National Scholar Updates

Paired Perspectives on the Parashah

Beshallah:

Natural Phenomena and Divine Purpose

 

One of the enduring tensions in the interpretation of the wilderness narratives concerns the relationship between natural causation and divine intervention. Modern readers often assume that identifying a natural explanation for a biblical miracle diminishes its religious meaning. Classical Jewish interpretation, however, moves in different directions. As we have seen in our discussions of the plagues, the Torah does not require a suspension of nature to assert God’s presence in history. Even when events unfold through recognizable natural processes, their timing, scope, and moral direction reveal the unmistakable hand of God.

 

Nahum Sarna emphasizes this point in his analysis of the Exodus narratives (Exploring Exodus). Nature, in the biblical worldview, is a medium through which divine will is realized. The question, therefore, is not whether an event can be explained in natural terms, but whether it can be understood as purposive, responsive, and covenantally meaningful.

 

A striking example appears in the episode of the bitter waters at Marah. According to Olam HaTanakh, desert dwellers even today make use of certain plants to neutralize saline or bitter water, a practice anticipated by medieval commentators such as Rabbi Yosef Bekhor Shor and Ramban. From this perspective, the tree cast into the water reflects practical knowledge conveyed through God’s instruction to Moses. Yet the Torah’s emphasis is not on botanical technique, but on divine guidance: Israel confronts a crisis, cries out, and God provides a solution precisely when it is needed.

 

The manna narrative develops this theme more fully and more dramatically. Modern researchers have identified a phenomenon in the Sinai Peninsula involving the tamarisk tree: certain insects infest the plant, extract sap, and excrete a sweet, sticky substance that crystallizes into small edible globules. This substance must be collected early in the morning before the heat causes it to melt or before insects consume it. Known to local populations through the turn of the twentieth century as mann es-simma—“manna of heaven”—it even bears the scientific name Trabutina mannipara

 

Ibn Ezra and Rabbi David Zvi Hoffmann note both the similarities and the significant differences between this substance and the manna described in the Torah. Those differences are decisive. The natural yield of this material is limited—estimated at only several hundred pounds annually across the entire Sinai—and appears seasonally, for a brief period of the year. By contrast, the biblical manna responds directly to Israel’s complaints, sustains an entire nation for forty years in all seasons, provides a double portion on the sixth day, fails to appear on Shabbat, and spoils if hoarded overnight except in preparation for the day of rest. 

 

Thus, even if the manna is related to a natural phenomenon, its function in the Torah narrative transcends natural explanation. The message is clear: sustenance is not merely found in nature; it is granted by God.

 

The same pattern appears in the episode of the quail. Quail migrate in massive flocks between Europe and central Africa, passing through the region twice a year. Exhausted from their journey, they sometimes land along the Mediterranean coast in such numbers that they can be captured by hand or simple nets. Yehuda Feliks documents that until the mid–twentieth century, millions of quail were caught in this manner. Rabbi David Zvi Hoffmann already pointed to this migratory behavior as a possible natural background for the biblical account.

 

Yet, as Ramban stresses, the Torah’s focus lies not in avian migration but in divine responsiveness. The quail appear precisely in response to the people’s demand for meat, in overwhelming abundance, and at great moral cost. Nature once again becomes the instrument, not the author, of the event.

 

Across these narratives, the Torah presents a consistent theological vision. God does not merely interrupt nature; God directs it. Natural phenomena do not undermine faith—they deepen it, revealing a world in which physical processes are aligned with moral purpose and historical destiny. For Israel in the wilderness, survival itself becomes a daily lesson in dependence, discipline, and trust, mediated through a world that remains fully natural and unmistakably divine.

Paired Perspectives on the Parashah: Mishpatim

Mishpatim:
An Eye for an Eye: Peshat and the Problem of Equivalence

 

An excellent opportunity to study the relationship between the Written and Oral Law arises from a consideration of the famous verse in Mishpatim, ayin tahat ayin—“an eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:24). The Oral Law, as reflected in the Talmud, understands this law to require monetary compensation—and not corporal punishment—for one who physically injures another (Mishnah Bava Kamma 8:1).

 

The Talmud cites a succession of proposals that would ground monetary compensation in the plain sense of the verses. Neither logic nor close reading can generate an airtight proof. Among its arguments, the Talmud observes that one person’s eyesight is stronger than another’s; what justice looks like when a blind man injures another’s eye is unclear; and serious bodily injuries frequently trigger cascading complications, including the risk of death. The Talmud recognizes the intuitive reasonableness of monetary compensation, yet it lacks demonstrative proof from the text itself.

 

This gap between normative halakhah and textual certitude animates the post-Talmudic search for peshat. Medieval exegetes seek to show that the Oral Law is not merely authoritative, but exegetically compelling.

 

Rabbi Saadiah Gaon, as cited by Ibn Ezra, articulates a set of rules for interpretation. Scripture cannot demand what is impossible or absurd, and a verse must be reinterpreted if it contradicts the living rabbinic tradition. Applying these rules, Rabbi Saadiah argues that literal measure-for-measure injury cannot have been the Torah’s intent, since its implementation would inevitably violate proportionality and risk exceeding the proper punishment.

 

Ibn Ezra maintains that a halakhic passage can sustain multiple plausible readings, but only one constitutes the true peshat. When the text does not yield a definitive conclusion—as in our case—one must rely on the living tradition to inform us of the true meaning. Tradition thereby supplies the decisive reading where the text alone does not.

 

Rambam develops a multifaceted analysis of this question. In Hilkhot Ḥovel u-Mazik (1:3–6), he argues that compensation is the evident meaning of Scripture, since a nearby passage already requires compensation for a physical wound (Exodus 21:18–19). Consistency across the unit points toward monetary damages as the peshat. The Oral Law then confirms that this is indeed the halakhic conclusion. For Rambam, the Torah’s formulation is also philosophically exact: monetary payment serves as a ransom for the injury that, in principle, the offender deserves to suffer. Only in cases of murder is ransom prohibited (Numbers 35:31), since the equivalence of life cannot be redeemed.

 

If, hypothetically, one were to decide the matter from Scripture alone and without appeal to the Oral Law, these three medieval authorities would diverge in their approaches. For Rabbi Saadiah, reason would compel compensation, establishing this as the proper meaning of the verse. For Ibn Ezra, the text would remain open to different interpretations; we would rely entirely on tradition to provide the correct meaning. For Rambam, internal consistency favors monetary payment through the parallel law of compensatory wounds.

 

Why would the Torah use the formulation, “an eye for an eye,” instead of simply stating explicitly that there must be monetary compensation? Both Ibn Ezra and Rambam maintain that the Torah’s lex talionis formulation teaches something beyond the legal outcome. The offender deserves to lose an eye. Halakhically he pays. Morally, the Torah insists on the measure-for-measure equivalence.

My Place, Your Place: Thoughts for Parashat Terumah

Angel for Shabbat: Parashat Teruma

By Rabbi Marc D. Angel

When you attend synagogue, do you usually sit in the same seat?  Even in synagogues where there is no assigned seating, do you find that you and almost everyone else ends up in their usual places? Why?

Jewish tradition refers to the importance of a makom kavua, a fixed location where we say our prayers. Ancient wisdom recognized that we need to achieve a comfort level when we come before God. Sitting in the same place provides a sense of continuity and solace. It generates a Pavlovian feeling: when we sit in this spot, our minds and souls are immediately tuned in to prayer. Even when we pray at home, halakha urges us to have a makom kavua, a designated place for prayer. 

