National Scholar Updates

Our Two Selves: Thoughts for Parashat Vayetsei

Angel for Shabbat, Parashat Vayetsei

by Rabbi Marc D. Angel

 

The Kotzker Rebbe (1787-1859) was an important Hasidic leader known for his incisive mind and his impatience with human frailties. He was once told by his personal secretary that some of the Rebbe’s silverware had been stolen. The Kotzker cried out in disbelief: “Stolen? Is it not written in the Torah ‘you shall not steal?’” To him, it was unthinkable that anyone would willingly violate an ethical commandment of the Torah.

And yet, his silverware indeed had been stolen. People did—and do—sin. They may know in theory that God hates arrogance, lies, murder, wickedness, theft, trouble-making; and yet they do these things anyway.  Why?

People commit abominable acts for a variety of motives. They may be seeking personal gain, or taking vengeance, or trying to assert their own personal power over others; or they may be mentally ill or psychologically damaged.

King Solomon reminds us that “stolen waters are sweet and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.” People derive a certain degree of pleasure in doing that which is forbidden. Perhaps this provides a sense of freedom and power; perhaps this lets us think that we have outsmarted the system.  Since the days of Adam and Eve, humans have been confronted with temptations; and since the days of Adam and Eve, humans have succumbed to temptations.

Each human being has the capacity to be righteous and each has the capacity to be wicked. We each have the responsibility to shape the direction of our lives…for better and for worse.

In Hebrew, the usual word for sin is het. At its root, the word het means “missing the mark.”  The assumption is that people are aiming to behave honestly and morally, but they may veer off course. Their goal is to be upright and fine human beings; but due to errors in judgment or self-control, the goal is missed. They give in to the temptation to sin.

The Torah reports on an amazing dream of our forefather Jacob. He had fled from his brother Esau’s wrath and was on his way to Laban, his future father-in-law. At nightfall, Jacob went to sleep. “And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it” (Bereishith 28:12). The usual understanding of this verse is that the angels were ascending and descending the rungs of the ladder.

A Midrash (Bereishith Rabba 28:12) offers a different explanation. The Hebrew words olim veyordim bo (ascending and descending on it) can also be translated “ascending and descending on him.” That is, the angels were jumping up and down on Jacob himself! The angels said to him: “Are you the one whose image is engraved on high?  They ascended on high and saw his [ideal] image and they descended below and found him sleeping.” According to this Midrash, the ideal image of Jacob was in heaven near the throne of glory of God. That ideal image represents the person Jacob could become…and should become. The angels viewed this perfected image of Jacob in heaven, but then descended to earth and found the sleeping Jacob who seemed unaware or unconcerned about his heavenly self. The angels pounced on him, as if to say, “wake up, don’t you realize who you can become, who you are supposed to become?”

This Midrash relates not only to Jacob but to all human beings. In a sense, we each are two people: our heavenly ideal self; and our earthly self. The heavenly self is an ideal to which we should aspire. We are each born with unique talents, sensitivities, opportunities. If we strive to develop to our maximum potential, we can approach the heavenly ideal of ourselves. We will realize that the “stolen waters” may taste sweet in the short run; but that they are poisonous to our moral development in the long run.

The angels reminded our forefather Jacob to rise to the challenge of becoming his best self. It is a challenge that applies to each of us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Light and Rejoicing: Thoughts for Parashat Vayeshev

Angel for Shabbat, Parashat Vayeshev

by Rabbi Marc D. Angel

 

“Light is sown for the righteous, and rejoicing for the upright of heart. Rejoice in the Lord, righteous ones, and celebrate His holiness in praise.” (Psalm 97)

In this passage, the Psalmist identifies two categories of people: the righteous and the upright of heart. What distinguishes each group?

The righteous one (tzadik) is devoted to the light of truth. The tzadik pursues truth with singular commitment and resists diversionary temptations. While this pursuit can be a source of satisfaction, it also can lead to loneliness and alienation from others. The tzadik operates on a deeply intellectual and spiritual level that not everyone can appreciate.

The upright of heart (yishrei lev) are distinguished by warm-hearted relations with others. Whereas the Psalmist refers to tzadik in the singular, he refers to the upright of heart in the plural. Whereas the tzadik is rewarded with light, the yishrei lev are filled with rejoicing. If the tzadik is “a lonely man of faith,” the yishrei lev are sociable and well-liked. The tzadik finds satisfaction in the pursuit of truth; the yishrei lev find satisfaction in warm friendships and social interactions.

The Psalmist consoles the lonely tzadik. You are not alone! There are others who share your commitment. These tzadikim also find happiness…but their chief joy is rejoicing in the Lord. If most human beings do not appreciate or understand the tzadikim, God does! And that’s the ultimate source of rejoicing and personal fulfillment.

In rabbinic tradition, only one character in the Torah is given the title tzadik: Joseph—Yosef haTzadik. Some say that he was described as tzadik because he resisted the advances of his master’s wife. Yet, to be labeled as a tzadik would seem to reflect on Joseph’s overall character, not just his virtuous behavior in this once circumstance.

Looking at the range of stories in the Torah about Joseph, we see that he regularly calls on the name of the Lord. Instead of taking personal credit for interpreting dreams, he ascribes the power to God. He is only a humble servant. When he later reconciles with his brothers, he tells them not to feel guilty for their role in getting him sent to Egypt; it was part of God’s plan so that he could become a source of sustenance to his family.

Unlike Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Joseph was never addressed directly by God. Nevertheless, he felt God’s presence and strove to live a Godly life. Joseph was a tzadik in that he put his life in the context of relationship with God.

Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik described biblical Joseph as a basically lonely and misunderstood individual. In spite of external signs of success, he did not seem to enjoy warm relationships with family and associates. It was the spirit of God that gave light to his life.

Although being a tzadik is surely a great achievement, it often entails being spiritually and socially isolated. The joy of the yishrei lev—the warm-hearted and sociable people—is missing.

Whereas the Psalmist refers to tzadikim and to yishrei lev, the ideal is to incorporate both qualities in our lives. Our steadfast commitment to truth and Godliness can be—and should be—accompanied by the joy of warm-hearted relationships with others. One who combines the virtues of the tzadik with those of the yishrei lev is one whose joy is full.

Pharaoh's Wisdom: Thoughts for Parashat Mikkets

Angel for Shabbat, Parashat Mikkets

by Rabbi Marc D. Angel

 

“And Pharaoh said to his servants, can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom is the spirit of God? And Pharaoh said to Joseph, since God has shown you all this, there is none so discreet and wise as you are: you will be over my house, and according to your word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than you.”  (Bereishith 41: 38-40)

 

Pharaoh had dreams that troubled him. He obviously ascribed special meaning to them. He asked his wise men to interpret the dreams, and they must have offered their suggestions. But Pharaoh was not satisfied. He felt a persistent foreboding.

His butler told Pharaoh of Joseph, a Hebrew slave who was currently in prison. When Joseph was brought to Pharaoh, the monarch said that he heard that Joseph can interpret dreams. Joseph demurred: no, he could not interpret dreams, only God could do that. Pharaoh must have been surprised by this answer. Who was Joseph’s God? Why did that God have such power? Why weren’t the Egyptian gods able to interpret dreams? In spite of likely misgivings, Pharaoh related his dreams, and Joseph offered the interpretation as well as a plan of action for Egypt.

Pharaoh immediately sensed that Joseph’s interpretation was correct. He was so impressed that he appointed Joseph to be second in power over Egypt. Moreover, Pharaoh acknowledged that God—Joseph’s God—had endowed Joseph with the wisdom to understand the dreams and to offer a constructive way forward.

Why was Pharaoh so impressed with Joseph? Why didn’t he take the interpretation under advisement, discuss it with his wise men? Why didn’t he return Joseph to prison?  Why was he so impetuous as to raise the Hebrew slave to become his top official?

Pharaoh was a great leader! He was remarkably perceptive.

Psychologists remind us that dreams are often a product of our inner thoughts and concerns. Pharaoh was worried about the wellbeing of his people. He knew that economic circumstances vacillate. In his dreams he had forebodings of economic distress for his land. The dreams were really not so mysterious. When lean cows swallow fat cows and when thin sheaves swallow fat sheaves, these would seem to be omens of upcoming disaster.

Pharaoh’s dreams haunted him so he asked his wise men to offer their interpretations. Whatever they told him did not make sense to him. He knew in his mind—and in his dreams—that huge problems loomed for his country. He was looking for confirmation of his insight and for a plan to deal with the upcoming challenges.

Pharaoh’s greatness was not simply in his insightful analysis, but in his willingness to seek advice even from a lowly Hebrew prisoner. Joseph came before Pharaoh without any credentials. He was not a professional wise man, diplomat, or celebrity. Moreover, Joseph claimed to rely on his God, not the gods of the Egyptians.

Pharaoh might have expected Joseph to use the occasion to offer words of flattery and to plead for freedom. But Joseph was humble, unpretentious…authentic. Pharaoh instantly knew he was in the presence of an unusual human being. When he heard Joseph’s interpretation of the dreams, Pharaoh was confirmed in his own understanding of the situation. When Joseph not only interpreted the dreams but offered a plan of action, Pharaoh sensed that Joseph was someone to be trusted.

It must have astonished Pharaoh’s wise men and advisers that Pharaoh immediately appointed Joseph to a position above them. However, it was astute of Pharaoh to appoint a lowly outsider to manage the coming years of abundance and famine.  If Joseph’s interpretation and plan failed, he could be blamed and sent back to prison. If Joseph’s interpretation and plan succeeded, all Egypt would benefit in spite of the unhappiness of Pharaoh’s advisers.

Pharaoh was a great leader. His concerns for his people extended even into his dreams. His search for truth went beyond his professional advisers. His humility enabled him to listen to and grant power to a Hebrew slave.

The great neurologist, Dr. Oliver Sacks, pointed out the psychological barriers that prevent people from thinking “out of the box.” It is natural to resist new ideas from untested individuals. It is natural to listen to one’s closest friends and advisers. But greatness entails the ability to break through the barriers and to think clearly for oneself. Dr. Sacks referred to the need for “spaciousness of mind,” the receptivity to new ideas and unexpected insights. (“The River of Consciousness,”  p. 205).

The people of ancient Egypt were fortunate to have a ruler such as Pharaoh. All nations--all communities-- could benefit from leaders who share Pharaoh’s wisdom, intellectual openness, “spaciousness of mind.”

