Facts?! Forget it. Faith!! & Friendship. South Sudan & Beshalach

Is faith like this image? The "fact" is that there is no image
on the right yet after 15 seconds it appears then disappears.

I am thinking about how some manage to continue to believe despite some “facts” that appear to contradict those beliefs. Atheist or believer, we all need to put our faith in someone or something if we are ever to achieve anything. It can be a business idea, or in a relationship with other people, another tribe or with a God that, as I understand Him, is engaged with his creation and therefore it would follow that He allows humans to butcher each other. I also think about how God as described in the Torah, with His Wrath and all, is a comfortable fit for a new age guy like me.

I have been thinking about how this relates to my fellow; fathers, brothers, mothers and children in South Sudan and to what they are going through.

It was on a starry night in Yogyakarta in 2010 that I was first introduced to their world. I heard a heart-warming story from an American Missionary, Bill Lowrey, about the wise and fearless leaders of the Nuer and Dinka tribes who brought peace to their people after decades of terrible fighting.  Rev. Lowrey’s told me about his “approach (which) drew on the rich wisdom of the indigenous Nuer and Dinka peoples, as he integrated their traditional peacemaking methods with modern theories of conflict resolution”. (1).

“One of the local rituals involved participants spitting into a gourd filled with water. When it came to Bill, he spat into it too. When everyone had spat, they splashed the water on each other. The spittle on the tongue is meant to be the coldest part of a person, and splashing it symbolized cooling off the hot bodies, charged with the ‘heat of conflict’. Bill asked the chiefs to tell stories they heard from their fathers’ mothers about how conflicts were resolved in the past. They sat opposite each other, divided by a rope representing the Nile, and discovered the wisdom of their respective ancestors was very similar. They told stories about what was done to them, and finally were asked what they ‘remembered’ for the future of their daughters’ sons” (2). At the end of the process “the Dinka and Nuer signed a covenant to end their tribal war and sealed it by sacrificing a bull, which signifies wealth for both of the tribes. By stepping over the bull, they publicly pronounced their commitment for a new peace (3)”.

It is heart breaking that the world’s newest nation is now facing further death and conflict, despite the traditional wisdom that ended the fighting there just over a decade ago.  One of my Facebook Friends has been personally affected with the loss of his brother in the fighting. I have no doubt that people there can list the “facts” of the conflict that explain their tribes’ perspective and the wrong doing of their enemies. I pray that somehow, despite the unimaginable difficulty involved, the facts and grievances of both sides can again be set aside.

In our Torah reading this week we read about events a bit further up the Nile. The Jews or Israelites had left Egypt filled with faith, embracing Moses and their invisible God, following them in to the wilderness. It is not long before they face the sea in front of them and enemies behind them. They are told to disregard the facts and keep going (4), miraculously the sea splits. Yet, a short time later, new facts emerge. They arrive in the Sinai desert (5) just as their food runs out (6). They don’t politely pray for food, instead they turn on Moses “we wish we could have died by the hand of God in the land of Egypt, when we sat on the flesh pot and ate our fill of bread”. Moses tells them that their faith will return when God will send fat birds for them to eat and manna from heaven. I think Moses is implying a criticism of them. It is only when you have a full stomach and lack for nothing do you believe that it was God who took you out of Egypt, just a few weeks earlier.

Faith, friendship and even coexistence require us to disregard some facts and focus on hope and faith. Of course, this is easier said than done, but perhaps the only way forward. My prayers are with all who suffer from violence and injustice, including those whose suffering is justified by the facts.

1)    https://www.tanenbaum.org/programs/peace/peacemaker-awardees/reverend-william-lowrey-sudan,
2)    As told me to by Rev. Lowrey, for more of the story as he told it to me, http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/embracing-unknown-and-alternatives-to.html
3)    Ibid, https://www.tanenbaum.org ..
4)    Exodus 14:15
5)    Exodus 16:1-18
6)    Rashi

Responding to Violence - Joseph, Mandela, Muslims and Ukrainians Vayigash

I, wearing a black hat that marked me as Hasidic Jew, stood in middle of a large circle of Ukrainians this week. This image, if I thought of it a year ago, would have conjured in my mind associations of anti-Semitic violence, or Pogroms. Instead, it was a circle of solidarity that I had joined and was most warmly welcomed into. We stood together as freedom loving people of Ukrainian and Jewish heritage praying for an end to the violence being perpetrated against peaceful protestors in Ukraine. It was also a quiet step closer between two communities with a past that could keep us apart if we allow it to.

The death of Nelson Mandela today, a giant of forgiveness and reconciliation coincides with the Torah reading this week, Vayigash, about Joseph who like Mandela was locked away in prison and persecuted, like him triumphed and rose to power, and again like Mandela repaid his tormentors with kindness rather than revenge. 

A number of years after Joseph is thrown into a pit and sold into slavery by his own brothers, he meets them again. This time Joseph is not a lone defenceless teenager, instead he is a national ruler in Egypt. In a remarkable act of forgiveness Joseph tells his brothers; “do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that G d sent me ahead of you. For two years now there has been famine in the land... So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God” (1).