But isn’t God everywhere?  Isaiah envisioned God’s glory as permeating all the land, melo khol ha’arets kevodo. We can—and often do—feel the Divine Presence everywhere we go. 

However, Ezekiel’s vision reminds us that God’s glory can seem very remote; we bless God mimekomo, from God’s place i.e. in the heavenly spheres. In fact, our spiritual lives are subject to fluctuations—sometimes feeling that God is closer to us than we are to ourselves; but sometimes feeling that God is far removed from us.

Jewish tradition, well-aware of our spiritual ups and downs, proposes that we have a makom kavua, a designated place where we can relate to the Almighty in our own special space. Whether we are on a spiritual high or on a depressing low, when we pray from our makom kavua we are more likely to find spiritual balance.

This week’s Torah reading tells of the construction of the Mishkan, the sanctuary of the Israelites, during their journey in the wilderness. The Mishkan was the forerunner of the First and Second Temples in Jerusalem. Synagogues are the successors of the ancient Temples. Why did God command the construction of the Mishkan? Surely God’s glory fills the universe and cannot be limited to one building.  The answer: God does not need a Mishkan/Temples/Synagogues: We do! Understanding human nature, God provided a makom kavua, a designated sacred space, so that we can better experience the presence of the Divine.

It has often been pointed out that when God instructed the Israelites to build the Mishkan, it was so that God will dwell among the people. The Mishkan/Temples/Synagogues are designated spaces where people can more readily sense God’s presence.

The next time you are in synagogue (and sitting in your own spot!), take a few moments to reflect on the privilege of being in the presence of God. Your makom kavua is a physical place …and a spiritual launching pad. 

 

 

The Great Privilege of Being a Jew

The Great Privilege of being a Jew

by Douglas Altabef

 

Let’s face it: the raging debate about Jews having white privilege is a bit absurd.

Jews are basically a historical Rohrschach depiction of a People. In other words, we take the form, we are regarded through the eyes of those who perceive us.

For most of the past two millenia, Jews were certainly not regarded as being like other people. In Europe, we were first the Christ-rejectors/killers, who per Augustine, were being kept around in order to bear witness to our own degradation and supersession by the Church.

Not too much privilege there.

Come the Enlightenment, and we became the great chameleons of civilization. We could be morphed from usurious capitalists to stateless communists in the blink of an eye. We were vermin, who were still managing somehow, thanks to the Rothschilds, to control the world.

Pretty exhausting, if you ask me.

Jews were a subhuman race, who threatened the purity of the Aryans. But we also threatened the peasantry of Poland and Russia. And after the Enlightenment, we were a threat by virtue of the fact that many Jews sought to convert to Christianity in order to gain access to the higher reaches of their society.

In Muslim countries, we were tolerated as dhimmis, second class citizens. We couldn’t wear the same clothes as others, nor walk on the same sidewalk if it meant inconveniencing a passing Muslim.

So where is the privilege from? It comes from the now dirty word called “achievement.”

Jews who fled pogroms, death sentence conscriptions in the Tsar’s or the Sultan’s armies, who typically came to America with nothing, worked hard and saw their children and grandchildren rise.

Jews sacrificed, educated their children, embraced America and the American dream and vision, and they succeeded.

Somehow, that has a sinister ring to it. Somehow, to a great many people today,  that cannot explain what Jews are about. There must be some secret sauce, some hidden card that has made it all possible. Could that be our latent privilege?

Or is privilege what happens when you work hard and succeed? Besides achieving material success, and social acceptance, can you achieve privilege?

Well, allow me to let you all in on a little secret. I, a proud Jew, am wildly privileged. Not because I might or might not be white, but because through no work of my own, by happy Providence, I was born into a Jewish family of two wonderful Jewish parents and was raised to be the next link of the Jewish chain.

I was shown that, despite the mind-boggling persecution, disdain, vulnerability, powerlessness, instability and uncertainty of what it meant for thousands of years to be a Jew, I was somehow, nevertheless, a card carrying, bona fide Jew.

Meaning, that against any and all odds of historical endurance, I was allowed to come into the world as a Jew. I was privileged to stand on the shoulders of generations of ancestors who had decided, against all good common sense, to stay as Jews.

I had ancestors who were expelled from Spain rather than take the easy way out of kissing a cross and letting it all go.

I had ancestors who toiled in poverty and constant uncertainty in Galicia, and in the Ottoman Empire, yet who believed that they had been endowed with something worth keeping.

So yes, I am enormously privileged. Because I have had the privilege to validate the struggles and sacrifices of those who enabled me to do all of that.

And to top it all off, I packed up my privileged self and, together with my privileged wife and one of our privileged children, moved to Israel, which has to be the most privileged place on earth.

We moved to a place that for almost 2000 years was a dream, an idea, a memory, a yearning. But not really a place.

But through the will power, fueled by the suffering of all those generations who were - let’s be candid here - hated, despised and loathed by most everyone around them - of Jews who refused to give up the fraught privilege of being Jews, the place that was a dreamy memory, became a gritty reality.

And the gritty reality survived against the same kind of odds that Jews have been facing for close to forever. So, this place, Israel, succeeded, and of course by doing so, it must be guilty of unspeakable crimes against - you fill in the blank -because that is what it means to be a Jew.

You do things that shouldn’t be able to be done. You endure things that shouldn’t be put up with. That is part of the existential job description of what it means to be a Jew.

And I cannot imagine a greater privilege than the opportunity to be part of it all.

 

Judaism and The Rhythms of Nature

THE RHYTHMS  OF  NATURE

 

Creation

To a religious person, the universe is filled with hidden voices and secret meanings. The natural world, being the creation of God, signals the awesomeness of its Creator.

 

The Torah opens with the dramatic words: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”  It does not begin with the story of God’s revelation to the Israelites at Sinai; nor with specific commandments. The first chapter of Genesis establishes in powerful terms that God created the universe and everything within it.

 

An ancient Aramaic translation of the Torah interprets the Hebrew word bereishith (in the beginning) to mean behokhmah (with wisdom). According to this translation, the Torah opens with the statement: “With wisdom did God create the heavens and the earth.” A human being, by recognizing the vast wisdom of God as reflected in the universe He created, comes to a profound awareness of his relationship with God. Indeed, experiencing God as Creator is the beginning of religious wisdom.

 

Moses Maimonides, the pre-eminent Jewish thinker of the middle ages, has understood this truth. He wrote:

Now what is the way that leads to the love of Him and the reverence for Him? When a person contemplates His great and wondrous acts and creations, obtaining from them a glimpse of His wisdom, which is beyond compare and infinite, he will promptly love and glorify Him, longing exceedingly to know the great Name of God, as David said: My whole being thirsts for God, the living God (Psalm 42:3)’. When he ponders over these very subjects, he will immediately recoil, startled, conceiving that he is a lowly, obscure creature…as David said: ‘As I look up to the heavens Your fingers made…what is man that you should think of him (Psalm 8:4-5)?

 

The source of the love and fear of God rests in the contemplation of the world which God created.

 

The Torah and the Natural Universe

 

By opening with the story of creation, the Torah teaches that one must have a living relationship with the natural world in order to enter and maintain a living relationship with God. Jewish spirituality flowers and deepens through this relationship. The ancient sacred texts of Judaism, beginning with the Torah itself, guide us to live with a keen awareness of the rhythms of nature.

