Escape the Inner Noise

I am reading, in a book by Christine Jackman, about the problem of the stream of troubling thoughts or chatter in our minds [i] and the virtue of achieving quiet and stillness.  Such thoughts are sometimes self-recriminating: “Why was I such a fool?” They can be stewing about other people’s faults: “She is so horrible.” Or fearful thoughts. All these thoughts can flood us with negativity, outrage, envy, anxiety, and stress. What is to be done?

Shame

Jackman is searingly honest about the self-critical thoughts that would sometimes torment her. She is not alone in being afflicted by the stream of thoughts in her mind. “Studies have revealed that most people find it hard to tolerate being alone with their thoughts, even for relatively short periods of time.” “Simply being alone with their thoughts for 15 minutes was apparently so aversive that it drove many participants to self-administer an electric shock…[ii]” just to avoid the discomfort of facing themselves. I understand this as some of us feeling ashamed of our own inadequacies and afraid of being confronted with these.

It doesn’t make sense because most of us are not really so shame-worthy. Yet, such thoughts persist.

Fear and Worry

Sometimes we ruminate not on our self-worth but on what we should do, especially relating to earning a livelihood. “The many thoughts in the heart of man, that hassle the person by raising many doubts about every matter…being pulled this way and that way…[iii]”. More ominous, are undefined fears that are not related to a clear danger. This is explained by the sages as a fear that “although he does not see it, his guardian angel [iv]  his soul [v] or perhaps his subconscious - sees the danger [vi]”. This could be very unsettling.  

Don’t run

Rumi wrote, “Your old life was a frantic running from silence [vii]”. Jackman quotes Rumi as a way of reflecting on the fact that her ruminating thoughts were a way to avoid confronting her deeper self, hidden beneath the noisy, repetitive, and meaningless thoughts. Instead, she encourages us to stop the flow of ruminating thoughts and be still – primarily through meditation or walking mindfully in a forest [viii]. This is not a quick fix, but this capacity can be built over time. Like Jackman, Carl Jung called us to look at the “shadow” part of ourselves, those parts of ourselves that might otherwise remain hidden, but still influence our thoughts and life.

At the right time

I agree with Jung and Jackman that it is better to confront ourselves, than to escape, at least sometimes. On the other hand, I think escape can sometimes be a good thing as well. Chasidic writings suggest that, if ruminating thoughts about sins we’ve committed, or not being good enough, pop into our head, “this is what one should take to his heart, this is not a good time… [to effectively deal with such concerns and for introspection], this requires specially scheduled sessions, at an appropriate moment, with a settled mind [ix]”. I have tried this technique and it worked for me. After telling myself that now is not a good time for ruminating on my faults and past shortcomings, I was able to park that thought for another time and refocus on what was in front of me at that time.

Silence in Conflict

One of the great men of the Talmud stated, “I grew up among the wise and I have not found anything better for the body than silence [x].”  One virtue of silence is when one, for example, hears him/herself being denigrated, and is silent [xi]. A lot of the “noise” in our heads consists of rehearsed or rehashed conversations we might have with other people in response to their hurtful words. It would be much better for us if we could stop those thoughts and shift to equanimity. A beautiful phrase in a Jewish prayer expresses this aspiration: “To those who curse me, may my soul be silent [xii]”. Alternatively, another prayer states, “I forgive anyone who sinned against me… [including] sins against my honour [xiii].”

Jackman cautions against expecting a complete and quick transformation. Instead, she urges the reader to keep at it. The Torah would certainly agree.

---

[i] Jackman, C (2020), Turning Down The Noise: The quiet power of silence in a busy world, Murdoch Books, Sydney, London

[ii] Wilson, T.D. et al, In Jackman, C (2020), p. 146

[iii] The Rebbe, Rabbi Shmuel, known as the Maharash, in Toras Shmuel, Maamar Mayim Rabbim, p, 1

[iv] Rashi commentary on Talmud, Megila 3a

[v] Steinzaltz commentary on Talmud, Megila 3a

[vi] Talmud, Megila 3a, cited in Rabbi Chayim Yosef David Azulai, Toras Hachida , Devarim, p 11

[vii] Jackman, C, (2020), p. 73

[viii] Michelle Brenner has introduced me to the concept of forest bathing and walking meditation – which can be achieved, at least partially, by walking in nature and being very mindful of one’s surroundings. Jackman also writes about walking in nature.

[ix] Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi in Tanya chapter 26, as adapted by Miller, C. (2016), the Practical Tanya, part 1, p. 305

[x] Pirkey Avot 1:17

[xi] Ovadia Bartenura on Pirkey Avot 1:17

[xii] The end of the Amida, Elohai Netzor

[xiii] The prayer before going to sleep

Shaming Disrupts the Flow - Moses’ Rock Strike

Image by BillVriesema - Creative Commons License 2.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

---

[i] Rabbi Shlomo Riskin

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

[iii] Numbers 20:2-5

[iv] Exodus 14:31

[v] Jeremiah 2:2

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

[vii] Numbers 20:7-12

[viii] Numbers 20:1

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

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

Body Parts Flung Heavenward and Jewish Sexual Ethics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Notes

---

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

[ii] Midrash Tanchuma

[iii] Bamidbar Rabba, 13:16

[iv] Gur Aryeh on Deuteronomy, 25:18

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

[vi] Ramban on Leviticus, 19:2

[vii] Genesis 26:8

[viii] Talmud, Yavamot 65b

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

[x] Talmud, Brachos 60a

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

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

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

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

[xv] Seforno on Genesis 25:30

[xvi] Esther 3:8

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

 

What do Jews wish for from Catholics?

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

Context

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

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

Concept

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

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

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

Some of the key elements of these have been:

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

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

3.    An abhorrence of antisemitism specifically.

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

5.    Respect for Jewish interpretations of the Torah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes  

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

2)    John 14:6

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

4)    Rosen, D. Paper not yet published.

5)    Mishna, Masechet Oktzin, 3rd chapter