National Scholar Updates

The Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals welcomes you to attend classes in New York City, taught by Rabbis Marc and Hayyim Angel. For those living outside the New York area, Rabbi Hayyim Angel's will be available on the online learning link of our website jewishideas.org

Ancient Ethics, Modern Dilemmas

a class by Rabbi Marc D. Angel

Tuesday mornings, 8:40-9:30 am, beginning November 1

At the Apple Bank, 2100 Broadway, NYC

Coffee, tea and Danish are available.

   The basic text of this class will be Pele Yoetz, the classic ethical work by Rabbi Eliezer Papo. This book draws on the traditional rabbinic teachings of Judaism on a wide range of topics. Along with the Pele Yoetz, the class will study various modern Jewish thinkers, writers and scholars to consider how ancient Jewish ethical guidance relates (or doesn’t relate!) to our contemporary lives.

     The class is free and open to the public, but advance registration is required. To register, please email [email protected]

Navigating Through Nach: A Survey of the Prophets

A class by Rabbi Hayyim Angel

Wednesday evenings, 7:00-8:00 pm, beginning November 2

At Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun, 125 East 85^th Street, NYC

Although Tanakh lies at the heart of the vision of Judaism and has influenced billions of people worldwide, many often lack access to these eternal works. The best of traditional and contemporary scholarship will be employed as we study the central themes of each book. This year we will study the Twelve Prophets and the books of the Writings (Ketuvim). The course is taught at a high scholarly level but is accessible to people of all levels of Jewish learning. Newcomers always welcome. Free and open to the public.

Fall session (Twelve Prophets, Psalms) November 2, 9, 16, 30; December 7, 14, 21
Winter session (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Five Megillot) Feb 1, 8, 15, 22; March 1, 8, 15, 22
Spring session (Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles) April 26; May 3, 10, 17

The class is free and open to the public, but advance registration is required. To register, please email [email protected]

by Dr. Morris Shamah

      In 1969, a very precise and intelligent law student approached me in a rather confused state. He had just learned the proofs for the existence of God as presented by Maimonides in the Guide to the Perplexed. These proofs were certainly disappointing to him as they said little to his practical twentieth century Western mind. Did I read them, he asked-yes, I answered, but they also said little that resonated with my way of thinking. At least all but one, the proof from design, lacked the punch that one expects from such “proofs”

    Both of us were young and saw ourselves as very scientific, accepting only what was clearly proven to us. My confession allowed him to ask, rather sheepishly, that if I found the proofs generally so meaningless, why was I an observant and practicing Jew.

     My answer surprised even me-”I believe because I just completed as part of my ophthalmology residency training a full time six-month course in the anatomy, physiology and pathology of the eye”. He eyed me at first with a skeptical tilt, but I explained.

     The eye is one of the most beautiful creations that I know. It is a wonder and a marvel, dwarfing even our most sophisticated human inventions. You would probably agree with the above, but with the in depth study that I had just completed I found that this sensory organ was indeed most awe-inspiring. I saw that every part of its anatomy and function were nothing short of astounding-and this even though we know but few of its inner secrets.

   Basics: the eye is a one-inch sphere that is bombarded with electromagnetic light rays from a radiant object. The cornea and lens focus the image, which is then projected on the retina where it is converted into an electrical signal and this electrical wave is transmitted a few inches to the occiput, the rear of the brain. We then “see” an object in all its beauty, with the color, perspective, depth, relationship to other sights and a lot more. Other parts of a brain then incorporate this into our past memories and give this electromagnetic signal a full world of relationships.

     Sounds easy. Well its not.

     Every step in the process, and there are many many steps, screams loudly of the work of a Creator. Please follow closely as we explore just a small sample of some of the wonders of the eye and see how they attest to the glory of the Almighty Creator.

      First-the external anatomy: the eye is protected on five sides by a bony pocket in the skull. These bones are in turn surrounded in many areas by air filled sinus cavities. Further, the eye sits in a cushioning bed of soft fat, a shock absorber. A bony protruding front rim protects the front of the eye from large projectiles

    The front surface of the eye is indeed exposed, but the complicated eyelid protects it. You take this lid for granted. Do not, for even small lid problems can cause major ocular problems. The lid has multiple muscles and tendons as well as a full moistening and draining lacrimal system. In the lids are several types of glands that secrete the many components of the tears. Brushes on the lids, the lashes, function to avoid excess light and foreign bodies. The tear drainage systems with its glands, drainage, nerves, arteries, even the chemistry of the tears are all a shocking wonder.

    In addition, the tears are not just a layer of water. Several sets of glands produce a highly complex thin layer. In this later are found antibodies and electrolytes. One can indeed spend a lifetime just studying the chemistry of the tears.

   Do not think that the tears afford just an added bit of comfort. Not at all. Millions of people are actually blinded by tear deficiencies.

   And I can go on and on. The eye muscles, the miracle of the cornea, the very complex fluids inside the eye, the amazing lens, the miraculous retina, optic nerve and the visual components of the brain.  The six muscles around each eye that are in constant coordination with each other. The biochemical, immunologic, and regenerating systems, the color and depth perception abilities, dark adaptation and so very much more. The sub-cellular components, the enzymes, proteins and nucleic acids the electrical systems and the anti-microbial systems.

   Each of these components has been researched ad infinitim. Book after book is available on every micro component of the eye. Moreover, every day I read of a new discovery, a new enzyme, new cellular components, and new genetic controls.