Jewish spirituality is organically linked to the natural rhythms of the universe. To a great extent, Jewish religious traditions serve to bring Jews into a sensitive relationship with the natural world. Many commandments and customs lead in this direction, drawing out the love and reverence which emerge from the contemplation of God’s creations.

 

An ancient teaching is that God “looked into the Torah and created the world.” This statement reflects a belief that the Torah actually predated Creation and served as the blueprint for the universe. This enigmatic teaching has been subject to various interpretations. But perhaps its main intent is to reveal the organic connection between the Torah and the universe. Since the laws of the Torah are linked to nature, it is as though nature was created to fit these laws. The natural world was created in harmony with the revealed words of the Torah. A Talmudic statement teaches that God created the world only on condition that Israel would accept the Torah. If not, the world would again be reduced to chaos and void.

 

The Talmud (Makkot 23b) teaches that God gave the people of Israel 613 commandments. There are 248 positive commandments, corresponding to the number of limbs in the human body. And there are 365 negative commandments, corresponding to the number of days in the solar year. This means that the Torah’s commandments are ingrained in our very being; in our limbs, in the years of our lives. God’s original design in Creation was related to His original design of the Torah and its commandments. The natural universe and the spiritual universe are in rhythm with each other.

 

This harmony may also be implicit in the blessing recited after reading from the Torah. The blessing extols God “Who has given us His Torah, the Torah of truth, and has planted within us eternal life (hayyei olam). The phrase hayyei olam has been understood to refer to the eternal soul of each person; or to the Torah which is the source of eternal life for the people of Israel. Yet, perhaps the blessing also suggests another dimension of meaning.

 

The world olam in Biblical Hebrew usually refers to time—a long duration, eternity. In later Hebrew, olam came to mean “the world”--referring to space rather than specifically to time. Hayyei olam, therefore, may be understood as “eternal life,” but also as “the life of the world.” The blessing may be echoing both meanings. Aside from relating to eternal life, the blessing might be understood as praising God for planting within us the life of the world. That is, through His Torah, God has tied our lives to the rhythms of the natural world. Through this connection with the natural world, we are brought into a living relationship with God.

 

Jewish tradition, thus, has two roads to God: the natural world, which reveals God as Creator; and the Torah, which records the words of God to the people of Israel. But the Torah itself leads us back to the first road, the road of experiencing God as Creator. The Torah and nature are bound together.

 

The relationship of Torah and nature is evident in Psalm 19. This psalm has played an important role in Jewish religious consciousness, since it is included in the Sabbath liturgy and is read daily in some communities. The psalm has two distinct parts, which at first glance seem to be unconnected. It begins: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament tells His handiwork. Day unto day utters the tale, night unto night unfolds knowledge. There is no word, no speech, their voice is not heard, yet their course extends through all the world, and their theme to the end of the world.” It goes on to describe the sun which rejoices as a strong man prepared to run his course. “Its setting forth is from one end of the skies, its circuit unto the other extreme, and nothing is hidden from its heat.” Then the psalm makes an abrupt shift. It continues: “The law of the Lord is perfect, comforting the soul…the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart. The commandment of the Lord is clear, enlightening the eyes.” From a description of the glory of God as manifested in the natural world, the psalm jumps to a praise of the Torah, God’s special revelation to the people of Israel. The psalm seems to be composed of two separate segments, as if accidentally put together by a careless editor.

 

But the psalm, in its present form, has been part of the Jewish religious tradition for thousands of years. Its impact on Jews has been as a unitary literary piece.

 

The enigma of this psalm’s organization, however, is easily solved. Psalm 19 is teaching that one may come to an understanding of God both through the natural world and through the Torah. God has given us two roads to Him.

This concept underlies the organization of Jewish prayers, both for the morning and evening services. In both of these services, the recitation of the Shema--the Biblical passage proclaiming the unity of God--is a central feature. In each service, the Shema is introduced by two sections, each concluding with a blessing. Although the words of these sections vary between the two services, their themes are the same. The first section praises God as Creator, the One Who called the universe into being, Who set the sun, moon and stars in their rhythms, Who separated between day and night. The second section praises God as the giver of the Torah, as the One Who loves Israel. Only after reciting both sections do we recite the Shema and the subsequent prayers. The God of creation and the God of revelation are One, and we may find our way to Him through His world of creation and through His revealed word.

When Bigger is Better, by Rabbi Haskel Lookstein

 

 

Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo has penned a powerful critique that justifies a vigorous response. The critique: Establishment synagogues are on the way out. Most are “religiously sterile and spiritually empty.” God has abandoned them and moved to smaller unconventional locations where people are thinking about Him and searching for Him.

I can’t comment on God’s interest in these unconventional minyanim in places I know little about, but I know something about large, mainstream synagogues, having spent eight decades in one of them, Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun on the Upper East Side of Manhattan—known usually as KJ. I worry about a trend toward “smaller is better,” whether in the form of informal minyanim, specialized services such as partnership minyanim, or what is becoming increasingly prevalent: the breaking up of a large congregation into smaller davening groups.

On the other hand, I also worry about Rabbi Cardozo’s critique—somewhat justified in my opinion—about the religious sterility and spiritual emptiness in large synagogues and, for that matter, in many of the smaller venues as well. I will divide my response to Rabbi Cardozo into three parts. First, I will offer an analysis of what the large, establishment synagogue offers that smaller minyanim do not. Second, I will discuss the shortcomings of the small or breakaway services. Third, I will present the deficiencies in the large synagogue service and how one might correct them. In all of this, I am indebted to Rabbi Cardozo for raising very important questions and critiques, and getting me sufficiently exorcized so that I had to organize my thoughts on a subject of passionate concern to me and offer them to the reading public for, hopefully, the endorsement of many and, inevitably, the objections of some. I hope to learn as much from the latter as from the former.

I

What does the large, establishment synagogue provide that smaller minyanim do not? First, a large congregation fulfills the principle first enunciated in Proverbs, 14:28 “B’rov am hadrat Melekh”—A large gathering is a glory to the King. Objectively, there is strength in numbers; there is a greater sense of Kiddush haShem; we feel we are part of something much bigger and more important than ourselves. The halakha tells us that although one might prefer to make Kiddush for oneself, when one is in a group, it is a greater mitzvah to have one recite it for everybody. The reason: B’rov am hadrat Melekh. On Purim, there is a specific ruling that it is preferable to hear the Megilla in a large gathering rather than in a smaller one, because of pirsum haNes—the publicizing of the miracle. One might extrapolate from this that, in general, the larger the congregation, the greater the service of God.

But the advantages of size go far beyond the objective ones. We are a people who pride ourselves on community. We do not advocate a Robinson Crusoe existence. We want to share in the experience of the larger community. We do not seek to be poresh min haTsibbur—to divorce ourselves from the community. When we pray in a large congregation, we share all the joys and celebrations of fellow congregants. We mourn with them, and we are reminded to go and comfort them; we are made aware of the concerns of Kelal Yisrael—the entire community of Israel.

We live in the Galut, but at KJ, the holiest moment of the service is when the rabbi reads with special gravitas the prayer for the soldiers of Israel preceded by the announcement of the names of the M.I.A’s, and then the announcement of the names and ages of the American soldiers who were killed that week fighting for our country. We follow that with a prayer for the well-being and safety of the members of the American armed forces. Subsequently, at a different point in the service, the rabbi reads the Prayer for the Government of Israel—with a partial, embellished translation—and then a brief English prayer for the leaders of the United States of America. These readings are done without a sound in the sanctuary. We all know that this is the deepest concern of the community. It is consciousness-raising for all of us, that in our prayers we are deeply involved in the security and well-being of our brothers and sisters in Medinat Yisrael and our fellow citizens in the United States of America.