 

 

Dealing with Intermarried Family/Friends; Sitting on the Floor; Owning Guns--Rabbi M. Angel Answers Questions from the Jewish Press

How should we treat friends and family members who inter-marry?

 

Each situation is unique and needs to be evaluated separately. There isn’t one correct or effective answer to this question.

Halakha distinguishes between a mumar le-tei’avon (who sins for personal pleasure) and a mumar le-hach’is (who sins defiantly). Often, Jews who intermarry are in the first category. They happened to meet a non-Jewish person, entered a friendly relationship, and fell in love. Such individuals may still maintain a strong Jewish identity and may want their children to be raised as Jews. In these cases, it often is best to maintain cordial relationships with the intermarried relative or friend in the hope that they will eventually come closer. Perhaps their non-Jewish spouse will convert.

When a Jewish woman intermarries, her children will be halakhically Jewish. We certainly would want the children to be raised as Jewishly as possible. Alienating their mother would be counter-productive.

In the case of a mumar le-hach’is, we would naturally feel less conciliatory. The person has willfully and spitefully chosen to break with the Jewish people. We would have strong feelings of betrayal. Yet, even in these cases, we need to consider the Jewishness of future children. Even if the mumar le-hach’is deeply disappoints us, we should think long and hard before cutting off all connections with him or her.

Intermarriage rates continue to rise, and the Orthodox community is not immune. The stigma that once attached to intermarriage has been diminishing even among many who identify as Orthodox Jews.  Whether we like it or not, dealing with intermarried relatives and friends is an ongoing challenge. The quality of hesed is an important asset.

 

Is it proper to casually sit on the floor (say, to play with one's children or at kumsitz) when it is not Tisha B'Av?

 

The real question is: why shouldn’t one sit on the floor to play with one’s children or at a kumsitz?  The halakha has many prohibitions, but there’s no prohibition to sitting on the floor.

Why, then, are some people averse to sitting on the floor? The most obvious answer is that this is a practice associated with mourning. Some have an emotional/visceral discomfort with doing something that reflects mourning. Similarly, some disapprove of walking around the house in socks, since that also evokes the custom of not wearing leather shoes during Shiva or on Tisha B’Av.

If indeed someone has an aversion to sitting on the floor, that is a private decision. But for those who see this as a needless stringency, let them sit on the floor as they think best.

 

Is It Proper to Own a Gun?

 

The National Safety Council reported that in 2020 over 45,000 people died in the United States from gun wounds. While most entailed crimes of murder or suicide, over 500 people died through gun-related accidents. Having a gun in one’s house, unless carefully locked away, is an invitation to disaster.

If someone feels that owning a gun is vital to the safety of oneself and family, then one should train carefully on the use of the gun. One should be absolutely sure that the gun is kept locked and out of reach of others—including children—who could be tempted to use it unsafely.

Given the general rise in crime and the specific rise in anti-Jewish crime, it is (unfortunately) becoming more common to think about owning a gun as a means of self-defense. The problem is that owning a gun does not in itself provide safety. The criminals are more adept at gun use and are likely to act more quickly and more violently if resisted by an amateur gun-holder.

While I think it is preferable for civilians not to own a gun, it is understandable why some feel the need for a gun in order to defend themselves, their families and businesses. If one is to own a gun, though, he/she must be thoroughly trained on its use. The gun must be stored in an absolutely safe manner so as to avoid accidental shootings.

Instead of giving one peace of mind, owning a gun might have the opposite effect of causing ongoing anxiety. The exception would be where a person feels so threatened that gun ownership becomes imperative. Each person must evaluate the risk/benefit ratio of gun ownership.

 

Hanukkah: A Vote Against Religious Zealotry

One of the difficulties in learning about the meaning of Hanukkah is
that there is no biblical text. There are only three pages in the
Talmud dedicated to Hanukkah, and they focus primarily on the
technical laws of lighting the hanukkiyah (Shabbat 21a–23b).

Why are there so few sacred texts for Hanukkah? This question becomes
more pressing when we consider that the Maccabees and their supporters
composed four Books of the Maccabees. These books describe the heroism
of the Maccabees and God’s role in the victory.

Amazingly, the Talmud never mentions the Books of the Maccabees. Why
would the Sages ignore them? Why did they exclude the Books of the
Maccabees from the Bible?

Some argue that the Sages turned against the Maccabees once their
descendants embraced Hellenism and persecuted the rabbis.
Additionally, the Maccabees abused their religious authority and
became corrupt (see Rabbi Marc D. Angel, Angel for Shabbat, vol. 1,
2010, p. 36).

Another possible dimension emerges from a closer reading of the Books
of the Maccabees. One of the greatest heroes of the Maccabees was
their putative ancestor Phinehas (I Maccabees 2:26), the grandson of
Aaron the High Priest. In Numbers chapter 25, we learn of Phinehas’
religious zealotry as he killed the leading participants in the
idolatry of Baal Peor. God approved of his actions, stopping a plague
and granting Phinehas a covenant of peace (Numbers 25:12).

The Maccabees viewed Phinehas as a religious role model and sought to
apply his teachings to a Hellenized society. According to the Books of
the Maccabees, the Maccabean revolt began when a Hellenized Jew was
about to sacrifice to the Greek gods. Mattathias (Judah Maccabee’s
father) killed him and proclaimed, “Whoever is on God’s side, come
with me!” (I Maccabees 2:27). This expression derives from Moses’
battle cry against those who served the Golden Calf (Exodus 32:26).
Although the Torah prohibits idolatry, Jewish Law does not allow Jews
to take the law into their own hands and harm or kill violators of the
Torah. However, the Maccabees believed that they had acted correctly
like their ancestor Phinehas and like Moses. They claimed that the
victory and miracles enumerated in the Books of the Maccabees were
proof that God had sanctioned their actions.

On his deathbed, Mattathias instructed his children to continue to act
in the manner of their ancestor Phinehas:

When the time drew near for Mattathias to die, he said to his sons,
“…my children, be zealous for the Torah, and be ready to give your
lives for the covenant of our fathers…Phinehas, our ancestor, through
his act of zeal received a pact of priesthood for all time.” (I
Maccabees 2:49–50, 54)

Although the Maccabees idealized the religious zealotry of Phinehas,
the Sages drastically curtailed the application of his behavior. A
passage in the Jerusalem Talmud poignantly captures the paradox facing
the Sages. On the one hand, they were uncomfortable with Phinehas’
taking the law into his own hands. On the other hand, God explicitly
approved of his actions:

Phinehas did not act in accordance with the Sages. Rabbi Judah b. Pazi
said: the Sages wanted to excommunicate him, were it not for the
divine spirit that jumped in and said that he and his descendants
shall have an eternal covenant of priesthood. (J.T. Sanhedrin 9:7,
27b)

The Sages conclude that Phinehas himself acted appropriately, and God
attested to the absolute purity of his motives. However, the Sages
deeply circumscribed the applicability of Phinehas’ actions to others.

Two generations after the Maccabean victory, Hillel preached that we
should be students of Aaron—loving peace and pursuing peace, loving
people and bringing them closer to Torah (Avot 1:12). Hillel
represents proper Jewish teaching. We should emulate Aaron, not
Phinehas.

Perhaps Hillel also learned this lesson from his mentors, Shemayah and
Abtalion (see Avot 1:10–11). They were the rabbinic leaders of the
previous generation and were either converts of descended from
converts (see also Gittin 57b). The Talmud relates a story where the
High Priest was jealous over their popularity and denigrated them for
being converts whereas he was nobly descended from Aaron the High
Priest. Shemayah and Abtalion retorted that they truly reflected the
peaceful values of Aaron whereas the High Priest—the biological
descendant of Aaron—did not:

It happened with a high priest that as he came forth from the
Sanctuary, all the people followed him, but when they saw Shemayah and
Abtalion, they forsook him and went after Shemayah and Abtalion….The
high priest said to them: May the descendants of the heathen come in
peace!  They answered him: May the descendants of the heathen, who do
the work of Aaron, arrive in peace, but the descendant of Aaron, who
does not do the work of Aaron, he shall not come in peace! (Yoma 71b)

The Sages rejected the Books of the Maccabees from the biblical canon
and ignored them in their literature. The Sages also recast the
holiday as a spiritual festival, downplaying the military victory and
focusing instead on lighting candles and the beautification of the
mitzvot (hiddur mitzvah). The Talmud describes one miracle associated
with the Hanukkah story, namely, the miracle of the oil lasting for
eight days (Shabbat 21b). Although the Books of Maccabees report
several miracles, the miracle of the oil is conspicuously absent. By
ignoring the miracles in the Books of the Maccabees, and by focusing
on a miracle that the Maccabees did not consider important, the Sages
effectively deprived the Maccabees of the divine sanction they had
claimed for themselves.

The Sages also selected a Haftarah for Shabbat Hanukkah that preaches
a message in opposition to that of the Maccabees (Megillah 31a). The
prophet Zechariah envisioned a Menorah, and told Zerubbabel, “This is
the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: Not by might, nor by power, but by
My spirit—said the Lord of Hosts” (Zechariah 4:6). It appears that the
Sages chose this passage to take a stand not only against the
Hellenists, but also against the overzealous approach of the
Maccabees.

In medieval times, Jews often were persecuted and powerless.
Consequently, the military heroism of the Maccabees against the Greek
enemy (and not against assimilated Jews) was brought to the fore and
celebrated. The Al HaNissim prayer that we recite in the Amidah and
the Grace after Meals appears to have been introduced during these
times and represents a response to persecution.

During this period, a book entitled “Megillat Antiochus” that related
the military victories of the Maccabees was composed and widely
circulated. The Maoz Tzur hymn also was composed, celebrating God’s
victories over the enemies of the Jews. This medieval model of Jewish
pride in the Maccabees’ strength sustained our people through
difficult times and became an additional layer of meaning for
Hanukkah.

Although that medieval recasting of Hanukkah is important, the core of
the talmudic observance of Hanukkah celebrates the triumph of the
spirit of the Sages against both assimilation and religious zealotry.
We celebrate peaceful dialogue, and transmission of the Torah to
students and children. We should again be reminded of Hillel’s
teaching: Love peace, pursue peace, love people, and bring them closer
to the Torah.

