CUT AWAY, THEREFORE, THE THICKENING ABOUT YOUR HEARTS AND STIFFEN YOUR NECKS NO MORE. FOR THE LORD YOUR GOD IS GOD OF GODS AND LORD OF LORDS, THE GREAT, THE MIGHTY AND THE AWESOME GOD, WHO SHOWS NO FAVOR AND TAKES NO BRIBE, BUT UPHOLDS THE CAUSE OF THE FATHERLESS AND THE WIDOW, AND BEFRIENDS THE STRANGER, PROVIDING HIM WITH FOOD AND CLOTHING. YOU TOO MUST BEFRIEND THE STRANGER, FOR YOU WERE STRANGERS IN THE LAND OF EGYPT.

(Devarim 10:16-19)

 

Befriend the stranger - practice the similar attitude which God shows, in the reception which the stranger entering your midst from outside receives at your hands, that you place the highest value simply on what a man is worth as a man. The complete equality before the law, more, the love the stranger is to find in the Jewish nation characterizes most strikingly the land and the people as the Land of God, and the People of God, that there the pure character of a man acknowledging God gives him that which, in other circles, riches and origin acquire for him.

(Rabbi S.R. Hirsch on Devarim 10:19, Levy translation)

 

...note that anywhere that a stranger is praised for fearing God or criticized for lacking fear of God, "fear of God" finds expression in behavior towards a member of a different nation, towards a member of a minority. One's attitude towards the stranger, the powerless and unprotected is the litmus test of one's own fear of God.

(Nehama Leibowitz, Iyyunim Be-Sefer Shemot, pg. 33)

 

 

Not Like the Land of Egypt

Binyamin Segal

"There are seventy faces to the Torah," so that each verse, each word, and each chapter has been interpreted in many different ways. All the same, it is unusual for different interpretations to absolutely contradict each other. An example of this occurs in relation to a passage from our parasha:

For the land that you are about to enter and possess is not like the land of Egypt from which you have come. There the grain you sowed had to be watered by your own labors, like a vegetable garden; but the land you are about to cross into and possess, a land of hills and valleys, soaks up its water from the rains of heaven. It is a land which the Lord your God looks after, on which the Lord your God always keeps His eye, from year's beginning to year's end. (Devarim11:10-12)

Some interpret these verses as offering praises for the Land of Israel and a promised blessing for Israel. For instance, Rashi there writes:

It is not like the land of Egypt, but even better. This promise was given to Israel as they departed Egypt, because they said, "What if we do not arrive at a land as goodly and beautiful as this [Egypt]?"

According to this approach, Egypt is here described as a place in which "you must rise from slumber to work" to bring water to the fields, while in the Land of Israel "you sleep in your bed while God does the watering" (Rashi). On this interpretation, hill country offers better soil than the plains, "and the Lord's eyes are always watching out for its needs," leaving humans without work or worry.

In contrast, some commentaries read this section as offering a warning and a threat, rather than a promise. They emphasize the claim that Egypt never lacks for usable water. Water can always be drawn from the Nile and its system of canals, freeing the Egyptians from the dependence upon rain. Accordingly, when drought brought famine to Canaan, Jacobs sons went down to Egypt to buy food. In Egypt one must merely trouble oneself to transport water, while the inhabitants of the Land of Israel are completely dependent on rain. As the RaMBaN wrote (and most of the commentators thought): "If you transgress God's will, He will visit it with rain, then the Land shall be very bad - it shall not be sown, nor shall anything sprout from it, and no grass will grow in it." The emphasis here is entirely different - God is always checking, and all is dependent upon the people's good behavior.

To an extent, these two approaches may be seen as resulting from a difference of opinion regarding the context of the passage in question: Should it be read as a continuation of the previous section, or as an introduction to the new section? RaMBaN points out that his interpretation runs it into what follows. ("It returns to this, making it explicit in the next section, if you then obey the commandments [13]... I will grant rain for your land [14], but if you do not obey, He will shut up he skies [17]") In contrast, the "promise" approach sees our passage as continuing the earlier promise of a land flowing with milk and honey (11:9). Rashi and those who agree with him have a foundation in the plain meaning of the text, even though he cites a midrash as the source for his comments.

Most of the commentators (Rashi is an exception) tend to present just one interpretation - the one they agree with - while perhaps mentioning other opinions in order to criticize them. It is interesting how some commentators feel compelled to insist on the unique correctness of their interpretation, as we see RaMBaN doing here: after citing Rashi's position, he writes, "but the plain meaning of the text is one of warning..." Those who do not openly dismiss opposing interpretations simply do not cite them as options, even thought there are supposed to be "seventy faces to the Torah." Even though "these as well as these are words of the living God", they argue over which interpretation is correct, the unique possibility. Perhaps in the present case the pressure to choose results from the stark disagreement between the available options.