It is Joseph’s faith that leads him to see the cause of his being sold into slavery being God’s plan to save lives during the famine, rather than it being simply the result of his brothers’ cruel choice to sell him (2).  This is surprising, as surely people must be held responsible for their own actions and intentions, rather than being let of the hook because of a positive end result (3). One suggestion is that there are exceptionally important circumstances such as the case of Joseph which had far reaching historical consequences in which God over-rides free choice and directs people to carry out his plan (4). A Chasidic approach sees much broader application of Joseph’s approach. It affirms absolute freedom of choice while also embracing full divine providence over every single object and every single occurrence with every object (5). This being the case there is no point in being angry or holding a grudge against anyone because everything that happens is the will of God (6). My discussions with a Sheikh last night showed me that some discussions in Islam on this issue were quite similar to those in Judaism.

The dignified prayer Vigil for Ukraine began with a reading that included a prayer to be “the one who forgives”. Yet, the violence this prayer vigil was addressing is continuing with students being brutally beaten in Kiev as we heard directly from people who witnessed it. It is not the time to think much about forgiveness. The priority now is that the violence stop and the rights of the people to protest are upheld. For some at the prayer vigil, the murder of 10 million Ukrainians by Stalin’s Russian government was seen as relevant to questions of the relationship with Russia today.

Last night I was deeply moved by another story about violence and dignity. We heard from the very eloquent, Hijab wearing, Najah Zoabi, a survivor of domestic violence. She talked about the first slap of an open hand against the skin of her face. About being devalued as a human being, constantly being told she was not good or beautiful enough until she believed it. She told how of the change in herself, from being raised with kindness and respect by her parents to feeling degraded by her husband. Eventually she sought and received help and healing from the Muslim Women Association and their support centre. It amazed me that the confident articulate woman speaking last night was able to triumph over the violence and abuse to be the person she is now and reclaim the dignity she enjoyed in her parent’s home.

I told the Ukrainian group of an experience I had in 1992 in the city of Kharkov, Ukraine. I danced outside the KGB headquarters around midnight on the Festival "Simchat Torah" when we celebrate the end of the yearly cycle of the Torah reading for the year. At that time it seemed that oppression by the state that my grandfather and his parents experience in Ukraine, was a thing of the past was a thing of the past. Sadly, it seems that dance was premature. However as we celebrated Chanukah this week, we hope and pray that once again freedom and dignity will triumph over violence.

Faith and grace can help us respond to violence in a variety of positive ways.


1.    Genesis 45: 5-8
2.    The classic Jewish concept that things that happen are ultimately part of God’s plan but wicked people will choose and have the opportunity to be instruments for the harsh components of the plan and good people will play the pleasant roles.
3.    Abarbanel Genesis Chapter 45, Vayigash p 415
4.    Abarbanel ibid.
5.    The Baal Shem Tov as discussed by the Lubavitcher Rebbe in Likutei Sichos Vol 8
6.    Rabbi Schenur Zalman in Tanya, Iggeret HaKodesh, Epistle 25 

Fear & Shame, Withdrawal & Cover-up, Perseverance & Triumph. Vayishlach

photo by Jesse Andrews, used under Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License

It is hard to imagine the impact the devastation in the Philippines has on those affected, all we can do is give them the support they need, and I would not be offering them any advice from the comfort of my Sydney home.  In less dramatic ways, like most people, I deal with a range of challenges. There are times when others can support me. Yet there are some difficulties, especially relating to the consequences of our own choices that we need to deal with, almost, alone.

There are times when we are subjected to the choices of others, either malicious or indifferent, with limited ability to protect ourselves. At such times it can become difficult to keep fighting.  Whether as a victim or a guilty party, there is the temptation to hide one’s shame. Shame can be useful, just like pain, it is a sign that some standard has been violated,  and we can negotiate with shame to contain and channel it for good. With a prayer on our lips, gratitude for what we do have, recognition of our virtues (1), we can have faith that despite the troubles we face, we may yet triumph in the end. I explore these themes through the life of Jacob, mainly as they appear in the Torah reading this week, Vayishlach.

We encounter Jacob very afraid and upset (2) about meeting his violent brother Esau who he had cheated out of their father’s blessings years earlier (3). His prayer is full of pathos, “Please save me, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau, for I am afraid of him, lest he come and strike me, [and strike] a mother with children” (4). Yet, despite the urgency for Jacob, God does not reply to this prayer.

I see great symbolism in the fact that Jacob remains “alone” when he wrestles with a man (5), who commentary tells us was his brother’s guardian angel (6). Jacob prevails in his wrestle with the angel, admitting that yes he is Jacob, which means the usurper (7), yet standing his ground. The meeting with the brother works out ok, after Jacob sent him many gifts, his brother kisses him and tells him “My brother, let what is yours, be yours” (8), which is interpreted “as my brother, there is no need for the gifts” (9) and perhaps even conceding that Jacob can keep the disputed blessings (10).

