Cyberthought by Rabbi Zelizer -- September 11, 2011

Rabbi Gerald L. Zelizer

" Thinking about 9-11- Appreciating Shades of Gray in Religion and Judaism"
Adapted from Sermon on Parshat Reeh, Congregation Neve Shalom, Metuchen 2011/5771.

Consider this story from the rabbis of old. Tell me how it differs with a sentence (12:3 9p. 1063) in our Sidrah. "Tear down their altars, smash their pillars, put their sacred posts to the fire, and cut down the images of their gods, obliterating their name from that site." Raban Gamliel found himself bathing in the presence of a statue of Aphrodite. He was challenged by Procleus to why he would be allowed to bathe in the presence of a Greek goddess. His answer: "I came not within her limits, she came within mine! People do not say, 'Let us build a bath as an adornment to Aphrodite. but .Let us make a statue of Aphrodite as decoration for the bath ... What is treated as a god is prohibited, but what is not treated as a god is permitted'."

Now consider another comment by a classical commentator, Bchor Shor, on that passage of the Torah (Deut 12:3). "The Torah in its Pshat refers strictly to the idolatrous altar. 'You must destroy all the sites, at the sites at which the nations you are to dispossess, worship their gods.' (Deut. 12:2-3) The rabbis limit the destruction to the instruments used in idolatrous practice. They say: It is impossible to destroy the sites. (After all) it is understood that the land itself is not forbidden. The Torah states 'it is the places where they worship their gods. ... the mountains do not belong to their gods. For if an idolater bows down to a mountain, the mountain does not become forbidden (to the Israelite) ... and so too is the case with hills.'" So the rabbinic commentary softens and qualifies the command of the Parshat R'eh which is harsher, a categorical pronouncement against idolatry in the Land of Israel. The law of Deuteronomy is clear-cut - no tolerance for the practices of other peoples in the land; their ways will corrupt the people and lead them astray from the God of Israel. Recall Israel's journey through the wilderness (especially the episode of Ba'al Peor) or the book of Judges to understand the rationale behind this law. Clearly the fear is that the Israelites are easily seduced by the idolatrous fetishes of their neighbors.

So, how may we, - loyal heirs to the biblical tradition, as well as modern readers - react to the harsh pronouncement of Deuteronomy? Does the passage and the rabbinic qualifications mean anything for our time? I think so.

Why do both the amount of Raban Gamliel in the Bath house and Bchor Shor say what they say, and soften the literal command of Deuteronomy?

Because Rabban Gamliel was immersed in Hellenistic culture, he wisely recognized the need for accommodation. A harsher comment probably would have cost Rabban Gamliel his life. Rabban Gamliel softens the text of Deuteronomy, allowing Judaism to stop short of 'obliterating their name'. I think what is crucial here is that both B'khor Shor and Rabban Gamliel teach the important lesson in recognizing the life-affirming shades of grey in Torah. Far from demanding a black-and-white interpretation, we, the loyal readers of Torah are challenged time and time again to read sensibly and sensitively.

But shades of grey are not what people of real passionate religion appreciate. That is true even regarding those who adhere to Judaism. That is true even to those who adhere to Conservative Judaism. How often do I hear from laity a genuine concern that our Conservative understanding of the Torah is to filled with shades of grey? Better that it would be black and white! At least someone understands in black and white that he adheres or doesn't adhere. You know, that's the religion I wish I could observe, but I'm just a sinner! Our Conservative teaching, our reading of Torah has too many nuances.

But what we see in the classical understanding of 'You must destroy all the sites' is that even within the classical tradition, when necessary, shades of grey emerge.

I think of this sentence most especially as we approach 9/11. For what motivated the perpetrators of this horrible attack on our country and the death of some that we know, was the fundamentalist religious understanding there are no shades of grey. There is only black and white. God commands 'You must destroy all the sites' of the enemy, of the polluter, of the other, of those who pollute our own religion and way of life, here and far. 'You must destroy all the sites' even if those sites are economic sites and military sites that may have caused havoc to our own economic and military sites. Our God commands to do it so as to protect our true way of life. Those who abide in those sites are polluters, they are the other, and the sites should be destroyed without any fear. Or mercy. That is the motivation that was behind those who attacked us on 9/11 legitimating their view. 'You must destroy the sites'. There are no greys.

Clearly this view 'You must destroy all the (polluting) sites' is not confined to the many fanatics in Islam. Keep in mind, after all, that it originated in our Torah. Here it is. It is actually the product of monotheism. Monotheism is double edged. The Humash insists that God is good and ethical and compassionate, - you shall not oppress the stranger or the poor, but the Humash also relates that God is jealous and orders destruction of polluting sites and ways of belief that tarnish our own. Of course we moderns are sensitive to the horrible qualities of such passages, as we were sensitive to the horrible quality of 9/11. We understand too that Baruch Goldstein was not a martyr but a brute killer. We understand that the Book of Revelation in the Christian Bible which envisions Jesus as a man of war destroying non-believers, is also in the same vein, the corruption of monotheism. We are indeed sensitive on one level. But that should prevent us from pining away for black and white religion, religion without nuances. The statement 'Oh I wish our view was more clear cut and not so grey' defies the development of passages such as these and what happened to them in the tradition. If so Rabin Gamliel would never have bathed in that bathing house with a statue of Aphrodite. He could not. He dare not.

Of course, if we admit of grey we should not always choose the grey. That is the other danger. There are some passages in the Torah should be adhered to without question. Passages like the Commandment for Shabbat, or kashrut, or Gemilut Hasadim, and Tikkun Olam.

But looking through grey lenses is more than cosmetic. It is a healthy reading of passages in our Torah. Even the tradition read it that way. That.s the nature of what we do here, in Neve Shalom, and in the Conservative Movement.