We were born into a generation which has been blessed with new tools for textual interpretation. Contemporary literary criticism in general and the study of poetry in particular teach us to prefer double meanings (and sometimes multidimensionality) over the attempt to isolate a single message as the author's intended meaning. Often it is preferable to assume that when it there are two possible interpretations available; that both of them coexist in the original text, and were both intended by the author. It is reasonable to assume that the author was no less aware then we are of the exegetical possibilities generated by his work. If this is true of the poets studied by literary scholars, it must certainly be true of the authors of Scripture, that they were aware of the multiple interpretations invited by their writings.

Actually, one might argue that our people has long taken into account the notion of a multidimensional "plain meaning," whose different interpretations complement each other. Every page of the Talmud is printed with several different commentaries, and we learn Bible from the Mikraot Gedolot (an edition which contains the major classical commentaries). Anyone who thinks that only the goal of study is to arrive at one interpretation is wrong. In a way, the opposite is true - one must add interpretation to interpretation in order to gain a more perfect understanding of Scripture.

 [It is worth mentioning a similar phenomenon in contemporary biblical criticism. In certain cases, a double meaning is found in an individual word comparable to the case discussed above. The word is read one way as a continuation of previous material, and another way as the beginning of a new section. This is referred to as "Janus parallelism," after the Roman god Janus, who had two faces, looking in opposite directions]

The double interpretation has much to teach us about the conflicting interpretations of our parasha:

a) If the principle of "both these and these are words of the living God" applies even to the plain meaning of Scripture, then, apparently, we will have to take into account that in many aspects of our lives, the other is, if not more correct than I am, than at least equally correct. Clearly, I must study, think, weigh possibilities, etc., and it is important that I make every effort to reach an interpretation, conclusion, or stand that seems right to me. All of that not withstanding, I must remain open to the fact that the opinion of the other is not without foundation. (It is worth remembering that the term "paradox" has no Hebrew equivalent. It seems this is because Jewish tradition presupposes the coexistence of opposing positions, and such situations do not attract any special attention or require the coining of a special word.)

b) There are things in our world which are contingent upon the future. This is not true only of literature, in which a later chapter influences an earlier one. In daily life and in history there are events which change with time. Even among our wars there were those which in their day created the impression of complete success or failure. With time it became clear that their outcomes were much more complicated, and to a degree, opposite. We must see the full picture before deciding upon the meaning of any phenomenon.

c) Our land serves simultaneously as a blessing and a warning. It is not like the land of Egypt, for no land is as beautiful and as blessed as ours. It is not like Egypt, for no other land was given conditionally, designated for moral living, bearing a purpose that goes beyond mere existence. No other land was received with a threat of expulsion. One thing God has spoken; two things have I heard (Tehillim 62:12). The Land of Israel is both.

Each of these three points is close to us, in our mouths and hearts, to perform them. I would like to conclude on that same page - Rashi and RaMBaN together, I and the other together. We must stand for our opinions, but only with respect and understanding for others. We must be prepared for the changes that tomorrow may bring. Each new day may bring new interpretations of what happened yesterday.

In regards to the Land of Israel; even in dark days we must remember its beauty. At the same time we must always remember that the Land was given to us conditionally. Its being "good" or "bad" depends, to a great extent, upon our own actions.

"The plain meaning of Scripture" is not simple, but rather complex and changing. It is given over to human beings, and for that we must give praise to God every new day.

Rabbi Binyamin Segal is the president of HaMeLiTz, the Institutes for Jewish-Zionist Education, and the chairman of the board of directors of the Meimad party.

 

 

Readers Reply (additional responses to Shira Leibowitz-Schmidt's article in the Balak edition)

Shira Leibowitz-Schmidt's main claim is that the value of modesty is of importance for society in general, and that lack of concern for it damages the fabric of society in Israel and undermines its viability. It is important that this be heard, and I thank her for presenting it with clarity.

None the less, I would like to register three reservations:

1) She appears to include homosexuality among examples of immodesty. Perhaps the writer is not personally acquainted with Torah-observant homosexuals and lesbians who live among us in the religious community. Their sexual activities take place in the proper venue: the bedroom. This is also true of many homosexuals and lesbians who do not belong to the religious community. Their halakhic difficulty, with which they are struggling in some sections of the religious community, is not necessarily or intrinsically related to the issue of modesty.

2) The author also takes aim at the Supreme Court, which allows for the broadcasting of pornographic movies via cable television. Does she really want the Supreme Court, a body which is not well read in halakhah, to begin handing down decisions in halakhic-ethical matters? If it does so, will she respect its decisions? The Supreme Court is a secular institution, and is incapable of deciding on issues outside of the limits of the purview of the secular law.

3) My final point. It sounds as if she holds modesty to be principally a matter of dress and sexual behavior. But what of the growing tide of conspicuous consumption in our society, what of the gap between the wealthy, with their spacious villas and luxury cars, and the poor who live in abject poverty? Could it be that Balaam might also have been impressed by Jacob's tents due to their relative equality, which indicated proper social relations?