Mercy Ship: A Memoir of the Ben Hecht  

 

            “BRITANNIA WAIVES THE RULE,” scoffed the headline of the mid-March 1947 advertisement in the liberal New York daily evening paper PM. “British Jail American Seamen in Palestine. Who is Breaking What Law?” The advertisement explained that the “American crew of the ship Ben Hecht … are jailed in Palestine…. These very men, of all faiths, fought alongside the British in World War II. Still fighting for freedom, they ran the Ben Hecht through the Royal Navy’s illegal Palestine blockade.” They were arrested for “‘Aiding and abetting illegal immigration’—the British say.” The advertisement asked, “Did the Ben Hecht crew violate [an] international pact” or “slam the gates of Palestine, violating the world’s mandate?” The answer was that “[t]he only ‘law’ in Palestine is British might,” against which the Ben Hecht crew “volunteered in the American tradition.” Today they are in jail—prisoners of war in the post-war world.”

            My grandfather Henry (“Hank”) Mandel (1920–2015) was one of those Ben Hecht crew members imprisoned in the British Empire’s undeclared war against the Jewish people before the establishment of the State of Israel. His story and that of the Ben Hecht are told in my recently published book Without Permission: Conversations, Letters, and Memoirs of Henry Mandel (Cherry Orchard Books 2021). Mandel went from being a yeshiva boy to becoming an American Merchant Mariner during World War II, a crewman aboard the Jewish “illegal” immigrant ship Abril / Ben Hecht, a detainee in Acre Fortress, a technician in a covert Haganah armament plant in lower Manhattan, and a volunteer for the Israeli Army during the 1948 Israeli War of Independence. He provides a unique illuminating perspective on the creation of a Jewish state. He and his comrades struggled for a refuge for the survivors of the Holocaust where they could rebuild their lives in personal and national freedom.

            Growing up in the 1990s, I knew my Grandpa Hy had done something special, but it was hard for me to explain exactly why. His story did not fit into the paradigms I had learned about the heroes of his generation from television or school programs about the Holocaust. Moral courage in a world gone by is hard to understand and harder to emulate. He was not a survivor, in contrast to the grandparents of many of my contemporaries. He had not been a soldier in World War II, and his service in boiler rooms under the water lines of Merchant Marine vessels toward the end of the war and in the immediate post-war period, despite the dangers or lurking German submarines and floating mines, did not qualify him for benefits under the GI bill or points in civil service exams during his career as a Department of Defense and New York City Department of Health civil servant specializing in procurements. He had not become a rabbi, served as an Army chaplain, or led congregations, unlike some of his classmates who in high school had been no more learned than he. He served as a foreign volunteer in the young Israeli Army during the Israeli War of Independence, but he had not seen combat, and he had returned to America rather than settling in Israel.

Spurred by my grandfather’s death in 2015, Without Permission: Conversations, Letters, and Memoirs of Henry Mandel is the product of my efforts to better understand my grandfather’s story and to discover its lessons for today. The book melds personal narratives of the Ben Hecht crew, historical background, and analysis that complements Mandel’s recollections preserved in the book.

My grandfather habitually told the stories he found most meaningful about his life in bits and pieces as asides, during Shabbat walks, car rides, or on the stoop when his grandchildren were released early from school on Fridays. His mother, whose maiden name was Chana Reisner, was born in Bratislava (Pressburg), then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and spoke German and Hungarian. Her father had sold cattle to kosher butchers but had died in 1917 during the influenza pandemic. The family moved to Vienna and lived in the heavily Jewish Herminengasse neighborhood. One day a young man with a handsome beard and peyot (sidelocks) knocked on the door looking for the daughter of the “Widow Rosner.” It was Abraham Mandel, who had been raised in Ulanov in Galicia, had studied in the Galante yeshiva in Hungary, and had received ordination to be a ritual slaughterer. Chana’s mother quickly deduced that the young stranger had received directions to the wrong address in a meeting set up by a marriage broker, and not having enough money to hire a marriage broker for Chana or being privy to any knowledge about Abraham, introduced him to Chana. They hit it off and soon married. Leo, Henry (called Hymie by his family then), and Dora were born in Vienna; Rebecca Esther was born in Gouverneur in upstate New York, where Abraham slaughtered cattle until a serious sledding accident, and then Goldie, Morris, and Malka Tziporah followed once the family settled in The Bronx.    

            The Ben Hecht was not my grandfather’s first clandestine adventure. As a young boy, my grandfather and his older brother Leo used to take off their yarmulkes and attach themselves to groups of Catholic parochial school classes being admitted into baseball games at the Polo Grounds, home of the Giants. Giants’ owner Charles Stoneham's son Horace Stoneham, who would inherit the team and eventually move it to San Francisco, was at the time working in the ticketing office. One day Horace stopped the brothers and denied them entry, remarking that "Your tzitzit are showing." In 1936, when my grandfather graduated from Talmudical Academy high school, he was offered a half scholarship to continue on at Yeshiva College. He declined, not wanting to financially burden his family at a time his father could not even afford to buy a daily Yiddish paper. After leaving yeshiva at age 15, his first job was ditch digging for a Works Progress Administration project. The former yeshiva student was at a loss until a kindly older Italian man showed him how to wield a shovel. Looking back, Mandel was sure that his father would have somehow come up with the tuition. But, characteristically reflecting on the past optimistically, he felt the hard labor of his youth had built up his strength, and because he shifted to office work as he grew older his body had not been worn down.

            On his first day working in a Brooklyn Navy Yard machine shop, the foreman discovered there were now two workers with the first name Henry. The foreman declared there could be only one Henry in his shop. When the first Henry in the shop declared “My name is Henry,” my grandfather said he would be called Hank in his easy-going way, a name that stuck at sea and at work for the rest of his life. His beliefs gave him the security to not stand on ceremony. Mandel would explain to his daughters he had never legally changed his name from Heinreich, noting serving in the Israeli army was not so legal either, and as a Vienna-born naturalized citizen, he had taken his chances by serving Israel in violation of American statutes in an era when many citizenships were forfeited, and security clearances revoked, due to suspected disloyalty. He went by his Hebrew name Chaim in the Israeli Army, which perhaps was the name to which he most closely identified.

            Serving aboard Merchant Marine vessels broadened Mandel’s horizons, both in understanding the world and the diversity within the Jewish people, while remaining steadfast to his own identity. When working on a Merchant Marine ship in New York, a member of the crew, Henry Chan, introduced himself as the new messman. Chan, who had lost his rent money gambling, asked to borrow $10 so he could retrieve his luggage from his landlady. Mandel, who had been bringing a sandwich for lunch and eating supper at home while the ship was in port to eat kosher as much as he could, thought a messman was always a nice friend to have, and lent Chan the cash. The evening the ship went to sea, with his last sandwich already consumed, Mandel went into the ship’s mess for the first time with his cap on so he could recite a blessing before eating. An Able Bodied Seaman said “Hey, take your hat off. I told you to take your hat off when you are eating. Where I come from, we take our hats off when we eat.” Mandel looked at him and said “Where I come from we put our hats on when we eat.” At that moment Henry Chan came into the mess hall and the Seaman said “Henry, don’t feed that man until he takes off his cap.” Chan replied, “You know, this is my mess hall, and I feed whomever I want to feed. Now, if that man wants to wear his cap, he can wear his cap. If you don’t like it, you can leave the mess hall.” Chan, despite his last name, wasn’t Chinese. He had a dark complexion. As the ship shuttled in the Mediterranean, Mandel noticed that he spoke Italian in Italy, and on the next stop in Greece, he would speak Greek. As Passover approached Mandel told Chan “Henry, I am not going to be coming into the mess hall for the next eight days, but what I would like you to do is in the morning I will come by and give me six raw eggs.” Mandel intended to boil them in the engine room and eat them along with some matzos he had picked up in Greece for all of his meals during the holiday. Chan said, “Well, can’t you have anything else, how about coffee?” Mandel said “No.” “I will give you a brand-new can,” countered Chan. “No, I don’t want the coffee,” Mandel replied. Annoyed, Chan remarked, “You know, my parents were the most Orthodox people in Turkey. We used to drink coffee on Passover.” Mandel had no idea that Chan was even Jewish. Later on in life, when he and my Grandma Libby visited on holidays, he often prayed at the nearby beautiful Syrian Sephardic Beth Torah Congregation, explaining that the essential prayers of the Sephardic and Ashkenazic rites were the same.

            In early 1946, Mandel was serving aboard a United States Merchant Marine ship where he and a crewmate, radio operator David Kaplan, with the shared experience of traditional Jewish educations, read about how Holocaust survivors were trying to enter the land of Israel via boat in defiance of Great Britain’s edict declaring such immigration into the country illegal. They agreed that whoever would learn first of a Jewish immigrant ship they could join would tell the other. Mandel, upon returning to his parents’ apartment in The Bronx, was approached by a Mr. Green, who had grown up in the shtetl of Plonsk with his cousin David Gruen (who later changed his name to David Ben-Gurion) and whose daughters were friendly with Mandel’s sisters. He told Mandel there was such a ship looking for sailors. Mr. Green directed Mandel to the offices of the American League for a Free Palestine, which was led by Peter Bergson in Washington, D.C. Mandel sent a telegram to Kaplan, who had been at sea in an oil tanker off of the coast of Venezuela, and Kaplan returned to join him.

            Bergson, whose real name was Hillel Kook, had led a group of Irgun Zvai Leumi activists, loosely known as the Bergson Boys, who had during the war sought to stir the American public, Congress, and President Roosevelt to help refugees and to save Jews during the Holocaust. The Bergson Boys, which operated under different names, was now trying to raise funds and to influence the American public to support an independent Jewish state. The noted playwright and screenwriter Ben Hecht had lent his biting pen on behalf of the Bergson’s Boys’ efforts during World War II in advertisements paid for by the Bergson Group’s small donors, including one that ironically declared, when the American government blocked the payment of bribes to allies of the Nazis who might spare Jews in exchange for currency and materials, there was “For Sale to Humanity 70,000 Jews, Guaranteed Human Beings at $50 a Piece.” In 1944, with the Irgun engaged in an underground armed revolt in Palestine, the Bergson Boys had formed the League, to influence the American public, especially members of Congress, and to collect funds for the Irgun. In 1946, Hecht wrote the Broadway play A Flag Is Born to raise funds for the League, which featured a Holocaust survivor character played by a young Marlon Brando who travels to Palestine to fight for Jewish independence. The Brando character rhetorically asked where American Jews had been during the Holocaust.