Shortly after the reunion with his brother Esau, Jacob’s daughter Dina’s, an only girl among a family of boys (11), goes out to seek some female company with the local girls or alternatively she is more keen to “be seen” to show off her good looks (12). She is noticed, then abducted and raped by Shchem the son of the local ruler “who sleeps with her and pains her” (13) (see note 12 regarding the offensive linking of mode of dress with rape). When Jacob hears about the rape, he waits silently for his sons (14) and leaves them to do the talking (15). They make a dishonest offer of intermarriage with the people of Shchem on condition that all the men in Shchem circumcise themselves which enables Jacob’s sons to kill the ailing townspeople. They don’t bother to seek Jacob’s guidance or permission. Jacob’s protests weakly about PR damage and fear of reprisal. His sons dismiss his concern with a rhetorical question “should he make our sister into a harlot?!” (16). I see Jacob withdrawing from leadership because of the pain and shame of the situation.

Jacob, shattered by the episode with Dina, still manages to pull himself together to provide some religious guidance to his sons about disposing of any idols among the spoils (17). It is not long before Jacob seems to withdraw again. After his beloved wife Rachel dies, the text tells us that his son Reuben “went and slept Bilhah (this is not a typo, it does not say slept with), his father’s concubine, and Jacob heard” (18).

There is great controversy about the meaning of the verse. Some sages are adamant that it is not to be taken literally (19). It could be argued that they are seeking to whitewash or cover up what really happened according to the plain meaning of the text and the views of other sages (20). At a time when the Torah used to be translated for those who did not understand Hebrew one sage instructed the translator not to translate this verse (21). One commentator (22) cryptically suggests that the sages have interpreted this verse well, citing the proverb “and the wise, have their shame covered” (23). This view is strongly rejected, while it is “permissible” to say that Reuben did in fact sin, it is absolutely forbidden to” suggest that the sages who did not take the story literally were engaged in a cover up (24).

Certainly in the modern context we know that hiding problems such as child abuse is a terrible omission that can lead to great suffering, honour killings is another crime that might be motivated by the desire to avoid shame. According to commentary Dina has a daughter to Shchem who is later named Osnat, and her brothers want to kill the baby girl so that no one will say that the house of 

Jacob is a house of harlotry. To his credit Jacob prevents that heinous crime, but disturbingly he sends young Osnat away from home (25).  

In the end Jacob survives all these troubles. His last years are happy ones, spent with his powerful and much loved son and wonderful wife,Joseph and Osnat, yes the same Osnat daughter of Shchem and Dina (26).

 Jacob’s legacy is the existence of the Jewish people today 3000 years later, and the spreading of Biblical teachings to large parts of the human family, an amazing triumph.  He fulfilled his greater destiny, despite the tragedies and foibles along the way.

Let us all offer support to each other whenever we can, through trouble great such as the Philippines is now going through as well as small. Equally, let all of us, who face difficulties try to “feel the fear and do it anyway” (27) persistently and humbly navigating the challenges of living. 

(Thank you Donna Jacobs Sife for Edit)

References and Notes 
1)    R. Yosef Yitchak Shneerson argues that one must know ones positive points just as one must be aware of ones faults
2)    Genesis 32:8
3)    Genesis 27
4)    Genesis 32:12, (translation with minor modification from chabad.org)
5)    Genesis 32:15
6)    Beresheet Rabba
7)    Gensis 32:28 as interpreted by my colleague Donna Jacobs Sife
8)    Genesis 33:9
9)    Seforno
10)    Rashi, Baal Haturim, indicates that the Gematriya, the numerical value of the letters in the words אחי יהי לך אשר לך (my brother let what is yours be yours) is the same as זה הברכות they both equal the number 645.
11)    Ohr Hachayim
12)    Tanchuma Yashan Vayshlach 10 who goes on to suggest that her arm was revealed, “because it could not be that she would have gone out without covering her face” (based on Torat Cohanim and Yefat Toar),  see also in Midrash Agada, Lekach Tov cited in Torah Shlaima  Vol. 2 p. 1317-1318. I agree with the modern view that showing off her beauty is no excuse for rape, these commentaries written over a thousand years ago do not suggest that it is a justification but they do contextualise her abduction with this commentary.
13)    Genesis 34:2, which is interpreted as Shchem raping her (Ramban)
14)    Genesis 34:5, an alternative interpretation is that he is that he initially sends two servants to bring her home, Shchem and his men banish Jacob’s servants but not before Shchem sits Dina down and kissed her and hugged her in front of them. They reported back to Jacob on what they had seen. It is a this point that Jacob goes silent (Sefer Hayashar)
15)    Genesis 34:13, Radak points out that Jacob is silent while this negotiated. He does not speak falsehood with his lips but leaves it to his sons to do.
16)    Genesis 34:30-31
17)    Genesis 35:2-4
18)    Genesis 35:22, while the verse seems to suggest that he was passive, commentary suggests that he heard and rebuked him (Yalkutim Hatemanim, cited in Torah Shlaima Vol. 2 p. 1362, 96).
19)    Talmud Shabbat 55b some of the sages, Rashi, Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel, Chizkuni. The proof cited in support of the non-literal view is the fact that the Tribe of Reuben stands on Mt. Ebal and utters the curse against anyone who sleeps with his father’s wife, which would surely not be appropriate if this was a sin committed by the founder of their tribe and their ancestor. 
20)    Other opinions in the Talmud Shabbat 55b, Oonkelus, Bchor Shor and Radak who explains that Reuben thought that Bilhah was not really his father’s wife but a mere concubine. Another source that would not be considered authoritative is Sefer Hayovilm  33 (which was found with the dead sea scrolls). It gives a vivid description of the event.
21)    Talmud Megilah 25b
22)    Ibn Ezra
23)    Proverbs 12:16, וכסה קלון ערום
24)    Sefer Emunat Chachamim, L’Rabbi Eliezer Sar Shalom 22, cited in in Torah Shlaima Vol. 2  p. 1362, 96
25)    Midrash Mayan Ganim, manuscript, cited in cited in in Torah Shlaima Vol. 2  p. 1318, 6
26)    Genesis 41:45, as interpreted by Pirkey DRabbi Eliezer 38
27)    Susan Jeffers, the name of her excellent book, an earlier variation of this concept is also articulated by Abarbanel.