During the reading of the Torah, we celebrate engagements, weddings, and significant milestones in the lives of men and women in the congregation. We make a Mi Shebeirakh (special blessing) for each; then we sing an appropriate song—a different one for each kind of simha; and then the rabbi congratulates each celebrant. This all takes time, but this is what creates community and joy and mutual love among us. Rabbi Isaac Luria, the mystic and pietist of sixteenth-century Safed, taught that before every morning’s prayer one should say, “I am now preparing to fulfill the mitzvah of love thy neighbor as thyself.” Prayer in our large synagogue is formulated and structured to fulfill that mitzvah. But there is something else that happens in the large, establishment synagogue.

We summon our members to the task of building the institutions without which Kelal Yisrael cannot thrive. There would be no eruv in Manhattan but for the large, establishment synagogues who paid to build it and who contribute to maintain it. Similarly, when we had a Midtown Board of Kashruth, it was maintained by the same synagogues. The original mikveh and those which have been added are supported through the large synagogues. There would never have been a Ramaz without KJ, or a Manhattan Day School without the large West Side synagogues. Yeshiva Day Schools across the country have been created and are sustained by major synagogues in their communities. The needs of the community are conveyed to the worshippers in large synagogues. Massive rallies for Soviet Jews in the 1970s and 1980s were promoted through these synagogues. United Jewish Appeal and Israel Bonds reach the religious community—of all denominations—through them. Appeals for Passover relief (for Met Council) bring a response. When Hurricane Sandy struck, we made an appeal at KJ, and we were able to give massive aid to two communities in Brooklyn and Long Island because we could reach people in shul who had a sense of communal responsibility.

In short, the large establishment synagogue is more than a place where many people come to pray; it is more than b’rov am; it is a place where a community is created and nurtured, where we all celebrate our semahot, where, inevitably, we also mourn our losses, where we are aroused to meet the needs of the Jewish community here and in Israel, to build and support institutions and further causes that are vital to the community, to identify with the struggles of the Jewish people in Israel and in America, and to learn from scholars in the congregation and outside of it. All of this and much more is not only a fulfillment of “b’rav am”—bringing glory to God—but it also provides vibrancy and great meaning to the life of every member of the community.

II

Now, let us turn to the purpose and function of smaller minyanim and analyze their shortcomings. These minyanim usually focus on the needs of worshippers. Sometimes, those needs are for an important, individual expression, as in the case of partnership minyanim, where women have more of an active role in the ritual. More often, the need is for a “no-nonsense davening”—short, to-the-point—usually with a full Kiddush following (time is not much of a factor there!)—less talking, no sermon (or a greatly reduced one); no celebrations (which take time); no appeals; and no announcements of a communal nature. It is a davening and a Torah reading with no frills and it fulfills a real need—do it right; do it fast; have a nice Kiddush; enjoy the camaraderie of a select group and go home with a big chunk of the day left. This is the standard hashkama minyan. It follows the Israeli pattern, where there is only one day “off” and when, therefore, leisure time is at a premium. In Israel, however, the communal functions are served in other ways, and, therefore, many feel that there is less of a need for a congregation—although this absence of community and congregation is actually a very serious problem, one that is beyond the scope of this article.

Sometimes, this small minyan is not hashkama. Sometimes it begins an hour before the main minyan, or a half-hour after the main minyan starts, or it is a break-away in another place. The common denominator is that they are a substitute for the main service of a community synagogue, and they fulfill the needs of a certain group of worshippers. Aside from all that is missing in these small minyanim, there is a fundamental flaw here from a Jewish perspective. The small minyan is ultimately all about the participant—call it “all about me”—my needs, my convenience, my time, my davening comfort, my Kiddush, my camaraderie. It should be remembered, however, that Judaism is not concerned primarily with “my” needs, but rather with “my” mitzvoth, my obligations, my duties to serve God, to enhance the community, to love others like myself, which means, among other things, to celebrate with others, mourn with others, visit the sick, support the needy, and respond to communal causes. None of these plays a major role in the smaller, needs-oriented, minyan. Worshippers in the smaller minyanim are not in shul for an Israel Bonds Appeal; they don’t hear an impassioned plea for the personal philanthropy to help sustain friends of theirs who might be seated next to them and who used to be generous donors, but who now need the community’s support; and, for the most part, they do not respond in the manner in which the congregants in the main service do. And if there were a rally for Israel, they wouldn’t hear our fervent call to action. They are out of touch because they simply are not there. It is sad, but true. In the Rambam’s term, they are, unintentionally, poresh min haTsibbur—separated from the efforts, experiences, joys, and struggles of the community. It is terribly sad that they are not full participants in the community’s life.

Consider: Why should one care if it takes another 30 to 45 minutes to hear a bar mitzvah boy read the Torah and listen to the rabbi’s speech to him; or listen to the Mi Shebeirakh for a hatan v’kalla; or hear a berakha, sing a song, and listen to a pulpit announcement on the occasion of the birthday of a 90-year-old man who never misses a daily minyan? Shouldn’t the whole congregational family celebrate such moments? The worshippers in the small, high-speed, minyanim miss all of this. In fact, to some extent, they want to miss it. That’s a good part of why they are not in the main service. They have no patience for all that “stuff.” Is it really right to get through davening in one to two hours rather than two to three hours and miss these communal joys? They are not the joys of some individual. They are our semahot, the semahot of the community. They are our past, our present, and our future, too!

I was recently worshipping in a large, established synagogue with more than 500 member families. They have four or five minyanim in addition to the main service. Each service fills a unique need of the participants. The main service, of course, suffers in attendance because of all the options. There was an outstanding woman scholar on that Shabbat who spoke after the conclusion of the main service. I looked around and saw fewer than 100 listeners. Everyone else had long ago enjoyed Kiddush and left for home. I thought to myself, what a shame! The shul provided for its members a gifted scholar, a role model for women and teenage girls, and only a fraction of the congregation benefited from her exceptional discourse. Such is part of the cost of each going his or her own way and losing the sense of belonging to a community.

III

Finally, a word about Rabbi Cardozo’s critique that the services in large establishment synagogues are “religiously sterile and spiritually empty.” Although his critique may be somewhat overstated, there is no doubt that large congregations need to recognize that tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis—times change, and we (must) change with them. In my father, Rabbi Joseph H. Lookstein’s—z”tl—day, the Shabbat morning service ran from 9:00 to 12:00 sharp. The sermon was 30 minutes long. Nobody moved until after the benediction that coincided with the 12 gongs on the clock in the nunnery next door. Well, the nunnery is long gone and the clock left with it—and so did the attention span of the congregation. We now try to end by 11:30—and when I’m not there the service somehow ends by around 11:15! The sermon lasts 10 to 15 minutes. The cantor knows that the age of cantorial virtuosity is essentially over, and he davens beautifully as a ba’al tefilla with a major emphasis on congregational participation. We have to streamline the service even more, recognizing the lower P.Q. (patience quotient) of twenty-first-century adults and children, but without sacrificing the family nature of a davening community.