Devorah Greinman

 

I find this article of yours very interesting. A very different slant on tsniut [modesty] in relation to politics. However, when it comes to blaming the Jews for a lack of tsniut, as a result of which we alienate and frustrate Arab neighbors, this seems to me to be one more - unfortunate- manifestation of a (liberal) tendency to internalize guilt, which in turn ultimately results in excessive self-criticism. There's also the concomitant proclivity to commit the fallacy of hasty generalization: the Jews/Israelis lack modesty - voila, this intolerance and misunderstanding on our (Western) part is what gives rise to Arab aggression. B'sofo shel davar/the bottom line: once again, we are to blame. Let's put the point you quoted from my article into the current context. Shira L-S can write whatever she likes in Israel: pro-tsniut, anti-tsniut, whatever. Let her - transmogrified into a Palestinian possible world - try that in Nablus and see what happens. The issue I was concerned with was about tolerance, or rather the lack of such from the Palestinians. Until that issue is addressed, by the other side, there can't be any true peace. Even if there were ubiquitous tsniut throughout Israel this wouldn't change the political picture one bit. As an associated point, Arab resentment, aggression and refusal to accept their Jewish neighbors started long, long before the advent of bikinis or before gays had come out of the closet.

Prof. Adrian Mirvish

 

I am quite disturbed by the opening quote "How bad are thy tents etc." Though I realize you were looking to make a point by contrast, one must be very careful not to utter a derogatory statement about the Jewish people, even in the context of offering constructive criticism. I am particularly uncomfortable with placing these words in the mouth of Balaam, who of course would have been only too happy to utter something so devastating.

Dr. Chana Silberstein - Cornell University

 

Shira Leibowitz-Schmidt responds:

1) Deborah Greniman and Yoske Ahituv prove my point. Many leaders in the national religious sector are in denial about flagrant violations of tzniut today; their usual tactic when the subject is brought up is to evade discussions of tzniut in dress, in the media, etc. and to slide over to discussions of tzniut in the economic and social realm.

(2) Greniman makes the absurd statement that she knows Torah-observant homosexuals and lesbians who live among us in the religious community. Their sexual activities take place in the proper venue: the bedroom.

It is as if she wrote that murderers and thieves are tznuim if they commit their aveirot [transgressions] in private. The Torah clearly states that this (mishkav zakhar - male homosexual intercourse) is one of the behaviors that would cause us to be vomited out of our Land.

(3) Prof. Mirvish says "Until the issue [of lack of tolerance in Arab society] is addressed by the other side, there can't be any true peace."

I say that until the issue of EXCESSIVE tolerance in secular and modern Orthodox Jewish society is addressed by our side, there can't be any true peace with an Arab society that is admirably non-permissive.

 

Comments by Pinchas Leiser, editor of Shabbat Shalom:

a) Shira Leibowitz-Schmidt's article was not published in Shabbat Shalom because it presents the opinion of the editorial board or of the Oz Ve-Shalom - Netivot Shalom movement. Rather, it was published because it raises an important issue from the perspective of a haredi woman who supports peace: the contingency of our existence in the Land of Israel upon our behavior and relations towards the local Arab population as a sector worthy of consideration, as opposed to the conception of "a people without a land to a land without a people."

b) Emphasis of the value of modesty in the social realm is not a distraction, but rather representative of a different ordering of religious priorities than presented by Shira Leibowitz-Schmidt in her article.

c) The religious response to homosexuality deserves serious consideration in a separate discussion - it is not connected to the present issue.

 

 

 

 

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $1000
• English edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

Tax exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through the New Israel Fund or PEF.

Contributions should be marked as donor-advised to OzVeShalom/Netivot Shalom, Shabbat Shalom project.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NEW ISRAEL FUND IS NO LONGER ACCEPTING DONATIONS UNDER $50. FOR DONATIONS BETWEEN $50 AND $999 THEY ARE CHARGING A $50 SERVICE CHARGE. DONATIONS ABOVE $1000 ARE CHARGED A 5% FEE.

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, Great Britain

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemptions. Donations should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

 

About us:

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts which have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom's programs include both educational and protest activities. Seminars, lectures, workshops, conferences and weekend programs are held for students, educators and families, as well as joint seminars for Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Protest activities focus on issues of human rights, co-existence between Jews and Arabs, and responses to issues of particular religious relevance.

9,000 copies of a 4 page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom's educational forums draw people of different backgrounds, secular and religious, who are keen to deepen their Jewish knowledge and to hear an alternative religious standpoint on the subjects of peace and social issues.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom fills an ideological vacuum in Israel's society. Committed both to Jewish tradition and observance, and to the furthering of peace and coexistence, the movement is in a unique position to engage in dialogue with the secular left and the religious right, with Israeli Arabs and with Palestinians.