The Humanity of Perpetrators

I have been thinking about three people who can be described as perpetrators of crimes: one, who inspired me in Bondi last week; another is a member of the group of men and boys who attacked several Jewish people on a Friday night in Bondi. The third case involves a man we will call H who was arrested this week and charged with sexual abuse. I also seek some insights about these events from the Torah reading that tells of a villain named Esau and the context of his upbringing.

Last week, I encountered a young man named Jimmy, with an inspirational story: Jimmy has a history of crime, stealing his first car when he was 12 years old. Jimmy is of Aboriginal heritage but knew nothing about his heritage growing up. Later, he was reticent about telling anyone about his heritage because he thought they would think he was looking for a handout. He was ashamed of being Aboriginal. He told his mother he was disappointed with his first 8-month jail sentence. He considered it too short for him - he actually preferred a longer sentence which would have given him some status. Some years later, now the father of a young girl, he received an 8-year sentence. During this period, he made a choice to go straight because “I didn’t want to not be there for my daughter - to be the kind of dad that my dad was, never being there for me”.


Jimmy got permission for day release from prison to work in the community- based “Our Big Kitchen” in Bondi, where he was welcomed. He developed a talent for baking Challah (the Jewish Sabbath bread).  He was very shy at first, even running away when asked to talk to a group of pre-school children, but eventually his confidence grew. Last week he addressed a group of Muslim, Jewish and other students at an interschool program I led under the banner of Together For Humanity. He powerfully illustrated the idea that every human being should be thought of as a human being; the crimes or lesser sins committed by people are one important element of who they are, but not their essence. Jimmy is rising above his crimes by his choices.


The second case is far from inspiring. I have known the Jewish family who were attacked on a Bondi street since the 1990’s; one teaches at a school my children attend. She is a warm, kind and personable woman.  I am disgusted by the attack on them and especially about the significant anti-Semitic nature of the attack.

I was saddened to learn that some of the perpetrators of the attack on this lovely family were apparently Pacific Islanders , although somewhat relieved that the attackers were not Muslims. The organisation I lead, Together For Humanity, works intensively with Arabic Muslim and Pacific Islander teenagers not much older than this alleged perpetrator. There are significant challenges for these boys who are coming from a different world, where there is a great emphasis on family and different ways of showing respect. Pacific Islander students show respect by looking down and “not answering back” in a culture (ours) that values eye contact and verbal communication when dealing with a problem (see embedded video that features Pacific Islander Academic Dr Jioji Ravulo taken from  http://www.differencedifferently.edu.au/prof_learning/) . Newspapers quoted the boy’s mother talking about his problems with alcohol. Like Jimmy, he has spent time in Juvenile Detention, and - I suspect - sought glory or pleasure in “badness”. Unlike Jimmy, he has not yet made a choice to turn his life around.

Very disturbing in a different way is the recent arrest for sex offences of a man I knew in the 1990’s as a fun, dedicated, altruistic, somewhat wild, community volunteer, always smiling, often busy helping people with Mezuza scrolls and making their homes Kosher. Normally, when I hear about sexual abuse, I think about the terrible ordeal of the victims, the perpetrators being viewed as one- dimensional, evil monsters. Yet, this man H, whatever terrible harm he has inflicted on his young victims and the absolute primacy of justice for the current and potential victims, is a multi-dimensional human being. In addition to the tragedy and the terrible costs borne by his victims, it is very sad for him and his family. I shudder to think about what darkness in his soul drove him to commit the acts he allegedly committed. 


Esau, the son of Isaac and Rebecca, is generally thought of as a villain in Judaism. Unlike Jimmy, Esau’s father is not absent. In fact, we are told that he loved Esau although the love is conditional upon the meat he is able to hunt and bring to his dad . Still, it is not smooth sailing. We are told that his mother Rebecca loved Jacob. This is understood to mean that she did not love Esau because she recognised his wickedness . It is further suggested that it is, only when the “the lads grow up ”, that anyone pays attention to their unique natures: Esau was a man of the field while Jacob sat and studied in tents. The parents fail to recognize or notice Esau’s character, with all the “strength, energy, agility, and courage that lie slumbering in this child ”. Esau was the first born son in a culture in which the first born was to be treated with a measure of deference. Esau is further alienated when Jacob figures out a way to free himself from these customs  by purchasing the Birth-Right for a pot of lentils , legally displacing Esau from his elevated position.