            The Bergson Boys devoted the funds raised by the play, which amounted to almost the totality of their financial resources, to purchase and retrofit a ship to transport Jewish displaced persons to Palestine. The Bergson Boys set up the Tyre Shipping Company as a shell company to hold “nominal title” for a ship. The Abril was a worn down, rusty 753-ton former yacht. It was built by the Krupp company in Keil, Germany in 1930. It was initially named Agrosy and was renamed, Vita, Abril, and then served as the USS Cythera (PY 31) as a coastal patrol vessel during World War II. Tyre purchased it from the United States government for $36,400 (the next bid was $36,000, indicating that the bidders were trying to keep the price low for the Bergson Boys). The ship’s retrofit in the Gowanus Canal cost over $100,000.

            The M.S. (Merchant Ship) Abril, which was to become famous under its underground name M.S. Ben Hecht, was the only Jewish illegal immigrant ship not sponsored by the Mossad Aliyah Bet associated with the Haganah, the establishment Jewish Agency’s pre-state underground army, to transport illegal immigrants to Palestine after the close of World War II until the establishment of the State of Israel. Menachem Begin, the commander of the Irgun in Palestine, complained that Bergson felt that the cost of purchasing and sailing an illegal immigration ship was not justified because the Haganah, with much greater resources, had undertaken a large-scale illegal immigrant ship program as its primary method of challenging British rule. Begin argued that the League should devote its funds to buy arms for the Irgun, and not divert any funds towards operations intended to garner publicity. Bergson placed much greater importance to securing the support of the American public for a Jewish state. Moreover, he felt that the Haganah’s Mossad LeAliyah Bet, which was organizing and sailing illegal immigration ships clandestinely, could be pressed to expand its operations on a much greater scale if it were spurred by the publicity garnered by a competitor. The plan was for the ship to closely approach the Palestine coast where small boats would ferry the passengers to shore, allowing the ship to return with other passengers on another journey. It was hoped that the ship would avoid detection due to diversionary attacks by the Irgun on British installations.

            After Mandel learned that the League was looking for a crew, he was told to meet with Abraham (Abrasha) Stavsky. Stavsky had been convicted of the assassination of labor Zionist Chaim Arlosoroff on a Tel Aviv beach in 1933, but the conviction and sentence of death by hanging had been reversed due to lack of collaboration after Chief Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook had publicly declared “I can attest, on the basis of my inner conscience, that Abraham Stavsky is innocent of the murder charge.” In the late 1930s and early 1940s, Stavsky had shepherded thousands of Jews fleeing the Nazis in small boats to refuge in Palestine as part of operations organized by the Revisionist movement and the Irgun. Mandel later recalled that Stavsky “said he was looking for an American crew to man their ship the M.S. Abril (which was later changed to M.S. Ben Hecht). Up until that time the crew of Aliyah Bet ships, when captured, would mingle with the passengers and the British would not arrest any crewman.” However, if captured, the crew of the Ben Hecht would not conceal themselves. “The intention with the M.S. Ben Hecht,” Stavsky explained to Mandel, “was that if the ship was captured the American crew would remain to be arrested by the British. Because of the publicity they could not intern Americans in Cyprus or Eritrea. There would have to be a public trial where the Americans would be charged with ‘Aiding and Abetting Illegal Immigration.’” The crew would insist on a trial in which the British policy of forbidding Jewish immigration would be assailed as a breach of the League of Nations mandate to create a Jewish home in Palestine. Stavsky told Mandel that “the defense would be that the immigration was legal and that the British were given the Mandate to make Palestine a homeland for the Jewish people. This would show the English in a very unfavorable light before the entire world and would hasten the exit of the British from Palestine.”

            The ship was to be manned by a volunteer crew of American citizens (including some sailors whose families received a stipend, and two Norwegian engineers paid for their services but who shared in the crew’s travails). Mandel wrote later that he volunteered because “I was a Zionist, and I also felt that it was my duty to help my fellow Jews.” Mandel reflected 50 years after his Ben Hecht voyage that “[i]f I were Irish I would be proud to be Irish. If I were Italian, I would be proud to be Italian. But I am not, I am Jewish” he said with a smile. “And I am proud to be a Jew.” Hyman Robert (“Bob”) Levitan, who would navigate the Ben Hecht across the Atlantic to the shores of Palestine, had felt helpless as the Nazis rose to power as “an impotent little Jewish kid in Brooklyn,” and jumped at the opportunity to volunteer to help “the Jews that came out of the concentration camps…. They had no place to go, they had no place to live.” Crew members were not necessarily associated with any particular ideology but who were animated by a desire to help Holocaust survivors flee the land where their families were murdered. Several of the crew members were not Jews. Walter Cushenberry, a professional maritime chef, had been convinced by the League that Palestine was the only place to build homes for the displaced Jews of Europe. Cushenberry was influenced by the message of his union, the National Maritime Union (NMU) “that regardless of race or creed there should be no discrimination on ships….So frankly, I do think it’s my business.” Subsequent to his imprisonment in Acre Prison, he would recount that “after talking to those guys in prison and learning the truth” that “[t]he only way it’s gonna be stopped is for us to try and go and give them their freedom.” Cushenberry, an African American, explained in a soft whisper “I happen to know just what freedom means, you know.”

            Mandel served as second engineer and oiler in the engine room and an electrician and plumber aboard the undermanned Ben Hecht. After enduring severe storms and rough seas in the mid-winter crossing of the Atlantic, on January 10, 1947, the Ben Hecht arrived six days behind schedule in Port de Bouc, a small port near Marseille, France. Despite the misgivings of the Irgun leadership in Palestine, Irgun operatives in France aided in the practical work of preparing the illegal immigrant ship. Yehoshua HaCohen-Brandeis recalled that when the Ben Hecht arrived in France, he and Elyahu Lankin (who had escaped from a British prison camp in Eritrea and had had been appointed head of Irgun operations in Europe), Eri Jabotinsky (the son of Revisionist Zionist movement founder Ze'ev Jabotinsky), and Abraham Stavsky, who was the group’s expert on illegal immigration ship construction, organized the preparation of the vessel for the immigrants: HaCohen-Brandeis later recalled that Stavsky

decided this ship had room for 600 people. There were three bedrooms, one or two restrooms, and an engine room. But there was a big deck. And he began to design. He designed to install planks extending out over the sea …to expand the deck. At the end of these planks, he set up a small shack without a roof and without a bottom, like a telephone booth. He built like eight booths like these. These were the outhouses…. According to the design, all the men needed to stay on the deck—“which ever way,” by standing, by sitting, by lying down. In the rooms below, it was necessary that only sick women or sick men would descend; that would be the infirmary. And thus about 600 people were able to travel in that ship—if you call her a ship.

 

When he at first had heard that Stavsky planned to transport 600 on the Ben Hecht, HaCohen-Brandeis thought that Stavsky “was not serious. I did not know whether to call him an expert or something worse. But he was correct. He knew his trade.” Stavsky had previously fit equivalent numbers of illegal immigrant passengers into smaller ship spaces. The international nature of the expected passengers is captured by the multi-lingual signage on the twin outhouses for men and women constructed extending from the deck, though one suspects that the translation into Norwegian reflected the whimsy of the crew rather than necessity:

 

WOMEN                     MEN

FRAUEN                     MENNER

DAMES                       ERDJEL

ASZONYOK              EMBEREK

MUJERES                   HOMBRES

ENSA                          HERRER

DAMER

 

Irgun operative HaCohen-Brandeis chose eight young Betar youth group members and trained them in using guns and hand grenades and in a deserted wooded area near Marseilles. But Bergson Boys leader Yitzhak Ben-Ami instructed the crew and passengers to resist only passively the British if the Royal Navy seized the Ben Hecht so casualties would be avoided. Betar leader Gideon Abramowitz instructed the trainees to throw their weapons into the sea upon contact with the British to avoid bloodshed. Eliyahu Lankin and the Bergson Boy leadership were concerned that the Ben Hecht passengers would be in particular danger if there was any resistance due to the ship’s connection to the Irgun. British intelligence had monitored the Ben Hecht since its retrofitting in New York and believed that the vessel would fiercely resist capture even more violently than recent Haganah ships, which had sought to defend themselves with heavy objects and clubs.

            The great majority of the Ben Hecht’s passengers began their journey from Displaced Persons (DP) camps in the American-occupied zone in Germany. Note the strange nomenclature: they were no longer considered refugees deserving of sanctuary by the victorious Allied powers because World War II was over. They were merely displaced people unwilling to go back to their countries of origin. On February 28, 1947, the immigrants arrived in Marseille. Mandel noted the day that refugees boarded the ship “was a very touching moment…. They came out of Europe which to them was a slaughter house, and these people had lived to see many of the members of their family slaughtered, some of them actually saw them, others it was they just disappeared. And here they were being on a ship to go to the Land of Israel.” On Saturday, March 1, 1947, the Ben Hecht left Port-de-Bouc with 600 immigrant passengers and 27 crew members. The Ben Hecht’s captain had been dismissed after the crew complained of his drunkenness, and Levitan served as the senior officer on board for the ship’s trip from France to Palestine. Moshe Schwartz and Simcha Berlin were in charge of the passengers as Betar escorts. Most of the passengers were connected to the Revisionist movement, but there were also Orthodox passengers associated with Agudath Yisroel. Some of the passengers “were in a very pitiful state,” Mandel recalled, and “had not recovered from the concentration camps and the work camps which they had been in during the war.” A few Russian Jews “were big, strong, compared to the others” because they had been adequately fed in the Red Army. A group of Tunisian Jews who were members of Betar planned to form a Kibbutz once they arrived in the Land of Israel. There were five pregnant women on board. A couple were married during the trip because the couple feared they would be separated if the British captured the boat. The Rabbi who presided over the ceremony explained that the cup donated by Messman Jeno Berkovits would be shattered “in order to perpetuate the memory of the destruction of Solomon's Temple and remind the Jews that they live in dispersion.” A 17-year-old French citizen, Henrietta Goldenberg was traveling to reunite and marry her fiancé Bart Stroe of Tel-Aviv, whom she had met while he served as a Jewish volunteer in the British Army.