We should continue to focus on welcoming beginners in our community; in fact we have a Learners’ service and Intermediate minyan for just that purpose. This effort not only supports those who are new to traditional Jewish prayer; it also energizes the entire congregation. It keeps us new and fresh and reminds us that, in a way, we are all beginners. That alone should dispel the “religiously sterile and spiritually empty” feeling that Rabbi Cardozo finds in the large congregations. Five hundred participants in a Friday Night Shabbat Across America davening and dinner can provide inspiration, too! That also is the natural task and opportunity of the large mainstream synagogue.

There is, of course, more that we need to do. From my perspective, however, the most important task is to keep the congregation together and emphasize that prayer in shul is not an exercise in meeting our own individual needs; it should be an effort to meet the needs of our total community and to reinforce our duties and obligations toward Kelal Yisrael. That will not only bring glory to God; it will also provide holiness to our lives.

Going Out on a Limb: Joha

 

Folktales of Joha, Jewish Trickster, collected and edited by Matilda Koén-Sarano. Translated from the Judeo-Spanish (Ladino) by David Herman. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2003, 296 pp., $30.

 

In a world saturated with sophisticated entertainment, it would seem we are well beyond Joha, and wouldn’t need Matilda Koén-Sarano’s 2003 collection of tales about this celebrated Middle Eastern-Sephardic wise fool. Think again.

Pronounced Joe Hah, with the accent on Hah, this underdog doesn’t really promise big laughs. The punch lines are anticlimactic, the situations silly, the scope limited. Joha, in fact, in many of the tales, has no money, no work, no food, nothing but a donkey, or an olive he keeps chasing around the plate to get on his fork. And yet Joha is Joha; when his Turkish friend gets the olive with one deft stab, he cheerfully says, “Don’t forget, if I hadn’t tired it out you would never have managed to catch it.”

Reading through this collection, we go from one tricky quandary to the next. When you write the number three hundred thirty-three, which three do you put first? Do you sleep with your beard under the covers or on top? At the end of the final Ne’ilah prayer, which word is it, echad or acher, and as soon as you’ve got the answer the two words keep going back and forth in your head, so you’ve got to chase the rabbi to ask him again, and again—and again. How do you get the rich man to serve you the big fish instead of the little one, when he charitably invites you to Shabbat dinner? And what do you do, when beneath a big ugly stone you find a bag of gold, and suddenly you are the rich man? If you are Joha, you keep a fancy little box with dung in it, and each day you open it to remind you of what it was like to have nothing.

Joha is the self before the self was invented. He is the self with no self, no borders or boundaries. He is the fool liberated from the terrible fear that plagues most people most of the time—the fear of looking foolish. Sent to buy sweets, he eats all but one before he gets home, and when asked how he could do that, he demonstrates by eating the last one. He lights all the matches to make sure they all work. He talks to his donkey and to the train. He stamps the behinds of the thieves who come to relieve themselves on his grave, then rounds them up after his faked death, and proves they are all his branded servants.

I grew up with the stories of Joha, told by my father. My father, known for his outgoing charm and warmth, didn’t know how to tell a joke but that never stopped him. He would get the wording wrong, tell the same story many times. A punchline was as uncharacteristic of him as a punch.

Two Joha stories were favorites, nonetheless, at our dinner table in a two-bedroom second-floor apartment in the 1950s. To call them stories is like calling a grain of kosher salt a diamond, but they managed to season and ornament a childhood, even provide a sense of self and a worldview—what an Ashkenazi might call a Weltanschauung, a word a Turkish Jew would not use and never heard of and would not be caught saying. Joha is sitting on a branch, sawing away, and when he is warned that he’s cutting off the branch he’s sitting on, he scoffs, and keeps sawing away. Sure enough, when he finally cuts through the branch, he falls to the ground. Instead of complaining and crying in pain, he is astounded by the person who had been warning him. “Fortuneteller! This man is a fortune-teller!” he shouts. “A genius!”

It turns out that the story continues, somewhat elaborately. However, for this one listener, if the rest of this tale was ever told, it went unheard. It probably wasn’t ever told in the hubbub of the dinner table: amidst the various hectoring complaints that are such an important part of family life; the political news; the gobbling up of juicy zucchini with tomatoes, lively salads with olives, onions, cucumbers, and generous fistfuls of parsley. The images from Joha’s world that remained over the years were of Joha cutting off the branch he is sitting on and the sage warning him he’ll fall—and the point: Joha isn’t fixated on his mistakes; without missing a beat, he cheerfully moves on.  

The second favorite is even simpler. Joha wants to count the donkeys he is bringing to market, and so he does. He carefully counts one, two, three, four, five. But he is supposed to have six. So he gets off his donkey, and counts again, slowly, deliberately, and this time there are six. When he gets back on his donkey, it is five again. Joha can’t figure it out.

Obviously here we are not speaking of jokes. We are hardly even speaking of humorous stories, although that’s what they are. Jokes and humorous stories are different. Jokes must have come in with the Enlightenment, with the scientific method. They are efficient, establish credibility, lead you along, build to a climax, then boom: “You see, it’s working already.” That’s the one about the Russian who asked the Jew how come Jews are so smart, it’s because we eat herring, would you happen to know where I could get some herring. I happen to have some here—we all know this one—how much would it cost, well, three rubles, and after he finishes it, the Russian suddenly says, I could have bought that same herring in the market for two rubles, then “You see, it’s working already.”

You don’t want to know how this “joke” is told in Koén-Sarano’s collection. The narrator of this particular tale flubs it, flunks the science of jokes. And the one about the man—in another tradition it would be Hershele Ostropoler—who threatens the innkeeper that he will do what his father did, frightens the innkeeper so badly that the innkeeper provides a great meal, and after he is finished eating, when the innkeeper timidly asks what it was the man’s father would have done if he had been denied the meal, Hershele says, “He would have gone away hungry.”

Told as a Joha story, it’s not about a meal, but a jacket. He would have “bought himself a new jacket,” especially if you know the other version, just does not cut it. You wince, you cover your eyes. Perhaps this is actually a story that modern Joha raconteurs have taken from eighteenth-century Eastern Europe, changing a Hershele into a Joha, but let’s not go there—because it’s the genius of Joha that we want, not grafts (or branches) from or to other trees.

Who is Joha? He is from before television, before Einstein, the sewing machine, Isaac Newton, the Enlightenment, Shakespeare. He is from before the Inquisition, the Crusades, before the automobile, the pressure cooker, and Dannon’s packaging of yogurt, which used to be made in a big pot swaddled in blankets left to sit for eight hours in a warm spot. Joha is from the ninth century, and from medieval Turkey. This folk hero, perhaps little talked about in Manhattan, is known in about 35 countries, by a different name in each culture, but each derived from the Turkish wise fool Nasreddin (Nas reh deen) D’Hodja. Hodja means teacher, and this legendary or historical popular figure was said to be born in thirteenth-century Turkey, and to have died in the Turkish town of Aksheir, which in our own times still celebrates an annual Nasreddin festival. His grave there is famous for having a large locked gate attached to no fence.

Sephardic Jews, forced to flee Spain in the fifteenth century were, as we know, welcomed to settle in the Ottoman Empire. Many did, while others went to Portugal, then Amsterdam and other cities of Western Europe. Spain was foolishly and brutally depopulating itself at the same time that the Ottoman Turks were seeking to populate a vast new territory, and one of the treasures of the new land for Jews who survived and went East to Turkey was the Turkish folk hero, Nasreddin. Sephardic culture was transmitted in Ladino and Hebrew, in prayers and songs, and the many languages of the new home—Turkish, Greek, Armenian—but it also found expression in the tales of Nasreddin, called by a variety of names by the Jews: the Hodja, Nas al-din, and Joha.