In many conversations about offences, there is an either/or approach to the issues. One is either tough on crime with mandatory sentences, pink prison clothes and throwing away the key, or one is a bleeding heart, soft on crime, caring only about the perpetrators and not the victims. This is a false choice. We can forcefully condemn crimes against people because of their race and the exploitation of children, and insist that, no matter what their circumstances, people are responsible for their choices. At the same time, we can also recognise the humanity, the struggles and social context of those human beings who have chosen at certain moments of their life to be perpetrators . May we succeed as a community to maintain justice and order while also improving the conditions in which young people and older people find themselves, so that they are less likely to be drawn towards choosing to do evil.






References
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/the-mother-of-the-boy-accused-of-racehate-attack-in-bondi-works-in-a-jewish-nursing-home/story-fni0cx12-1226748562990
  video by Dr Jioji Ravulo at http://www.differencedifferently.edu.au/prof_learning/
  Genesis 25:28
  Seforno
  Genesis 25:27
  Samson Raphael Hirsch
  Radak
  Genesis 25:30-33
  Do  not judge your fellow until you have been in their place, Pirkey Avod 2:4 as discussed in Tanya 30

Child Sacrifice

This image by "Speedy95" is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial
No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

On Wednesday morning I gave a lift to a man whose home burnt down in the Blue Mountains fires; he got on a train to try to retrieve some of his remaining possessions from a nearby suburb. As I dropped him at the station I could only hope he would come back safely. He did.  On 702 Radio I heard a heartfelt expression of gratitude by a woman named Melissa to all the interstate and out- of- area fire fighters. There is something about situations of vulnerability that brings out the best in people. Yet, we also have the horrific phenomenon of child sacrifice in our traditions and in other forms even today. The welfare of children is not always protected adequately; in some cases, other priorities have interfered with decision making by otherwise good people who should have been more focused on what is best for children.

Child sacrifice, more precisely a story about it, has united Muslims and Jews: Muslims celebrated the Eid last week that commemorates Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son; Jews read about it in the weekly Torah portion Vayerah. The same story - I am told by a Christian friend - has huge significance for Christians. Our Torah reading of last week included five instances involving a parent or a community and some form of sacrifice of a “child” (1), involving two brothers and three sisters.

Abraham had prepared to slaughter  his son Isaac   as an offering to obey God’s command (2). One way of understanding Abraham’s reaction to this command is that he has an inner struggle with his conscience or doubts (3) as illustrated in two Midrashic stories. In one story, Satan suggests “tomorrow you will be told you are a shedder of blood!” (4); in a second, Satan questions whether the command was from God or actually from Satan himself (5). Despite these thoughts,  Abraham persists with his mission and shows great faith, which is celebrated in Judaism. In the end, the notion of human sacrifice is categorically rejected by God, who tells Abraham via an angel that he has proven his loyalty but he “should not send his hand to the child nor should he do anything to him” (6).

Another case of a child being sacrificed is only hinted at in the text and is clearly condemned. God refers to  the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah “…their sin has become very grave, I will descend now and see whether according to her cry, which has come to Me, they have done” (7).  Commentary interprets “her cry” as referring to the cry of a specific girl (8). 

“They had announced in Sodom that anyone who gives bread to a poor person or a foreigner will be burned in fire. Plotis, the daughter of Lot…saw a poor person in the city square… Every day as she [Lot’s daughter] went out to draw water from the well she put some food from her house in her pitcher and would feed the poor person. The Sodomites wondered how this poor person remained alive. Until the matter became known and Plotis was taken out to be burned…” (9) 

According to Jewish teachings, the cruelty of Sodom was motivated by a deterrence strategy that was aimed at keeping outsiders out and to preserve wealth (10). There are echoes of this approach in asylum seeker policies referred to in Australia as “border protection”. In Sodom, the life of young Plotis was sacrificed in an effort to maintain this xenophobic policy; in our time children in detention continue to pay the price for deterrence strategies.

Plotis’ sisters are offered as the next sacrifice when Lot’s visitors are threatened with Sodomy by an angry mob. In trying to protect his guests, Lot offers his two daughters who “have never known a man” to the mob. (11). Lot’s action is strongly condemned in one Midrash that suggests he should have killed or allowed himself to be killed to protect his daughters (12). An alternative interpretation is that Lot has no intention of allowing his daughters to be violated. Instead he is thought to be sarcastic just as someone might say “my house is open for you, just take anything you want”, knowing that this would not be done (13).

Another sacrifice, not in terms of losing a life, but rather the loss of a parent- child relationship and home, relates to the case of Ishmael. Sarah becomes concerned about Ishmael’s possible adverse influence on her son Isaac   (14). One interpretation is that Ishmael captured grasshoppers and offered them as sacrifices to idols (15). Abraham feels very sad about his son Ishmael, but in the end banishes him, giving him some bread and water and sending him off with his mother. There are other opinions that Ishmael was shooting arrows at Isaac with the intent to kill him (16), so the decision to banish Ishmael is as much a case of child protection as child sacrifice.  I also draw some comfort from traditions that Abraham goes out to the desert twice over coming years to visit Ishmael, demonstrating that his fatherly love endures (17). 

One very moving incident involves Hagar, the banished homeless maidservant wandering in the desert, who sees her son getting very sick and dehydrated;  so she puts him down under a tree. “She went and sat herself down the distance of arrow shots because she said (to herself) I will not see the death of the boy, and she sat  from afar, and she raised her voice and wept” (18). Her son Ishmael would have been desperate for her comforting presence, yet she feels so broken she cannot bear any more pain.