            An hour after sunrise the morning after the ship left Port-de-Bouc, the piston oil-pump rod of the ship’s port engine forward pierced a hole in a crankcase. The Ben Hecht was in a narrow channel between an uncleared minefield. The starboard engine had malfunctioned during the earlier trip to France, and if it failed again the ship would drift into the minefield. Upon being radioed the news that the port engine was wrecked, Jabotinsky consulted with his Bergson Boys colleagues and ordered the ship to return. Levitan, however, reasoned it was just as dangerous to return as to go forward and asked the engineers if the engine could be repaired at sea. Chief Engineer Haakom Lilliby, First Assistant Engineer Erling Sorensen, and First Assistant Engineer Louis Brettschneider, assisted by Mandel, worked for 24 hours straight to hammer repurposed deck plates to patch the engine. (Brettschneider had been recruited by Mandel.) These emergency repairs rendered the engine only operable at a reduced speed, which delayed the arrival of the ship near Palestinian waters by a day longer than the seven planned. The Irgun originally planned attacks on British installations to divert attention from the anticipated arrival of the Ben Hecht on a Friday night. However, the ship now could not meet that timetable. To their frustration, radio operators Kaplan and Edward “Eddie” Styrak (a Polish American who later volunteered for the Israeli Air Transport Command), the Irgun on shore was not aware that the Ben Hecht was behind schedule, and the Ben Hecht’s crew was not aware of updated information about the Irgun’s plans, which changed the time table of the attacks to Saturday night. Somewhat mysteriously, the Betar escorts did know of the Irgun’s change in plans, but apparently did not share that information with the American crew.

            The Ben Hecht was spotted by two British Lancaster patrol bomber airplanes at 10:40 am on Saturday, March 8, 1947. The Royal Navy destroyer HMS Chieftain came in sight of the Ben Hecht at 12:15 pm. The HMS Chevron arrived at 2:15 pm on the starboard side of the Ben Hecht. The Ben Hecht requested food and water supplies, and the Royal Navy destroyers warned her not to enter Palestinian waters. A British destroyer signaled “What ship? Where bound?” and received the reply that the name of the ship was the Abril and that the destination was Arica, Chile on the Pacific coast of South America. That answer belied Ben Hecht’s current course, which at that point was towards the direction of the Strait of Gibraltar, away from the Suez Canal, to confuse the British.

            The path of the Ben Hecht was blocked by the British destroyers at 4:30 pm, as twilight approached, over 10 nautical miles from the coast line of Palestine, well within international waters as defined by Great Britain’s interpretation of international maritime law. The Betar members trained by the Irgun ultimately followed the instructions of the Betar escorts and threw their weapons into the sea before they boarded. With only one day’s food supply remaining for the passengers, Levitan felt he had no choice but to turn 90 degrees and head toward the coast. Once again, a British destroyer signaled asking for the ship’s name and destination, and the response was that it was the merchant vessel Abril heading to Chile in South America, even though the ship was heading straight to Palestine rather than either to Gibraltar or the Suez Canal. Surrounded by the British naval vessels, the Betar escorts hoisted the Zionist flag aboard the Ben Hecht and led the passengers in singing the Zionist anthem, Hatikvah, and the Zionist Revisionist Party’s hymn. The Royal Navy destroyer Chieftain then went beside the Ben Hecht and landed a boarding party of thirty two officers and men and rammed the Ben Hecht. Thirty boarders then jumped onto the Ben Hecht’s deck from the HMS Chevron, and another 20 boarded from the HMS Chivalrous. In addition to these three destroyers, HMS St Bride’s Bay was also in the British force following the Ben Hecht. The hundred British armed marines, laden with tear gas grenades, batons, and javelins then jumped on the deck, some using water hoses, and soon gained control over the Ben Hecht.

            The passengers were imprisoned below deck and all the crew were kept under guard in a corner of the bridge. After approximately an hour, the ship was secured. “Many of our passengers were in tears and worse, some threatening to jump overboard,” Kaplan recalled. Jacques Méry, a French journalist aboard since the ship’s departure from Port-de-Bouc and who wrote a book about his experiences, Laissez passer mon people (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1947), left the deck among the passengers because he could not “stand the tears that run on the bony faces of men.” The boarding party was prepared for combat, but once they took control and there was no fighting, the British sailors and marines relaxed to a degree and treated the crew and passengers in a relatively friendly manner.

            The Royal Navy’s official history of its campaign to blockade and intercept Jewish immigration to Palestine claimed that the British boarding parties encountered no opposition, and that the boarding parties were offered fudge and tomato soup by the American crew from a modern galley. Mandel, however, insisted that

 

[w]hile we did not resist (another story in itself) we did not cooperate with the English. We disconnected the auxiliary motor to the rudder, and when the British took over the wheel it took two men to steer (“Those Jewboys must be bloody strong” was one comment by a wheelman.) We didn’t have a “modern cookhouse” and we did not serve the British anything. They commandeered what they wanted, but they could not have had tomato soup, as there wasn’t any aboard and our passengers and our own crew were never served tomato soup.

 

            The same New York Times article that reported in passing the arrival without “advance notice” of the Abril / Ben Hecht and its capture “without a struggle,” gave pride of place to eight attacks in Tel Aviv and along the coast of Palestine on that Saturday night, March 8, 1947, which could have served as diversionary attacks to distract attention from the Ben Hecht’s approach to the coast. The ship’s crew was not informed of the change in plan, and the ship had approached the coast and been intercepted before the 8:15 pm start time of those attacks. In those attacks, which included one on Citrus House, the British operational headquarters in Tel Aviv and the cutting off of Tel Aviv’s electricity, five Jews, an Arab woman, and one British soldier were killed, and approximately 50 Jews, British soldiers, and Arabs were wounded. The Jews and an Arab woman killed were passers-by, uninvolved in the attacks, shot in indiscriminate firing by British troops.

            In the wee hours of the morning of March 9, 1947, the Ben Hecht was towed into Haifa Harbor, and the British 88th Red Devils Paratrooper Division, known as the Kalonniyot (Poppies) among the Jews in Palestine after their red berets, treated the Jewish immigrants roughly and beat them when forcing them into deportation ships Empire Shelter, Empire Rival, and the Empire Rest for transit to prison camps in Cyprus. Journalist I. F. Stone witnessed the deportation of the Ben Hecht passengers, and described the “weary, the dirty, the sleepy-eyed, the long suffering, some shambling through, some walking with defiant erectness and slow gait, others anxious to avoid trouble; men, women and some small children. They moved along one by one, driven human cattle to who, these shouts, shoves and quick squirts with powder [DDT disinfectant] were but one more in a familiar series to be endured, though this time at the very brink of Eretz Israel.”

            “We were taken off,” crew member David Kaplan later remembered, “and we were put into—not gently—into Haifa lockup.” Twenty crew members of the Abril/Ben Hecht appeared before Haifa Criminal Court Chief Magistrate Effendi Shadi Kahlil in Haifa lockup, who remanded the Ben Hecht sailors into prison on the charge of aiding and abetting 600 immigrants to enter in an illegal manner into the territorial waters of Palestine.

            The indicted crew members were sent to Acre Prison. As remanded prisoners, they were housed outside the main prison separate from the convicted prisoners. They were allowed contact with permanent prisoners who were members of the Irgun Zvai Leumi and the more radical Lehi (Stern Group) underground movements. When the Ben Hecht crew arrived in Acre, the Irgun was frantically planning a breakout from the prison to save Dov Gruner and three other condemned men from execution. Gruner had refused to appeal his sentence because to do so would have implicitly recognized the right of his British captor to impose their rule. Levitan had a small camera, and Kaplan had film, hidden in luggage, and not detected or confiscated by the British. The personal belongings of the Ben Hecht crew had not been thrown overboard by the British sailors, as was typically done, probably because they had not physically resisted arrest. Eitan Livni, the senior Irgun prisoner, asked Levitan to photograph prisoners, who unbeknownst to Levitan, had been selected to break out. Levitan was allowed into the main prison complex under the pretense of a visit for a shower, carrying the camera and film under a towel. He photographed multiple Irgun and Lechi prisoners in each shot to save film. Matiyahu Shmulevitz, a Lechi member whose death sentence had been commuted, asked for the film after Levitan took the pictures, without explanation. The photos were then smuggled out of the prison and used to prepare fake identification papers, which were necessary if the escapees were to evade capture after the breakout.

            The Ben Hecht crew were also, as Mandel later wrote,

 

permitted to enter the regular prison for Shabbat services when a Rabbi would come in. One of the Irgun prisoners asked me if I had any electric batteries. Among my other duties aboard ship I served as Electrician and I had a box with about a dozen batteries with me. We were searched by the English before we were permitted to join the prisoners. I put three batteries in the bottom of each shoe and hobbled in. The British searched me but did not have me remove my shoes and I brought in the batteries. I did this twice and brought in a dozen batteries.

 

            While the Ben Hecht crew awaited trial in Acre Prison, a publicity campaign was waged to bring attention to the injustice. Mandel’s youngest sister, Malka Tziporah, remembers her parents as being intensely distressed. Esther Kaplan, the mother of Ben Hecht radioman David Kaplan lobbied congressmen. Congressman John D. Dingell of Michigan, on March 20, 1947, in a speech on the floor of the House Representatives, said that:

 

The civilized nations of the world clearly set forth in the League of Nations Mandate their intent that Palestine become a Hebrew homeland. Britain concurred in that intent and eagerly accepted the Mandate. She has, in fact, been extremely loath to relinquish the powers the Mandate gave her and is unbecomingly assiduous in extending those powers…. The freedom of the seas has a long history in American interest from the shores of Tripoli to Leyte Gulf. I should not like to see that freedom abandoned under circumstances in which every precept of law, honor, and humanity asserts its dignity.

 

To avoid further negative publicity, the British decided that the Ben Hecht sailors would be expelled from Palestine. Mandel later explained that “the English realized that bringing us to trial would further reveal their perfidy to the entire world and to our great disappointment, released us without trial and expelled us from Palestine. However, there was much publicity about the arrest of Americans opposing the British, and the incident served its purpose.” The exiled Ben Hecht crew were warned that if they returned on another illegal immigrant ship, they could be sentenced to an eight-year prison term under British law.