Adopting the Hodja was a way of mediating with Turkish culture, and of finding familiar folk values, pleasures, and realities, an overlapping that is all the more of interest in our own time, with its Muslim-Christian-Jewish tensions. The stories are simple, yet at the same time, extensive, rich, varied, energetic, a cultural feast of insubordination, stubborn survival, cheerful unmovable optimism and play. Joha is always what people have needed to survive. Joha is Jewish play with Middle-Eastern yichus (pedigree).

For a Jew growing up in New York City with bits and pieces of Joha stories, the word Joha cut two ways. If you said someone was a real Joha, it was no compliment; it meant, what a dope!! But on the other side, unspoken, never mentioned, was the daring, wit, and totally unselfconscious audacity of Joha, the liberation of Joha. Joha has deep Jewish meaning. The laugh and a cheerful approach to life represent a core Jewish religious belief. It is liberating to hear stories about someone who circumvents rationality, and effortlessly embraces the folly that is wisdom. But more specifically, Joha’s stories represent the willingness and the daring, in the best sense, of going out on a limb. Abraham left the sophisticated civilization of Ur, Sarah laughed, David took a slingshot to Goliath. Joha is the other, who laughs and calls life as he sees it. Joha flouts the arrogant assumption that rationality trumps all.

Matilda Koén-Sarano has given us a great gift with this collection in English, Folktales of Joha: Jewish Trickster. The excellent introduction by Tamar Alexander contextualizes Joha in the Turkish tradition, and provides a brief thoughtful folkloric analysis. Alexander holds the Estelle Frankfurter Chair for Sephardic Culture, and is Chair of the Folklore Program of the Hebrew Literature Department, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Alexander dates Joha to ninth-century Arabic, although one wonders when Jews first encountered this folk hero, if he came with the Arabic that Jews spoke beginning in the ninth century, or if he was only a post-1492 treasure.

Koén-Sarano is a writer, scholar, poet, storyteller, and broadcaster for the Israeli radio station Kol Israel. She reports the news in Ladino, and entertains listeners with Sephardic music, poetry, and tales. An eminent, prolific folklorist devoted to preserving Sephardic oral culture, she has been collecting Joha stories since 1979; her first collection, a 400-page compilation, was published in Jerusalem in Ladino and Hebrew (Kana, 1986, 1991).

One of the most satisfying aspects of her collection is her respect for the narrators, their wording, and their individuality. The description of the narrators at the end of this 2003 volume is a good read. Move over Goldberg and Greenberg. Welcome Avzaradel, Babani, Bahbout, Bardavid. Diversity has a different geography here. Koén-Sarano’s narrators come from Tripoli, Salonika, Istanbul, Milan, Oran, Russhuk, Sliven, Cairo, Beirut, Buenos Aires, Izmir, Tunis, Bursa, Marseilles, Beit Shean, Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem. The 82 narrators, the folk who have told the tales, were born between 1898 and 1993. Perhaps because many are women from an era before careers, the listing tells the schools and universities the male and female narrators attended, and so emphasizes institutions of cultural transmission, in itself a fascinating survival story; occasional glimpses let us know they studied many things from Italian literature to ritual slaughter to classical dance. There are, yes, a couple of lawyers, a violinist, a professor at Tufts (the only narrator from New York City), but the bios for all of them are folk bios, a couple of times with the neighborhood of birth thrown in, (“Born in Jerusalem in the Shama neighborhood at the foot of Mount Zion, 1910”), once with the number of grandchildren (12 in Koén-Sarano’s case), one Salonika man’s World War II survival of eleven concentration camps, another’s exile by the Turks from Palestine to Syria, and the somber fact that one man—Pinhas Tokatly—was killed by a suicide bomb attack in Jerusalem last year.

Just folks. It’s a refreshing change from the professional bios we’re used to reading, with awards, titles, organizational affiliations, a lot of careerist huffing and puffing. “Dios nos lleva a Yerushalayim,” says the 13-verse Ladino Passover song; many of the narrators have had several migrations in their lives, for instance, from Istanbul to Marseilles to Turin, but three quarters of them by birth or eventual nationality are Israelis.

Hank Halio’s Ladino Reveries (The Foundation for the Advancement of Sephardic Studies and Culture, 1996) is another good source of Joha or Djoha stories, a couple of dozen of them sprinkled in Ladino and English into a chatty collection of proverbs and reminiscences.

But when we read Koén-Sarano’s collection, we don’t stop off for a meldado or the recipe for Turkish coffee. It’s straight, 300 short takes ranging from a few lines to a few pages, and presented in chapters on school, work, animals, the law, and so on. When you read about Joha, you don’t expect to laugh out loud. But you’ll be with a character who is first cousin to all the underdog wise fools from around the world. It’s an immersion, like a novel before the first novel. The narrations are refreshingly direct, and as Koén-Sarano notes of Joha in one of the best tales she herself narrates, “pure of heart.”

In a tale I recently heard, Joha was spooning yogurt into a lake. The story was told to me by a Turkish Jew who grew up in Istanbul in the 1950s, before television had arrived, and who said he and his friends used to read Hodja stories all the time. There were lots of collections of the tales, and it was great fun. They loved them. But he doesn’t tell the stories to his daughters growing up on Long Island, because, well, they wouldn’t laugh. A man asked Joha what he was doing, and then asked him why. Joha said he wanted to turn the lake into yogurt. But the man said “That isn’t possible, is it, for a little yogurt to turn a whole lake into yogurt.” “No,” said Joha, “but what if it does?”

A few spoons of inspired foolery can shape the way we view the world. In terrible times, dare we waste time on humor? Dare we not?

One more, from Koén-Sarano.

“Thieves entered Joha’s house. Joha already knew that he was poor and had nothing in the house. The Thieves were searching very slowly. Joha got out of bed and started to search behind them, slowly, slowly. When they reached the corner, he said: ‘Look, if you find something. . .fifty-fifty!’”

 

 

Postscript

 

In 2014, Eliezer Papo, Director of The Sephardic Studies Research Institute, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, spoke at the JCC of Manhattan about the difference between Ashkenazic and Sephardic humor. His talk resonated with me. I can be irritated and nonplussed, for instance, by a kind of Ashkenazic humor that is smart-alecky and depressed. Some Joha stories of course are over-the-top feeble, but nonetheless Joha is a gift. With a free hand, Joha cuts us loose from solemnity and pretentiousness.

Papo said Ashkenazic humor comes from the harsh climate (and pogroms) of Eastern Europe, while Sephardic humor comes from Mediterranean Ottoman lands with their relative tolerance and mild weather, plus the luscious fruit on the trees and the fish in the sea, free for the picking. Perhaps what’s considered lowbrow about Joha is its optimism, an attitude that may be antithetical to what’s widely known as “Jewish humor.” In an article about Jewish humor (by which he means Ashkenazic humor since he speaks of nothing else), Joseph Epstein says optimism is foreign to it. (“Jokes: A Genre of Thought,” Jewish Review of Books, Winter 2017).

Joha in fact is absurdly optimistic. Joha is cheerful, idiotically cheerful, and his good cheer, because of its patent absurdity, is balm for all of us caught in the net of what I as a child named “disaster orientation.”