On Sunday, while I was writing the first draft of this article, I found myself stressed about a task set for me by an academic advisor. As I finally felt I was making some progress, I heard my son crying in another room. I had to tear myself away from what I was doing and try to comfort him. He was frustrated by his efforts learning to ride a bicycle. I took him to a park and, in almost no time, he triumphed with his riding and was thrilled!

I close with prayers for all vulnerable people suffering from fire, poverty, policies against “illegals” and children who depend on the good judgement and care of others.

(1)    There are various traditions about the ages of the five “children”, but all are referred to as the child of either Abraham or Lot.
(2)    Genesis 22
(3)    Leibowitz, Nehama, New Studies in Bereshit Genesis, p.196
(4)    Midrash Tanchuma
(5)    Midrash Vayosha, Bet Hamidrash Jellineck, Tel Aviv, Ozar Midrashim, Eisenstein, New York 1928, cited in Leibowitz, Nehama, New Studies in Bereshit Genesis, p. 206
(6)    Genesis 22:12
(7)    Genesis 18:21-22
(8)    Talmud, Sanhedrin 109b, quoted in Rashi, Beresheet Rabbah
(9)    Pirkey D’Rabbi Eliezer 25, cited in Torah Shlaima p.776. In this version she is a married woman rather than a young girl as stated in theTalmud. An alternative commentary states that she was raped (Midrash Chefetz, also cited in Torah Shlaima).
(10)     Ramban articulates this view powerfully
(11)     Genesis 19:4-7
(12)     Midrash Tanchuma Vayerah 12, an alternative interpretation actually praised Lot for his dedication to his guests and compares his sacrifice to that of Moses who was prepared to sacrifice himself for Israel (Pirkey D’Rabbi Eliezer 25, cited in Torah Shlamia p.794)
(13)     Drashat Even Shuiv, in the name of Rabbenu Chananel, cited in Torah Shlamia p.794. This interpretation is certainly more comfortable, although a similar case involving the rape of a concubine (Judges Ch. 19-20) suggests that this outlandish bargain could actually be struck.
(14)     Genesis 21:9-14
(15)     Tosefta Sotah 6
(16)     Tosefta Sotah 6, cited in Rashi
(17)     Pirkey D’Rabbi Eliezer cited in Meam Loez
(18)     Genesis 21:16

Integrity vs. Relationships & Lech Lcha

This week I was subjected to a negotiation-tactic-offence. I argued for additional information relating to a financial demand; this request was countered by a threat to discontinue the business relationship.  This is wrong. Love and other relationships should be managed so that they can be preserved without sacrifices of integrity. Indeed, our most valuable relationships can, in some circumstances, be strengthened by acting with integrity within the relationship and beyond it.  Yet, conflicts will sometimes occur.

The prioritising of integrity over relationships plays out dramatically at the beginning and end of the story of Abraham. 

God’s first call to Abraham is to move away from those closest to him. The sequence of the journeys Abraham is called on to make is instructive. He is first told to leave his land, then his birthplace and then his father’s house (1). This is because, in spiritual terms, the easiest shift is to leave one’s land and what it represents - familiar places and practices with which one has a relatively superficial connection. The hardest shift and “cruellest wrench” is the cutting off of one’s connection with one’s family (2).

God’s demand of Abraham to leave his past and parents is introduced with the words Lech Lcha, לך ,לך which is usually translated as “go for yourself” but literally means “go to yourself”; in other words, shift to be true to yourself (3), by breaking with your past.  Abraham’s greatest test is introduced with the same words: “go to yourself to the land of Moria” (4);  in this case, he is called to forgo his future (5) by killing his son, Isaac, again in the name of integrity in his service of God.

In the end, God does not demand the life of Isaac, which suggests that, in the end, we are called on to combine love of God with love of family. Managing both in the right proportion is a huge challenge. I remember how hard my father worked in the service of the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s cause of promoting Judaism (6), when I was a young child. My father kept talking to many people in the Synagogue after the prayers about the Jewish outreach work he was doing, while I was impatiently waiting to go home. Today I have my own cause; I wonder how well I am doing in balancing my “mission” with doing the right thing by my family.    

In Abraham’s life, this struggle plays out in various ways.  According to commentary, Abraham was meant to have a clean break with his family when he was commanded to leave his “fathers house”; yet, in not wanting to embarrass his nephew Lot, Abraham prioritises his relationship with his nephew over God’s demand, and allows Lot to come with him (7). So we are told that Abraham went as God commanded him, and Lot went with him (8) on his own initiative (9). It might also have been useful for Lot to recognise what this journey wasreally about for Abraham (acting in accordance with God’s instruction),  which was not Lot’s agenda (10).  With both Abraham and Lot compromised, it does not surprise me that a little while later the relationship hits a rough patch and they go their separate ways eventually (11).