            (Ignoring that warning, Walter “Heavy” Greaves, the ship’s third mate and bosun, a Gentile who had survived the sinking of three ships during the war and a man who was looked to for guidance in a crisis, again tried to run the British blockade on the Aliyah Bet ship Paducah, later renamed Geula [Redemption] by the Haganah. Demonstrating the non-ideological character of the crew, his Ben Hecht shipmates David Gutmann, Lou Brettschneider, and Louis Binder joined him on the Paducah. Upon the capture of the Paducah, Greaves would eventually be detected and imprisoned in Cyprus with captured Jewish refugees for close to two years. The other Paducah disguised themselves as refugees, and the Haganah arranged for their escape. Binder eventually became a member of Congregation Shearith Israel. Rabbi Marc D. Angel oversaw the conversion of his wife, Franja, a daughter of University of Chicago President Robert Maynard Hutchins, who Rabbi Angel remembers as an amazing human being. Sadly, both died at a young age; Franja first and then Lou shortly thereafter. Both are buried in the cemetery of Shearith Israel. Their daughter was adopted by a couple who knew the Binders from American Veterans of Israel organization.)

            The Ben Hecht sailors were expelled from Palestine on March 30, 1947, and were brought in irons unto the Marine Carp, which had a regular route between Palestine and New York. Mandel joined the crew of the Marine Carp when the ship became short-handed in Alexandria. To his surprise, Mandel’s former messman Henry Chan was also a member of the Marine Carp’s crew. On April 16, 1947, while the Marine Carp was still at sea on route to New York, Dov Gruner and three other members of the Jewish resistance, who the Irgun were desperately attempting to free when the Ben Hecht crew were in Acre, were executed by the British in Acre Prison. Over 50 years later, Mandel would write that “on May 4, 1947 the Irgun, in one of its finest moments, blew out the side of Acre prison and many prisoners escaped. I feel proud that I have even the smallest part in this action.” The League promised an “Armada of Mercy Ships” to follow up on the Ben Hecht. Instead, the Irgun insisted that the next ship organized by the Begson Group, the Altalena, carry arms. Stavsky tried to recruit Mandel for that trip too, but he already was engaged in setting up a secret Haganah bazooka shell plant in lower Manhattan that was reassembled in Israel with his assistance as a foreign volunteer in the new Israeli Defense Forces. Instead, Mandel suggested a friend, who was killed in a terrible fratricidal tragedy along with Stavsky by troops loyal to the new Israeli government, which feared a possible coup when the Altalena tried to land in Tel Aviv.

In an age in which the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish is constantly questioned, I hope my grandfather’s story and the tale of the Ben Hecht can help remind us, that despite imperfections, Israel is a moral and humanitarian enterprise. Even in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, the survivors were left to rot without a home. It took the bravery of the survivors who challenged that fate, and the sacrifices of so many, to build a country where refugees could rebuild their lives in freedom and allow their dynamism to contribute so much to the well-being of the world.

 

Suggestions for Further Reading

 

Judith Tydor Baumel, The“Bergson Boys” and the Origins of Contemporary Zionist Militancy, Translated from the Hebrew by Dena Ordan with a Foreword by Moshe Arens (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2005).

 

Rafael Medoff, Militant Zionism in America: The Rise and Impact of the Jabotinsky Movement in the United States, 1926–1948 (Tuscaloosa and London: The University of Alabama Press 2002).

 

Rafael Medoff, “Sailor’s role in the birth of Israel”, The Jewish Star, May 1, 2009 / 7 Iyar 5769, available at https://www.thejewishstar.com/stories/sailors-role-in-the-birth-of-israel,758?

 

Rafael Medoff, “The Bergson Group, Voyage of the Ben Hecht”, Part 8 of the “Bergson Group, A History of Photographs”, available at http://new.wymaninstitute.org/2017/01/the-bergson-group-voyage-of-the-ben-hecht/.

 

Rafael Medoff, “The S.S. Ben Hecht: a Jewish refugee ship that changed history,” Midstream Nov. 1, 2008).

 

Rafael Medoff, “Zionists helped defeat segregation in Baltimore – opinion” (The Jerusalem Post, January, 12, 2022), available at https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-692340.

 

 

Bribes and Freedom

         

Democracy promises a precious kind of freedom to its citizens. Democracies guarantee us rights: Ordinary citizens must have the right to publish our opinions, to assemble freely, to petition government officers, to object to the decisions of officers, to compete for public office ourselves, and, periodically, to vote in elections to throw the current officers out of office in a peaceful transfer of power.

No actual democracy protects all those rights flawlessly. Healthy democratic cultures at least strive to come close to respecting those rights.

The Torah does not insist on democratic rights; the Torah antedates modern democracy. Torah-observing Jews have survived under many other sorts of political entities. The Torah clearly wants us to create a virtuous society, in which the powerful protect the weakest and most vulnerable, who represent the “image of God” as well as powerful people do. As such, the Torah imposes duties on leaders, recognizing, in common with other ethical systems, that “With great power comes great responsibility.”[1] I believe that democracy can function as a system to encourage leaders to bear that responsibility. In a democracy, if the leaders disappoint the citizenry, the citizens can throw the rascals out, and elect others who seem more fitted to lead.

What qualities would those more fitted leaders have?

Perhaps they should act as statesmen or stateswomen, rather than as politicians, a distinction recently presented by Rabbi Marc D. Angel.[2] Politicians assess the desires of the public, and then advocate whatever the public wants. Statesmen and stateswomen lead the public to want wise and virtuous policies. Abraham Lincoln described those wise and virtuous policies as the promptings of “the better angels of our nature.”[3] I read these categories as archetypes. No leader fits exactly into the category of statesman/woman or politician. The best of real leaders sometimes function more like statesmen/women, and sometimes more like politicians. Other function more like politicians nearly all the time.

And let me propose, leaders can function in a couple of other ways: as demagogues or as exploiters. Demagogues lead the public to follow the promptings, not of the better angels, but of the other side of our natures—promptings to feel aggrieved, to seek revenge, rapine, and bloodshed. Exploiters[4] seek their own advantage and take what they can for themselves, with little interest in how their actions affect the general public.

But to encourage a virtuous leadership, the ordinary citizens of a democracy must actually have the power to influence their leaders, and even to throw them out. I feel frustrated by how little power ordinary citizens have to influence the behavior of our leaders in the democratic United States of America.

Part of that frustration centers on how far our leaders can stray from the ideals of good leadership. In fairness, we should recognize the theme throughout Tanakh that we do not have a solution to the problem of political leadership. All leaders have flaws. No model works for long. The book of Judges ends in disaster (see the concubine in Gibeah, Judges 19–21); the kings of Israel and Judah often get summarized as “doing evil in the eyes of God” (2 Kings 23:37, for example).

The Torah actually presents a list of the desirable qualities of leaders, when Yitro recommends that Moses appoint those who are “able, God-fearing, truthful, hating dishonest gain” (Exodus 18:21). Implementing this advice, Moses appoints leaders who are merely “able” (18:25). Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra reads “able” as a short statement meant to include the other virtues; or perhaps Yitro’s standards were too exacting, and Moses had to settle for what he could get.[5]

Yitro wants leaders who “hate dishonest gain.” The Torah formulates that as a prohibition: “Do not tilt justice; do not recognize a person, and do not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and soils the words of the righteous” (Deut. 16:19; see also Exodus 23:8). At first glance, this prohibition applies to judges. On further reflection, everyone else in the judicial system, witnesses, bailiffs, police officers, cannot have permission to take bribes. On even further reflection, bribes have the power to corrupt political leaders, military leaders, bureaucrats, admissions officers, school administrators, teachers, and pretty much anyone with any authority.

Later in the story, Moses defends his own leadership with the claim, “I have not taken one donkey from them, neither have I hurt one of them.” (Num. 16:15). Samuel makes a similar point with the question, “Whose ox have I taken, or whose donkey?” (I Sam. 12:3). Perhaps the “taken a donkey” means, not “extorted ownership of the donkey” but even only “taken a ride on someone’s donkey without paying.”[6]

The Torah teaches that a bribe “blinds the eyes of the wise and soils the words of the righteous.” How can we call someone who accepts a bribe “righteous”? Perhaps the verse simply means a person who was righteous until the moment when the judge succumbed to the temptation to accept a bribe.[7] Reading literally, the Talmud understands this to mean even if the judge determines to accept gifts only from the party who deserves to win the case (Ketubot 105a). Further, even if an extremely wise person takes a bribe, “he will not leave the world until he has suffered blindness of heart” (Ketubot 105a). Psychologist Robert Cialdini identifies the mechanism behind this phenomenon as “the power of reciprocity.”[8] People say yes to those who have given them a gift. Even if one determines to ignore the gift, one will unconsciously tilt toward the giver.

And not just the person who receives the bribe; the corruption applies to those who exist in a system that tolerates bribes. Yoel Finkelman observes that “an environment of bribery destroys the moral integrity of everyone in the system.”[9]

The United States at this time still has statutes against bribery. In 2008, a state Governor was convicted of bribery. Given the opportunity to appoint a Senator for an interim term, the Governor explicitly told political leaders that the office was for sale. The Governor had served nearly eight years in prison when his sentence was commuted by presidential order.[10]

A few years later, in 2014, another Governor was convicted of taking improper gifts and loans from a constituent named Jonnie Williams. The constituent had asked the Governor and his wife for help with state regulation of a business deal, and received answers like this one, from the wife:

 

According to Williams, she explained that the “Governor says it’s okay for me to help you and—but I need you to help me. I need you to help me with this financial situation.” Mrs. McDonnell then asked Williams for a $50,000 loan, in addition to a $15,000 gift to help pay for her daughter’s wedding, and Williams agreed.

 

The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction on appeal, in 2016, on the grounds that the statute was too broad, that repeated introductions to officers in state government who could help with a business deal do not constitute an “official action.”[11] As Justice Roberts noted in that decision, elected officials often do favors for members of the public by arranging meetings with other government officials, so the benefit Williams got for her gifts were not extraordinary.

Elected officials often do favors for members of the public; Justice Roberts does not consider how much money members of the public should have to give to their elected officials to get these favors. The elected official can legitimately ask for gifts, and the constituent can give gifts. The Supreme Court did not consider the effect of these mandatory gifts on the sense that we live in a country with democratic freedoms. These gifts may instead inspire the perception that we have a government of the wealthy, by the wealthy for the wealthy.

Furthermore, in order to become an elected official, one needs to win a campaign. Campaigns cost boatloads of money. Some of the people who donate this money might expect consideration in return for their generosity. For this reason, we have laws prohibiting accepting campaign contributions from foreign nationals and from foreign governments. Since, however, the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may sponsor political advertisements, and may also conceal the identities of their donors,[12] interested parties can easily circumvent these laws. Current law seems uninterested in the question of when campaign contributions cross the line from political action to outright bribery.