The odd thing is that the instinctive habitual love of cheer, the desire to sing, the desire to tell stories and talk, the refusal to give up a chance to join in an argument, even when Joha, for instance, is happily presumed dead and is being carried home on a stretcher in a procession of the whole community, is so natural. Well, the neighbors carrying his stretcher are arguing about the shortest route to his house! Joha’s inclinations and instincts ring true. And what’s more, his responses are at home in a culture that accepts religion in a natural uncomplicated way. The luscious fruit of spiritual gratitude frees Joha.

Incidentally, perhaps the proof of the pudding for a Joha story is not a laugh out loud, but a little gleam of understanding in the eye accompanied by a compulsion to reply in kind. And so, when a Sephardic friend read my 2003 Joha article when it first came out, and loved it, of course he had to tell me about when Joha finds a glittering shard of a broken mirror on the ground. Joha picks it up with excitement and holds it up to his face to admire it. But when he sees a face in it, “That’s ugly,” he says with repugnance. “No wonder someone threw that away!”

Other notes:

Folktales of Joha: Jewish Trickster is currently available at over 1400 libraries worldwide (WorldCat database).

Matilda Koén-Sarano’s prolific output of works on Sephardic culture continues apace since 2003 with publications in Jerusalem, Istanbul, Paris, Berlin, Buenos Aires, and Genoa; in Ladino, Ladino and Hebrew, Ladino and French, and Italian, including CDs and books ranging from Gizar kon Gozo and a Hebrew-Ladino Dictionary to a Ladino conversation manual expected out soon (Wikipedia, Nov. 21, 2016; CV, March 2017).

      In 2015, Tamar Alexander was appointed chairperson of the National Council for Ladino Culture, replacing Yitzhak Navon, chair until then.

The Turkish-American Jew who told the story of Joha spooning yogurt into a lake, is Selim Sadaka. His father, Haim Vitali Sadacca, is a Ladino poet published by the the Foundation for the Advancement of Sephardic Studies and Culture; his daughter Janine Sadaka has remarkably transcribed a Ladino short story of mine into Solitreo.

If you wondered how Joha can date from both the ninth century and the thirteenth century, Tamar Alexander’s statement in her “Introduction” explains: “The origin of the name is unclear,” she says of Joha, “but we do know that he is first mentioned in Arabic stories dating from the ninth century. A similar character, Nasr-a-din Hodja, appears in medieval Turkish stories. According to Turkish literary tradition such a man really existed…Eventually the two characters’ names merged” (Folktales of Joha: Jewish Trickster).

The Sephardic Jewish Brotherhood of America, active over the past century and now energetically revived by Director Rabbi Nissim Elnecavé, features a weekly Joha story in its online newsletter. Each brief tale is presented in Ladino, English, and a Ladino voice recording by Rachel Bortnick (Devin Naar, “The Sephardic Jewish Brotherhood of America Celebrates its Centennial,” Tablet, Sept. 22, 2016; La Boz Sefaradi: The Sephardic Voice).

Finally, for your information: Koén-Sarano herself provides 40 of the stories in her collection, Beki Bardavid 27, Eliezer Papo 19, and Gloria Ascher is the New York City-born narrator who contributes one story—in verse: this Tufts University professor has been teaching Ladino and the Sephardic Tradition at Tufts for years; she founded the Judaic Studies program there and has been its long-time Co-Director.

 

 

 

Paired Perspectives on the Parashah: Vaera

VaEra:

Did the Israelites Suffer from the Plagues?

Miracle, Nature, and Divine Protection in Egypt

 

The Torah carefully distinguishes between Egypt and Israel during the plagues, but it does not do so uniformly. Some plagues explicitly spare the Israelites, while others make no such distinction. This uneven textual pattern gave rise to a fundamental debate among classical commentators: were the Israelites entirely insulated from the suffering of the plagues, or did they endure at least some of them alongside their Egyptian neighbors?

 

Supernatural Distinction: Israel Untouched

 

Many Midrashic sources assume that the Israelites did not suffer from any of the plagues. Midrash Tanhuma (VaEra 13; Bo 3), Shemot Rabbah, and Bemidbar Rabbah all describe a reality in which God’s direct intervention ensured that Israel was entirely spared. This approach emphasizes the overtly supernatural character of the plagues. God’s hand is not subtle; it is unmistakable. Egypt is struck, Israel is protected.

 

Rambam gives this position textual weight. In his commentary on Avot (5:4), he stresses that the plagues were supernatural precisely because they did not affect the Israelites. Rambam supports this claim through close textual analysis. The Torah states that the Egyptians could not drink the water of the Nile after it turned to blood (Exodus 7:21), implying that others could. The frogs are described as entering “your (i.e., the Egyptians’) houses… your beds… and your people” (7:28–29). Boils appear “upon the magicians and upon all the Egyptians” (9:11). Locusts are said to fill the homes of Egyptians and their servants (10:6). The Torah’s repeated emphasis on Egyptian suffering, Rambam argues, reflects a consistent pattern of divine discrimination.

 

In this reading, the plagues are described as punishments of the oppressor. From this perspective, redemption begins with total insulation. God demonstrates absolute sovereignty over nature and history by striking Egypt while sparing Israel entirely.

 

Natural Exposure: Protection Without Insulation

 

A very different approach emerges from Ibn Ezra. Reading the same verses with a more restrained methodology, he argues that only where the Torah explicitly states a distinction can such a distinction be assumed. Where the text is silent, one should not infer miraculous separation. According to Ibn Ezra, several plagues—blood, frogs, lice, boils, and locusts—likely affected Israelites as well. God protected Israel from the most dangerous and destructive plagues, but not from every form of discomfort or suffering.

 

This view locates divine providence within a more naturalistic framework. Redemption, in this reading, does not mean exemption from hardship. Israel remains embedded within the world even as it is guided toward freedom.

 

Radbaz (Rabbi David Abi Zimra, Spain, Egypt 1479-1573), in a responsum (no. 813), sharply rejects Ibn Ezra’s position, going so far as to deem it religiously unacceptable. In his view—which dovetails Rambam’s approach above—when the Torah states that Egyptians could not drink the water, it implies that Israelites could; when frogs are said to enter “you and your people,” the reference must be exclusive. From these cases, Radbaz infers a general rule: once the Torah establishes divine distinction, it applies even where not reiterated.

 

The intensity of Radbaz’s response is revealing. The notion that Israelites might have suffered alongside Egyptians felt theologically threatening to later tradition. It seemed to blur the line between oppressor and redeemed, to diminish the clarity of miracle, and to complicate the meaning of chosenness itself.

 

Ibn Ezra could respond that phrases such as ‘you and your people.’ While clearly referring to Pharaoh and the Egyptians, these verses not prove that the Israelites were not plagued as well. After all, Moses was addressing Pharaoh, and the plagues’ primary purpose was to punish the Egyptians and free the Israelites. The decisive evidence for Ibn Ezra is the explicit division between the Egyptians and Israelites for five of the plagues, implying to him that there was no such distinction for the other five.

 

Location, Not Identity: Shadal’s Approach

 

Shadal (Rabbi Shemuel David Luzzatto, Italy 1800-1865) offers a third approach that reframes the debate entirely. He suggests that the first nine plagues affected anyone present in Egypt, regardless of ethnicity, while sparing the land of Goshen. Israelites who lived in Goshen were protected; those who ventured into Egypt proper were not. Conversely, Egyptians in Goshen would have been spared.