Abraham is faced with another challenge when Sarah,  his first wife, runs into strife with his second wife Hagar. Sarah, who was childless, had offered her maid Hagar to Abraham as a second wife so that Abraham might have some children with her. When Hagar became pregnant she lost respect for her barren mistress (14). Sarah is very upset and says to Abraham: "I gave you my maid...now I have become cheapened in her eyes, may God judge between me and you.” According to commentary she rants: “All my embarrassment is from you, I trusted you for justice, I left my land and father’s house and travelled with you to a foreign land…now my humiliation is revealed before God, may he spread his peace on us and let the earth be filled with us and we won’t need the sons of Hagar, the daughter of Pharaoh, who is the son of Nimrod, who put you in a fiery furnace” (15).

Abraham replies with an absolute “yes dear, here is your maid in your hand, do to her what is good in your eyes”. Sarah's behaviour at this point is subject to many opinions; the text says “ותענה”; one translation is that Sarah abused her (16) and it is interpreted that she either enslaved her harshly (17), or hit her with a shoe (18). Hagar flees Sarah. One commentary states that “our mother sinned in this affliction and Abraham, too, by allowing her to do this” (19). I think it is fair to say that Abraham is concerned mostly with his relationship with Sarah, and does not give a great deal of priority to what would be ethical in this situation.

In some cases, it is certainly right to put family first and, even in less important relationships, it is sometimes appropriate to capitulate rather than to take a stand on principle, which is what I did in the situation referred to at the beginning of this post. Yet, there are times when, in order to live with integrity, we will be required to put truth, justice or God ahead of keeping our parents, children or spouse happy. May we all be blessed with the wisdom and courage to make the right choices   while also enjoying the blessings of  love.

Notes and sources:
1)    Genesis 12:1, In the case of Abraham our tradition tells us that he has already rejected the religious worldview and practices of his father, but this is not sufficient; he must also physically move away, which, in a world without regular communication, must have been almost a complete end to the relationship.
2)    Hakesav Vhakabala as discussed in Lebovitz, N. New Studies in Breshit Genesis p. 113, Ohr Hachayim makes a similar point
3)    Schneerson, Rabbi M.M. Likutei Sichos
4)    Genesis   22:2
5)    Lebovitz New Studies in Breshit Genesis p. 114
6)    The Rebbe has a teaching based on the Talmudic idea that all who went out in the wars of the house of (King) David would write a bill of divorce for their wives. (In case they went missing in action, their wives would be free to remarry). The Rebbe interpreted this as a call for sacrifice of family for the cause of promoting Judaism. 
7)    Ohr Hachayim
8)    Genesis 12:4
9)    Klei Yakar
10)    Ohr Hachayim, Radak interprets this differently and sees Lot as “listening to Abraham” and being loyal to Abraham’s ideas.
11)    Genesis 13:5-9
12)    She is referred to as Sarai at this stage of her life before it was changed to Sarah
13)    Genesis 12:11-19
14)    Genesis 16:3-6
15)    Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel
16)    Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, in the Living Torah.
17)    Rashi, Genesis 16:6.
18)    Beresheet Rabba, 45
19)    Ramban

Humans Gone Ape? Affirming our Essential Humanity and a Beauty Named Naama Beresheet

This work by Jonas Malmo, Sweden 2010,  is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 License.

“Look at what they are doing to each other!” say some people , referring to Arabs or Muslims or both as a collective “they”, when they see the images or hear of the horror that is being perpetrated in Syria. This came up in a discussion about a Jewish teaching that people had descended to the level of Apes. The horrible murder and mayhem in Kenya led one participant to comment that  people like the Al-Shabab murderers are indeed apes, followed by the problematic comment about Syria. While people certainly do horrific, evil deeds, influenced by evil thoughts and speech, I think it is wrong to dehumanize them. Beasts kill for food, following their natural instincts without malice or evil intent; humans, on the other hand, make choices and carry out evil plans. It is the humanity of every human community, rather than the evil choices made by  some of their members,  that we should recognise. 

One important concept  about the nature of prejudice is the process of “essentialising”. This involves taking a negative characteristic or perspective about a member or several members of a group and reducing the group as a whole to that one characteristic and nothing else (1).  I heard of a chilling anecdote from Kenya  that one of the murderers responded to a 4 year old child’s assertion that he was a “very bad man” by offering him a Mars bar and telling the child that “we are not monsters” (2).  This interaction suggests to me that the killer, despite his evil side, is, in one sense, a person like me, rather than a demon. He wants to be perceived as a “good person”; he must think that he is making a “tough” decision that seems entirely justified in his twisted understanding of religion and morality.

I wish to explore the theme of essential humanity through the complicated case of a woman named Naama. This woman’s story carries a redemptive message about the enduring human spirit, regardless of ancestry or even after going through a “demonic” phase.

Naama’s birth is the result of an unwanted pregnancy. Her father Lemech, a descendant of the murderer Cain, married two women (3). One wife, Ada, was married for the purpose of child bearing; having served her purpose, she was   to spend the rest of her life “like a widow”, ignored by Lemech. The other wife, Tzila, whose name means “shade” because she was always in Lemechs “shadow”, was for sex. She was given a contraceptive drink and was “adorned like a prostitute” (4). Thwarting Lemech’s intentions, God ensures that Tzila becomes pregnant (5) and gives birth to a son named Tuval Cain and a daughter Naama. 