Voters get to elect judges in many states. Judicial campaigns, like other campaigns, take large sums of money, much of which can come from opaque sources. Journalists may not succeed in finding who donated the money to the committee to elect the judge; the donors probably have some way of letting the judge know. It seems likely that a case involving one of these secret admirers might come before the judge. Perhaps that possibility inspired the donation in the first place.[13]

The Torah prohibits profiting from commercial transactions in which one benefits from another person’s ignorance. The prohibition of “onaah” forbids buying or selling when you have concealed special information about the value of the merchandise (see Lev. 25:14, Talmud Bava Metsiah 55a, and the subsequent codes). Insider trading appears as a prime example of “onaah.”

            Insider trading also runs afoul of the Torah prohibition against putting a stumbling block before the blind (Lev. 19:14), which the ancient rabbis understand as applying to misleading people to their disadvantage (Sifra de Rav, Lev 2:14). Misleading others for financial advantage obviously falls short of the positive commandment to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18).

When health officials informed legislators of the danger of a terrible epidemic, weeks before the news became public, legislators had time to plan our nation’s responses to this crisis. The legislators also had time to adjust their stock portfolios to make the greatest profit from the coming cataclysm. One Senator responded to the health information alertly, selling more than $18 million dollars of shares in health care corporations that stood to lose value when knowledge of the epidemic went public.[14]

The purchasers of these shares presumably did not have inside information. That identifies this Senator as an exploiter. Other elected legislators of both parties displayed similar ethical sensitivities, at perhaps smaller amounts.

The Department of Justice investigated these suspicious-looking stock transactions, and found nothing illegal. The Senate Ethics Committee also investigated, judging not merely the legality, but also the ethical standards, of the senator’s behavior. “Deborah Sue Mayer, the chief counsel and staff director of the Senate Ethics Committee, dropped the investigation, ruling that, ‘Based on all the information before it, the Committee did not find evidence that your actions violated federal law, Senate Rules or standards of conduct,’ Mayer said. ‘Accordingly, consistent with its precedent, the Committee has dismissed the matter.’”[15]

Apparently 18 million dollars of insider trading does not offend the ethical standards of the Senate. Feel free to speculate about what it would take to offend those ethical standards.

We need to demand more of our political leaders. In a democracy, we are responsible for the leaders we elect. Perhaps we get the government we deserve. However, given the electoral structure of the United States, it seems difficult to see how ordinary citizens can use elections to replace unsatisfactory leaders.

No actual political system can achieve flawless democracy. The election cannot perfectly reflect the views of a majority of the voters, because some unfairness has to creep into any method of aggregating the votes. An economist, Kenneth Arrow, demonstrated that no election can meet all of the three most simple tests for fairness.[16] However, relatively fair elections can enable citizens to choose their preferred candidates fairly well.

Because donations to political candidates and officeholders can come from corporations directly or through dark channels, people with money can influence legislation more or less blatantly, and the public has not been able to overcome this influence in gun control, taxation policy, public health, pollution, climate change, and a host of other areas.

Besides the influence of money, structural imbalances make it unlikely that voters can have much influence.

The Torah, as I have observed earlier in this article, antedates political democracy. However, the Torah, as interpreted by the ancient rabbis, does have a commandment that could serve as the central commandment of political democracy. The rabbis rule that one must follow the majority.

They find their source in the biblical verse, “You shall not follow the many to do evil; nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice do not do evil by inclining to the many.” (Exodus 23:2). The ancient rabbis extracted from this verse that one must, in general, follow a majority, quoting the final three Hebrew words “inclining to the many”[17] In biblical word rabbim, “many,” means “majority” in rabbinic Hebrew. As Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra explains, the warning not to follow the many to do evil implies that one should generally follow the majority to do good.

A central precept of democracy demands that when we conduct an election, the majority of the voters should determine the outcome. The United States segments the electorate, so that in each significant election, portions of the electorate get counted separately. A paradoxical result of this segmentation follows, that the winners of the segments win the election, even if they do not form the majority of the electorate. In the Senate, each state elects its own two senators. Small states get no fewer than two senators, and large states no more than two. As a result, the nationwide vote can favor one party by a substantial number of votes, and the other party can win the senate. In fact, this happens in about half of elections for Senate.

In elections for the House of Representatives, after the census each decade, states get divided in to districts, each of which elects its own representative. If partisan officials divide up the districts according the interests of their party, they can perform gerrymandering. They divide the state into two kinds of districts: as many districts as possible provide a small but comfortable majority for the favored party; as few districts as possible provide an overwhelming majority for the disfavored party. Gerrymanders often result in disproportionate power to the politicians who draw the boundaries. It can often happen that the nationwide vote can favor one party by a substantial number of votes, and the other party can win control of the House. In fact, this happens in about half of the elections for the House.

Gerrymanders also generally waste the individual voter’s choices. Gerrymanders make every district predictable; they try to eliminate contested districts. In gerrymandered states, voters can vote in the general election, but their votes are extremely unlikely to change the outcome.

The electorate gets segmented for the Presidential election as well. Most states have a strong majority for one party or the other. The election is contested in a half dozen or so swing states, where the outcome could go either way. The parties know this, and invest their campaigning time and money in those swing states. It hardly pays to campaign in about 85 percent of the country, where one party or the other has a big advantage. The millions who vote there have, predictably, almost no chance of effecting the outcome. The candidate who wins the predicted share of those states typically builds a lead of several million votes over the other candidate, without affecting the outcome of the race at all. By definition, a small number of voters determine which party wins a swing state. Vote margins in the tens of thousands in the swing states determine who gets elected President. As a result, no one feels much surprise when the candidate who comes in a relatively distant second in popular vote in the two-person race wins the election.

Gerrymandering, practiced with varying degrees of enthusiasm by both major parties, constitutes a current and ongoing offense against voters for the benefit of the politicians in power. The voters who turn out for primaries—a miniscule number—might have an influence in who gets elected. The large number of voters in general elections just ratify foregone conclusions. No wonder many people do not bother to vote at all.

The other structural imbalances that cause failure to follow the majority do not represent active corruption. They rather represent passive acceptance of traditional offenses against the basic commandment of democracy. No one has to do anything to continue the flawed structure of the Senate or the Electoral College. People who want their votes to matter would have to actively challenge current practices that benefit their elected officials.

In 2014, Professors Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page at Northwestern published their analyses of more than 20 years of the influence of the public on elected officials in the United States of America, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.”[18] How often do the policy preferences of American citizens determine the outcome in legislation? The two professors found that the policy preferences of average citizens make no difference in government outcomes. Whether members of the general public strongly oppose a policy, or strongly favor it, does not change the probability that the policy will be enacted. Economic elites generally can squash initiatives that they dislike, and propel initiatives that they like. However, according to Gilens and Page, economic elites must “share their policy interests with organized interest groups.” Organized interest groups also have a limit on their power. They “must share influence with economically-elite individuals.”[19]

In the years since 2014, the power of economic elites and interest groups has probably grown. Economic inequality has grown. Gerrymandering has become a more precise science. Malevolent interest groups have become more powerful. I try not to be naïve. I accept that a majority of voters might make unwise decisions. I accept that, however we structure democracy, wealthy people will have disproportionate political power. The promise of wealth will attract demagogues and exploiters to political office, and will corrupt some of the mere politicians who have gained office. In spite of all this, we will probably still elect some statesmen and stateswomen. However, I deeply believe that the promise of democracy demands better than what we have now.

 

Notes

 

[1] Attributed to Uncle Ben Parker in the Spiderman universe of Marvel Comics. The line appears in the first Spiderman film, directed by Sam Raimi in 2002.

[2] Rabbi Marc Angel, “Politicians or Statesman,” Jewish Ideas. January 1, 2022. Accessed Jan. 30, 2022. https://www.jewishideas.org/blog/politicians-or-statesmen-blog-rabbi-marc-d-angel.

[3] In the First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

[4] Maybe “Predators” would be a better designation. These exploiters or predators act, not as “public servants,” but as those served by the public.

[5] Amos Hakham, Daat Mikra: Shemot. Exodus 18:25. Hakham calls this reading “derekh derush” =homiletic.

[6] As in “I took a taxi.”

[7] Rabbi Joseph Hertz on Deut. 16:19: “Of men who otherwise would be righteous.”

[8] Robert Cialdini on the importance of reciprocity. World if Business Ideas You Tube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkyGOAWoYxA. Published July 8, 2009. Accessed February 21, 2022.

[9] Personal correspondence. Feb. 3. 2022.

[10] Monica Davey and Rich Smith, “Who Is Rod Blagojevich? Why Did President Trump Commute His Sentence?” New York Times. Feb. 18, 2020, updated Feb. 19, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/us/rod-blagojevich-sentence.html. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022.

[11] “McDonnell decision substantially weakens the government’s ability to prevent corruption and protect citizens.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/06/symposium-mcdonnell-decision-substantially-weakens-the-governments-bbility-to-prevent-corruption-and-protect-....

[13] “Experts: Dark money taints judicial elections, erodes trust in courts.” ABA. Feb. 19, 2021. Accessed Feb. 22, 2022. “Abby Wood, a law professor at the University of Southern California, said the problem began years earlier, but was exacerbated by the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. In that case, the court held that the First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the government from restricting corporate political spending.

[14] As reported by Katelyn Burns, Vox, Updated Apr 2, 2020. Accessed Feb. 22, 2022.

[15] By Marianne Levine, “Senate Ethics Committee drops probe of Loeffler stock trades.” Politico, 06/16/2020 06:21 PM EDT Updated: 06/16/2020 07:07 PM EDT. Accessed Feb. 20, 2022.

[16] Nathan Collin, “Arrow’s Theorem Proves No Voting System Is Perfect.” The Tech, online edition. Feb. 28, 2003. ech.mit.edu/V123/N8/8voting.8n.html. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022.

[17] Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 4:2 and elsewhere.

[18] Published in Perspectives on Politics, American Political Science Association http//scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

[19] Gilens and Page 572.