 

Distinction, in this view, is geographic rather than ethnic. God’s providence operates through nature. The plagues follow natural patterns of spread and containment, even as they serve a divine purpose. This model preserves meaningful distinction without requiring constant supernatural intervention. It also aligns closely with the Torah’s emphasis on land—Egypt versus Goshen—rather than on individual immunity.

 

The Plague of the Firstborn: Absolute Boundary

 

The final plague stands apart. Unlike the first nine, the death of the firstborn is explicitly attributed to God’s direct action: “I will pass through the land of Egypt” (12:12). Here, there is no ambiguity. No Israelite dies. The Torah emphasizes that God Himself, not an intermediary force, executes the plague.

 

Even within more naturalistic frameworks, this moment marks a decisive shift. Israel may have endured hardship earlier, but the boundary is now absolute. Redemption is not defined by comfort, but by survival. Israel may suffer within history, but it will not be erased by history.

 

Redemption and Suffering

 

The Torah thus preserves two models of divine action. In one, redemption begins with total separation from suffering, underscoring God’s absolute power and supernatural intervention. In the other, redemption unfolds within the natural order, shielding Israel from annihilation but not from all pain. 

 

What unites all views is the final outcome. However the plagues are understood, Israel emerges intact and redeemed. The exodus teaches not that the redeemed are untouched by hardship, but that their destiny is secured. God’s protection does not always take the form of insulation—but it always draws the line between suffering and destruction.

Teaching the History of Jewish Life in Europe

 

  

 

Teaching and learning history at any age engages and introduces us to times past and highlights and informs the present. It asks us to compare and contrast our own experiences. Most importantly, it invites us, begs us, to return to probe deeper and question our understanding and ourselves. Teaching the History of Jewish Life in Europe Pre Kristallnacht to young adolescents asks us to question our motivations, objectives and focus.

 

The study and experience of history occurs in informal  and formal ways. With good teachers, students can develop and connect their understandings and experiences to what is presented. The following is based on my many years of classroom teaching experience in both secular/public and Jewish schools. This is not a scientific/academic study but rather the development of an intuitive understanding during the early years of teaching the Holocaust followed by awareness of the need to shift my approach and perspective in teaching Jewish history.

 

I grew up in the NYC suburbs following my earliest childhood in Brooklyn in the mid 1950’s. Three of my grandparents left E Europe in the 1890s and one Grandmother was born and resided on the Lower East Side. Yiddish was spoken at home only to disguise the content to us. The Holocaust was barely mentioned and was never taught. My childhood friend’s aunt was the exception who shared with our 4th grade class her Buchenwald concentration camp experience and  wrote about it in a children’s book.  Her approach to storytelling brought us into her story. Otherwise, Jewish life was absorbed through the “Jewish Secular Orthodox” culture in which I was raised among relatives. My identity was  absorbed and accepted, which I mainly attribute to my Grandmother’s pious and lovely ways. It was intergenerational learning.

 

Wanting to know everything about my Grandmother’s life led me to reading and watching what was available about the old world which were her ways. Wanting to know more about this “lost world” of Jewish history led me to read about many eras of Jewish History, emigration and minimally the Holocaust; this came later. The context of Jewish history had already begun  for me.

 

50% of the students at a Toronto Jewish Day School where I taught for a decade had at least 1 grandparent that the Holocaust directly impacted. The students didn’t refer to it but their family histories were absorbed. For the first two years of teaching the Holocaust I showed films, film clips, and we read books with the Holocaust as a theme and setting. In the third year when we were watching the film Night and Fog, I asked myself in disbelief what is the purpose of  presenting this to students? What are they learning, what is the context for them? Why do they need to know this before they know their own history? Students never directly referred to the specifics of the world their families left.

 

Honest, rigorous study of history contains ugly, raw elements, as well as moments of beauty and simplicity. 12 year olds have not yet developed an understanding/context  of their own past/present. The study of the Holocaust  can all too easily become a deficit model of their history while in this formative phase. The immense tragedy of the Holocaust was essentially  the finality for millions of our millennial history of Jewish European culture. It reconvened predominantly in The United States and  Israel along with Caribbean islands and South America.  What was this rich, dynamic, populous, diverse Jewish culture that is essentially geographically and numerically lost in today’s world? Much of the jewels of this lost world are under the radar with us. Let’s open this not far away landscape and timescape to them by shifting to the telling of their own generational family stories, children’s stories, maps, fact based fictional movies, languages, food, population numbers, and geography. They will undoubtedly lead them to ask: what happened to us in Europe, where can this be observed now? Why did this happen?

 

Focusing on these final few years erases our story. It also shows us in a tragic situation that we did not construct; instead it was done to us. First, a more thorough understanding of Jewish life in Europe before and later following Krisallnacht is  crucially needed.

 

Reading the teenage stories of  survivors’ lives before the war  open discussions, curiosity, connections, grief, and pride. The study of the Holocaust can begin in depth in High School and beyond. By presenting this study as a continuation of centuries of thriving and surviving, the result is a very different and comprehensive perspective. This approach is just as important for the general population. The mechanisms of The Final Solution are not for teenagers to grasp. Rather it is especially for those who deny and diminish the impact. The role and history of Israel can also be better understood in a different perspective.

 

Let us acclaim and honor our very long history that continues and thrives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spiritual Bondage: Thoughts for Parashat Va'era

Angel for Shabbat, Parashat Va'era

by Rabbi Marc D. Angel

Although the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt occurred over 3000 years ago, the story continues to be central to Judaism. Many of our religious observances are described as being zekher litsiat mitsrayim, reminders of our exodus from Egypt. The Pessah Haggada teaches that in each generation we are obligated to feel that we ourselves went out of Egypt.

Why does this ancient story retain its hold on us? Why are we expected to identify personally with such a remote episode in history?

One answer is that the story of our slavery and redemption is a prototype: we were subjected to servitude and things seemed hopeless; but God miraculously redeemed us.  Just as God performed miracles for us then, God can—and will—perform wonders in leading us to ultimate redemption in Messianic times.  The story reminds us that no matter how difficult our situation may be, redemption will come. 

But we might also view the story from a different perspective. Mitsrayim—the Hebrew name for Egypt—is related to the Hebrew word tsar—narrowness—and to metsarim—straits.  Slavery in Egypt constricted us. Not only were we limited physically, but we were confined to narrow straits psychologically. We came to see ourselves as victims, as pitiful slaves without elementary freedom to think beyond our daily sufferings. Yetsiat Mitsrayim is the miracle of leaving a state of constriction to a state of freedom. We celebrate not only our escape from physical bondage, but our newfound self-respect as people who can make independent decisions, who can dream and aspire, who can look to the future with hope.

Yetsiat Mitsrayim is not only an event that occurred to our ancestors thousands of years ago. It is an ongoing process that confronts us constantly.  We face pressures that strive to limit our freedom—anti-Semites who wish to harm us, anti-Zionists who threaten us, extremists on the right and left who seek to intimidate us. We also must deal with ideologies that undermine our religious way of life, that seek to narrow our intellectual and spiritual options. 

Yetsiat Mitsrayim teaches us to assert our freedom and our dignity. We will drive out the mitsrayim—the constrictions on our lives—and live freely and openly as proud Jews committed to our Torah, our traditions and our Peoplehood.

The Haggada teaches that in each generation we are obligated to feel that we ourselves went out of Egypt. We can add to this directive: in each generation we are obligated to break the chains of mitsrayim that seek to keep us in psychological and spiritual bondage.  We will be free