Unsurprisingly, Lemech’s two wives were jealous of each other and quarrelled.  Lemech finds it unbearable and cries out, “How are my sins worse than those of all people? that I have no quiet in my home, not when eating, not when drinking, not when going to sleep or waking up, did I kill a man(6)? Or choke little children to deserve this?! (7).

Tuval Cain and his sister Naama (8), raised in this household, are the world’s first iron workers (9) and arms manufacturers (10). Lemech  is unconcerned by the moral cost of creating weapons because he argues, much like gun control opponents do today, that he is not responsible for bringing the sword and murder into the world. He argues (11) that “the sword is not the only way to murder; in fact killing without it by repeatedly inflicting a barrage of wounds and bruises is a much worse death” (12). 

Naama, whose name means pleasant, was exceptionally beautiful (13). Men strayed after her (14), including the “sons of God”, meaning the children of the judges, who saw “the daughters of men, that they were good and they took all women as they pleased” (15).  Even demons fell for her. She is also thought to be the mother of Ashmadai, the king of demons (16). The commentary written by these ancient men is crying out for a feminist critique. Not attempting to offer it myself, I am instead considering this from the perspective of the religious mindset of scholars from between 500-2000 years ago, that describes this woman as one who would seem to be beyond redemption. This, however, is not the case.

Naama lived in a time where the human population became so degenerate that they were described as having their faces changed to those of apes, people became Centaurs, (17) half men, but also “like horses and mules without understanding”(18). Yet, our sages tell us that she was pleasing in the “end of her actions”; the angels sought to stray after her but she ran away from them (19).  She eventually (20) married the righteous Noah (21) and is therefore the mother of us all.

The key point for me here is that, despite the fact that we can behave in ways that might best be described an inhuman, nothing, not ancestry, family influence, personal choice, character or even horrific evil deeds, schemes and thoughts, like those of Al Shaabab, can ever erase the essential humanity of us all.

Also, there has been much discussion on facebook about a Muslim tradition or Hadith regarding Jewish people who sinned and were turned into apes. This can easily be misconstrued by non-Muslims and Muslims themselves as dehumanising. I am afraid this might feed anti-Jewish bigotry for some Muslims as well as generalised hatred of Muslims by some Jews. Yet, for me as a Jew, I find it fascinating that the idea of ‘humans gone ape’ is clearly articulated in my own tradition for a very similar reason. 

Notes
1)    Hall, S. ed. (1997) Representation, Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, London, Sage. p.245
2)    http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/24/british-boy-4-tells-nairobi-shopping-mall-terrorist-youre-a-very-bad-man-4099859/
3)    Genesis 4:19
4)    Midrash Rabba/Beresheet Rabba chapter 23
5)     Pesikta Zutra, Rashi, Rabbenu Bchaya
6)     Genesis 4:23
7)    Rabbi Yossi Kara, cited in Bchor Shor, An alternative interpretation (Radak) is that he is so enraged by this that he threatens to kill them, boasting of his capacity to do this as if he had already (Ibn Ezra and Radak) “killed a man” and could do the same to his wives if they continue to displease him. Ibn Ezra and Radak, support their view by citing the common usage of the past tense to refer to future events
8)    Midrash Hanealam (literally, the hidden midrash, cited first in the new Zohar 19b, and in Kasher, M. M., in Torah Shlaima (1992), Jerusalem. Beit Torah Shlaima) The text only tells us about Tuval Cain’s occupation but the unusual phrase “and the sister of Tuval Cain” was Naama, is taken to mean that she was like him with the same level of expertise.
9)    Genesis 4:22
10)    Rashi and Ramban. The word Tuval in the name Tuval Cain means spice, which is taken to mean that he extends Cain. Whereas Cain killed with his bare hands, Tuval Cain and his sister enabled killing with greater efficiency and ease (Midrash Rabba/Beresheet Rabba chapter 23)
11)    This is based on yet another interpretation of the phrase “did I kill a man?” in Genesis 4:23,
12)     Ramban, Rabbenu Bchaya
13)    Midrash Rabba
14)     Zohar Chadash Part 1, 55
15)    Genesis 6:2, commentary discusses whether this was consensual as the “sons of God”, according to one commentary, refers to the descendants of Cain who were exceptionally attractive, “beautiful and tall”, leading women to abandon their husbands (Midrash cited in Torah Shlaima); or it might have involved rape, particularly by the sons of the judges, an alternative meaning to the phrase “sons of God”, who grabbed women and raped them in the market place. Their example was followed by ordinary men as well (Sifre/Sifre Zuta). According to one commentary, the verse Genesis 6:4 “the fallen were on the earth”  refers to the Hebrew word for a miscarried foetus, a נפל (Nefel),  and suggests that many of the women who became pregnant were given a type of drink that caused them to miscarry because of their shame, and the earth was filled with aborted foetuses (Tzror Hamor- cited in Meam Loez).    
16)    Midrash Hanealam ibid
17)    Midrash Rabba/Beresheet Rabba chapter 23  
18)     Torah Shlaima citing מו"ע  (not sure who this is).
19)    Midrash Agada, cited in Torah Shlaima  
20)     I am taking the liberty here of compiling a composite image here that includes many different perspectives. I am not suggesting that the original commentators saw it as one narrative, they clearly did not.
21)     Midrash Rabba/Beresheet Rabba chapter 23