they might think it is right or be unsure.

Consideration must also be given to whether or not there is any potential to make a difference by condemnation. A strong argument is made against culpability of citizens in the sins of their rulers because the impracticality of achieving anything by taking on their rulers[xxi].

Disassociation can be a powerful tool for peace, let us not use its absence as a reason to inflame conflict.

---

[i] Not his real name

[ii] Shtetl: A Journey Home". by Marian Marzynski,  http://www.logtv.com/films/shtetl/default.html

[iii] Mohamed is a Together for Humanity presenter and has also contributed to “conscious connectivity: creating dignity in conversation” http://www.amazon.com/conscious-connectivity-creating-dignity-conversation/dp/1453815171

[iv] http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/kaddish-for-palestinians-memorial-for.html http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/search/label/Arab-Israeli

[v] Numbers 16, as interpreted by traditional commentary

[vi] Chizkuni

[vii] Numbers 16:21

[viii] Numbers 16:26

[ix] R. Yitzchak Arama, in Akedat Yitzchak, cited in Leibovitz, N., Studies in Bamidbar Numbers,

[x] Midrash Hagadol

[xi] Malbim, R. Samson Raphael Hirsh

[xii] Ehrman Rabbi A (2002), the Laws of Interpersonal Relations, Artscroll Brooklyn, NY, based on Shaarei Teshuva 3:187-199

[xiii] Proverbs 17:15

[xiv] Numbers 16:12

[xv] Rashi

[xvi] Numbers 17:10

[xvii] R. Samson Raphael Hirsh on 17:11

[xviii] Ramban

[xix] Nachalat Yaakov on Numbers 16:22, R. Yaakov/Yekl Ben Binyamin Aaron, first published in 1642 Crakow, included in Chumash with 15 commentaries on Rashi

[xx] Meshech Chochma

[xxi] Ramban about the actions of Shimon and Levi in Shchem.