A Eulogy for the Uneulogized: Thoughts for Parashat Vayishlah

Angel for Shabbat, Parashat Vayishlah

by Rabbi Marc D. Angel

“And Deborah, Rebecca’s nurse, died and she was buried below Beth-El under the oak; and the name of it was called Allon-bakhuth (the oak of weeping).” (Bereishith 35:8)

 

The Torah goes out of its way to report the death of Deborah, whose only claim to fame was having been the life-long nurse of Rebecca. The Torah not only tells us where she was buried, but also that her death evoked weeping.

It seems ironic that the Torah would highlight the death and burial of Rebecca’s nurse…but never records the time of death and burial of Rebecca herself. The Torah does report on Jacob’s words shortly before he died, when he requested to be buried in the cave that Abraham had purchased from Efron: “There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife; there they buried Isaac and Rebecca his wife, and there I buried Leah.” (Bereishith 49:31)

The Torah reports on another woman besides Deborah who died and was buried while in the midst of travels: Rachel, Jacob’s wife. While Rachel was buried and mourned, her sister Leah’s time of death and burial are not mentioned in the Torah. Two women—Deborah and Rachel-- die, are buried and mourned; while the two women closest to them—Rebecca and Leah-- fade from the Torah without mention of burial or weeping.

The Torah teaches by its words…and also by its silence. If Rebecca and Leah are not suitably mourned in the text, a message is being conveyed.

A funeral and burial represent “closure.” Mourners confront the death of loved ones, eulogize them, weep for them…and themselves. When the Torah describes the deaths and burials of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rachel and Jacob, it marks generational transitions. When it describes the death and burial of Deborah, it notes the passing of a long-time family attendant, the end of an era for the family.

But what about Rebecca and Leah? Why did the Torah omit description of their deaths and burials? Perhaps this was a way of indicating that their deaths did not entail “closure” for the mourners.

Leah was the less loved/unloved wife of Jacob whose clear favorite was Rachel. Leah’s first born, Reuven, was passed over by Jacob who gave double portion to Rachel’s son, Joseph. Leah always seemed unfulfilled, treated as second best. She died sad and unappreciated.

Rebecca, like Leah, suffered much. After years of being barren, she had a very difficult pregnancy that resulted in twin boys. But family life was not ideal. Her husband Isaac favored Esau, while Rebecca favored Jacob. In seeking to have Isaac’s blessing bestowed on Jacob, she arranged for Jacob to trick the blind Isaac by pretending to be Esau. The result was that Jacob had to flee Esau’s wrath, so that Rebecca’s favorite lived far away. Esau must have resented Rebecca for her plot against him. And Isaac was a blind old man who probably wasn’t much of a soul mate for her. Her only companion was her nurse, Deborah.

When Leah and Rebecca died, their families hardly needed “closure.” They just buried the women without fanfare. The Torah doesn’t mention their funerals because their funerals were pro-forma.

Leah and Rebecca were like so many human beings who pass through life without feeling fulfillment. No one seems to understand them or care about them or tend to their emotional needs. Such people grow old and simply fade away without the recognition and love they had craved throughout their lives.

Perhaps the Torah is teaching us to be attentive to the Leahs and Rebeccas among us. We should be sensitive to their emotional needs, care for them, value them. And perhaps the Torah is teaching the Leahs and Rebeccas among us to be more assertive of their own needs. No one should have to die feeling that their lives had been unfulfilled, second best, unimportant to those among whom they lived.

If the Torah highlights the funeral of Deborah, the nurse of Rebecca, perhaps it is pointing to her virtues, her loyalty to Rebecca, her serving as a model to us. Deborah was a genuine friend to Rebecca, maybe the only real friend that Rebecca had. Deborah seems to have understood what no one else did: Rebecca was a human being craving love, respect, companionship.

Leah and Rebecca: the Torah’s silence about your deaths and burials provides a loud message. Through that silence, we learn to empathize with you…and with others like you whose needs and feelings are often overlooked.

 

Remembering Kristallnacht

The unprecedented pogrom of November 9-10, 1938 in Germany has passed into history as Kristallnacht (Night of Broken Glass). Violent attacks on Jews and Judaism throughout the Reich and in the recently annexed Sudetenland began on November 8 and continued until November 11 in Hannover and the free city of Danzig, which had not then been incorporated into the Reich. There followed associated operations: arrests, detention in concentration camps, and a wave of so-called Aryanization orders, which completely eliminated Jews from German economic life.

The November pogrom, carried out with the help of the most up-to-date communications technology, was the most modern pogrom in the history of anti-Jewish persecution and an overture to the step-by-step extirpation of the Jewish people in Europe.

Jews Leaving Germany

After Hitler’s seizure of power, even as Germans were being divided into “Aryans” and “non-Aryans,” the number of Jews steadily decreased through emigration to neighboring countries or overseas. This movement was promoted by the Central Office for Jewish Emigration established by Reinhard Heydrich (director of the Reich Main Security Office) in 1938.

In 1925 there were 564,378 Jews in Germany; in May 1939 the number had fallen to 213,390. The flood of emigration after the November pogrom was one of the largest ever, and by the time emigration was halted in October 1941, only 164,000 Jews were left within the Third Reich, including Austria.

The illusion that the legal repression enacted in the civil service law of April 1, 1933, which excluded non-Aryans from public service, would be temporary was laid to rest in September 1935 by the Nuremberg Laws — the Reich Citizenship Law and the Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor. The Reich Citizenship Law heralded the political compartmentalization of Jewish and Aryan Germans.

 

Desecrated Synagogues, Looted Shops, Mass Arrests

During the night of November 9-10, 1938 Jewish shops, dwellings, schools, and above all synagogues and other religious establishments symbolic of Judaism were set alight. Tens of thousands of Jews were terrorized in their homes, sometimes beaten to death, and in a few cases raped. In Cologne, a town with a rich Jewish tradition dating from the first century CE, four synagogues were desecrated and torched, shops were destroyed and looted, and male Jews were arrested and thrown into concentration camps.

Brutal events were recorded in the hitherto peaceful townships of the Upper Palatinate, Lower Franconia, Swabia, and others. In Hannover, Herschel Grynszpan‘s hometown, the well-known Jewish neurologist Joseph Loewenstein escaped the pogrom when he heeded an anonymous warning the previous day; his home, however, with all its valuables, was seized by the Nazis.

In Berlin, where 140,000 Jews still resided, SA men devastated nine of the 12 synagogues and set fire to them. Children from the Jewish orphanages were thrown out on the street. About 1,200 men were sent to Oranienburg-Sachsenhausen concentration camp under “protective custody.” Many of the wrecked Jewish shops did not open again.

Following the Berlin pogrom the police president demanded the removal of all Jews from the northern parts of the city and declared this area “free of Jews.” His order on December 5, 1938 — known as the Ghetto Decree — meant that Jews could no longer live near government buildings.

The vast November pogrom had considerable economic consequences. On November 11, 1938 Heydrich, the head of the security police, still could not estimate the material destruction. The supreme party court later established that 91 persons had been killed during the pogrom and that 36 had sustained serious injuries or committed suicide. Several instances of rape were punished by state courts as Rassenschande (social defilement) in accordance with the Nuremberg laws of 1935.

At least 267 synagogues were burned down or destroyed, and in many cases the ruins were blown up and cleared away. Approximately 7,500 Jewish businesses were plundered or laid waste. At least 177 apartment blocks or houses were destroyed by arson or otherwise.

It has rightly been said that with the November pogrom, radical violence had reached the point of murder and so had paved the road to Auschwitz.

Reprinted with permission from The Holocaust Encyclopedia (Yale University Press).

 

Who Invited Ishmael?--Thoughts for Parashat Hayyei Sarah

Angel for Shabbat, Parashat Hayyei Sarah

by Rabbi Marc D. Angel

 

“And Abraham breathed his last, dying at a good ripe age, old and contented; and he was gathered to his kin. His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron son of Zohar the Hittite…”

Abraham was 175 years old when he died. He had eight sons: Ishmael, born to Hagar; Isaac, born to Sarah; and six sons born to Keturah. Ishmael was sent away when he and Isaac were still young children. The sons of Keturah were given gifts and sent away to the east. Isaac was Abraham’s sole chosen successor.

When Abraham died, the Torah informs us that “Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah.” How did Ishmael learn about Abraham’s death? He had been banished many years earlier. Who invited him to the funeral?

A midrash speculates that Keturah was actually another name for Hagar. Thus, Hagar would have informed her son Ishmael about Abraham’s passing.

Rashi comments that Ishmael repented from his past ways. If so, he may have maintained ongoing communication with Abraham and family.

But perhaps there is another way of understanding the presence of Ishmael at Abraham’s funeral. His half-brother Isaac must have notified him and let him know he was welcome to attend. Isaac initiated a reconciliation with Ishmael! After years of separation and hard feelings, Isaac decided to heal the rift between brothers. They should come together for the burial of their father; they should realize that they were both Abraham’s sons, both beloved by him, both connected to each other by Abraham’s genes. Isaac and Ishmael had different destinies, but they need not be in unending conflict with each other.

According to this interpretation, Isaac displayed amazing strength of character. He knew he was Abraham’s sole spiritual and material heir; he didn’t have to reach out to Ishmael…but he did!

Isaac was a sensitive and thoughtful person. Abraham and Jacob are depicted more elaborately in the Torah, and Isaac’s quiet greatness might easily be overlooked. Isaac is mainly remembered as the potential victim in the Akeidah story. Perhaps his near brush with death imbued him with an extra appreciation of the value of life and its transience. A few of the Torah’s references to Isaac underscore his uniqueness.

The Torah describes Isaac as he went “lasuah basadeh”—to meditate/pray in the fields. He was a spiritual soul seeking communion with God. Neither Abraham nor Jacob is depicted in silent, lonely and peaceful meditation.

The Torah describes Isaac as praying for the benefit of his barren wife. Neither Abraham nor Jacob is seen praying for their barren wives. Jacob actually rebuked Rachel when she complained of her inability to have a child.

And now, at the time of Abraham’s death, Isaac once again demonstrates inner strength, sensitivity, and composure. He reached out to his step-brother Ishmael in an unexpected gesture of goodwill and inclusiveness.

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik wrote about different kinds of greatness. Some people are like the Shabbat or Yom Tov—their holiness shines brightly and is obvious to all. Others are like Rosh Hodesh—their holiness is muted and easily missed.

By this model, Isaac was an Ish Rosh Hodesh whose greatness was quiet, thoughtful, and sensitive. In his own way, he earned his place as one of the forefathers of our People.