April 5th: Shemini and HaChodesh
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich
One of the big questions in the original Passover instructions involves the reason God and The Angel of Death need help telling which houses are Jewish and which are Egyptian. “For when the Lord goes through to smite the Egyptians, He will see the blood on the lintel and the two doorposts, and the Lord will pass over door and not let the Angel of Death enter and smite your home.” (Exodus 12.23) One would think that God would already know who is Hebrew and who is Egyptian—that is, who is supposed to go free in the morning and who is be smitten.
What then is the purpose of the blood? One answer to this koshi (difficulty) suggests that the blood on the doorposts and lintels is a sign for the inhabitants. When they hear the screams of their Egyptian neighbors at the death of their first born, the Israelites will look at the blood on their doorposts and know that they are safe. Another view suggests that it is a self-identification ritual/test for the Israelites. To be freed from Egypt, the Israelites need to “sign on” to the Exodus process—to declare that they are willing to be part of God’s covenant. A third view addresses the expansiveness of God’s invitation to freedom. Accompanying the Israelites as they depart Egypt is a sizable contingent of non-Hebrews called the Erev Rav, the Mixed Multitude. These are people from many other backgrounds who, at some point, decide to affiliate with the Israelites. The Torah does not tell us when and how they join, but, at some point, these non-Israelites must develop a dissonance with Egypt’s oppressive policies and began a drift toward the Israelite side. On that fateful night, if they have drifted enough to the Israelite side and painted blood on their doorposts, then they are saved and included in Israel.
This kind of drifting—between one side and another—is a common human behavior and is indicative of the subtleties of loyalty, support, and opposition in social relationships.
There is a lot of talk these days about allies and ally-ship. What does it take to be an ally? We may have sympathy with others and wish to support them, but must we agree on everything? Or can we support them in some ways and disagree with them in others? A case in point is the Black Lives Matter movement. Many people believe that Black lives matter, but they do not agree with the anti-Zionist and anti-Capitalist platform of the official organization. Must compatriots agree on everything? Can allies share common goals but not agree on every decision? An example of unity and division can be found in Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s famous Letter from Birmingham Jail (1963) where he addresses allies—both Black and White—who agree with him in principle but who disagree with him on strategy and timing. People think their own thoughts and have their own opinions. Regardless of the organization, there is seldom unanimity.
Some people are not happy with these varying degrees of agreement, and feelings can be hurt when allies and friends are repudiated for questions or doubts—or for other affiliations on which there is disagreement. Witness the many liberal Jewish activists who have been excoriated or expelled from various causes because of their support for Israel.
The dynamics of loyalty and support can sometimes be confused by labeling. Whether or not one is an official card-carrying member of an organization or movement is not necessarily related to how one will speak up, or the money one will donate, or how one will vote on Election Day. Republicans may vote Democrat and vice versa. Behavior is more important than labels.
A case in point is the current anti-Israel climate. There is an awful lot of anti-Semitism going around, but we can get caught up in the pedantic and semantic question of whether one is an “anti-Semite.” Can Arabs be anti-Semites? Can Jews be anti-Semitic? Are good-hearted people who express support for Palestine and who vilify Israel anti-Semites? Is it possible to be critical of Israel and not be anti-Jewish? Some distinctions are certainly possible, but the separating membranes can be very porous. In case after case after case, what begins as a critique of an Israeli policy slips into anti-Zionism—and then into full-fledged anti-Jewishness. When “Free Palestine” demonstrations devolve into “Kill the Jews,” anti-Semitism is present. When people yell “From the River to the Sea,” unless they are geographically challenged, they are speaking of removing the Jewish population from Israel/Palestine and pushing them into the sea—and are thus expressing anti-Jewish hate. When peace groups or city councils pass “Immediate Cease Fire” resolutions, they are demanding that Hamas be given the chance to rearm, reload, and attack again—and are thus engaging in anti-Semitism. Even if these people are Jewish or friends of Jews, their behavior and words give emotional and political support to anti-Jewish groups.
The arguing about labels reminds me of two terms from very bad sources. When Chairman Mao—arguably the most evil person of the last century—saw someone opposing him, he ignored the semantic discussion of whether or not the person was an anti-Communist. If the person’s actions or words opposed Communism, then the person was identified as a Running Dog of the Capitalists. If people ran enthusiastically after anti-Communist activities, it did not matter what kind of “membership card” they had in their wallets. Or we could use a term favored by the Soviets in reference to U.S. supporters: Useful Idiots. They might not have been card-carrying Communists, but their words and votes contributed to Soviet efforts to undermine America.
So, whether Israel’s various foes are actual anti-Semites, or running dogs of the anti-Semites, or useful idiots doing the anti-Semites’ work, there are lots of people giving emotional and material support to anti-Semitism—a reality that makes fighting over labels beside the point. We do not need to argue about whether NPR’s reporters (including lots of Jews) are anti-Semites. We just need to hear their verbatim repetition of Hamas propaganda and their continual vilification of Israel to know that they are running dogs of anti-Semitism. Their words support people whose stated goal is the murder of every Israeli and every Jew. The same can be said of city councils, and “progressives,” and “human rights advocates,” and all those whose critiques of Israeli policies quickly bleed into murderous rhetoric or implications. Whether card-carrying anti-Semites or not, they are useful idiots helping Jew-haters. Their behavior effects anti-Semitism, and we need to defend ourselves against them.
When it comes to allyship or “enemy-ship,” we do not need to rely on symbolic statements of membership. We, like God, do not need symbols like the blood painted on the doorposts and lintels of the ancient Israelite homes. We know who is inside. We can tell by their words and their actions whose side they are on.