     Ma rabu maasecha Hashem. How awesome are your creations, God.

   There are those that peer into deepest space to see the glories of creation. But I find that we do not need a Hubbell Telescope to see God’s creation, rather, a microscope will do just fine. There is a whole world in each of us that can serve as witness to Creation. Lo Bashamayim Hu, it is not in heaven.

    But wait, what silliness is this? How many science teachers have we had that did everything that they could, either openly or by innuendo, to convince us that religion, or more specifically, that the whole God concept is just primitive nonsense? How many times have we read that the concept of Intelligent Design is just plain wrong. That the theory of evolution can prove it all, and I mean all of it. How many of us get cold sweats when we read a Times article proving that our most basic religious concepts are silly? How many high school and college students fall into obsessive doubt, even depression, when they study evolution and learn that the Torah is wrong in describing Creation? That the whole thing is but a myth.

   Yes, the study of evolution, both macro and micro, anatomic and physiologic, cellular and sub cellular can prove quite convincingly that it all just came about by itself. No God, no Creator, all just spontaneous development over fourteen billion years.

   Nevertheless, the message that I am conveying is that if one looks through the microscope, studies, observes, one becomes overwhelmed and convinced that the Proof from Design is indeed correct. There was a Creator. Many scholarly books have been written, some by evolutionary scientists that stress that science “proves” that there is a God. We should not be on the defensive. Science is really the clergyman’s best ally.

   However, you complain-“science is just not Jewish”-dinosaurs and evolution, a non-geocentric universe, concept after concept that disagrees with our Talmudic and rabbinic literature.

    I say-“NO”-science is not religious or irreligious, not Jewish, not Buddhist, no. Science describes. And from careful observation, it allows for accurate prediction. It can measure the speed of an electron, what effect penicillin has on a bacterium, or how my anatomy compares to that of a monkey. But as far a the why of nature, science has no way of knowing if God guided the evolution and development of the universe over the billions of years, or if man’s evolution was spontaneous, by  random chance. It is for you and me to look at the world, to study in depth both the astronomical universe and the sub-microscopic particle  and after unprejudiced thought to decide if he or she thinks that this all just came about. And to me ,with the bits of knowledge that I have, particularly from my ophthalmic studies, for me the answer is heavily on the side of a planned guided Creation.

   In Traditional Jewish circles one often hears adherents complaining that many of our modern findings contradict the science of the Torah ,of the Talmud and of the Rabbis of the past, some of them who were outstanding scientists in their times. But I say that if you believe these sages who had no microscopes and no telescopes, no spectrophotometers and no cyclotrons, if you believe that if they were here today and had our knowledge, that they would still accept that the sun circles the earth, and that the world is less than 6000 years old-if you believe that, then you insult these intellectuals to the core. No, I think that if Hazal were here today they would rejoice over our new knowledge of the Almighty’s handiwork. They would of course correct what they wrote in error about Nature.

    Maimonides writes:” And what is the way that one comes to love and to be in awe of Him? At the time that the individual studies His amazing creations and His large creatures he will at  once apprehend from them His wisdom, which is unappraisable and endless-immediately he loves and extols and praises and craves a great craving to know the great Almighty.(MT HYT 2:2)

   Imagine if our sages of old ,if Maimonides, the Talmudic Rabbis, even the rabbis of the last century could experience our world today. How very appreciative they would be of today’s scientific discoveries. How they would write and modify their philosophies utilizing our new knowledge.

    As we know, national prophecy ceased before the second Temple was destroyed. But I wonder if it really did; I wonder if the exponential growth of the knowledge of nature that has come about in the past decades is not in fact a new form of prophecy. Are these recent discoveries of the last years really God’s prophesying to us an additional canon, a canon of His blueprints ,a canon that aids us to more love and awe of Him.

    Go to an operating room, witness an ophthalmic surgery-you would be stunned to see what man hath wrought. Instruments, chemicals, computers, all were unknown but a few years ago yet today are our basic surgical tools. To me these are not just mans’ discoveries and inventions, to me these speak of the presence of God in an ascending spiral towards His showing us His essence.

   We can now do angiograms of the eyes finest vessels, and we can open the eye and correct these vessels. We can use a concentrated light beam, a laser to repair retinal problems. We can even thread a catheter in from an artery in the groin and guide it into the finest brain vessels and when in the desired vessel we can cause a clot or we can expand the vessel-all without ever opening the skull. Indeed a few years ago I was involved in such a case and I must say that I never felt God’s presence as I did during the course of that patients cure.

    Yes, man has done wonders, but it is Almighty God that has guided him, given him the abilities aid aided him in seeing the presence of the Creator.

   Open up the books of science if you really want to see Ma’aseh Bereshit.

Jewish thought generally understands human beings to be beset by a form of dualism arising from the spiritual and material components with which they were created.[i] These antithetical influences typically cause people to vacillate between extremes of altruistic (attributable to their spiritual dimension) and self-indulgent (the result of their “earthiness”) behavior. The forces that dialectically interact within each of us and are thought to be outgrowths of the components with which we were created, are referred to in rabbinic literature as the yetzer haTov and the yetzer haRa (the good and evil inclinations).[ii] In the spirit of Maimonides’ “Golden Path” (Mishneh Tora, Hilkhot Dei’ot 1:3), each of us seeks to maintain a balance between these two powerful tendencies over the course of our lives—with some of us achieving better and more consistent results than others.

The experience of one notable biblical figure, Yaakov, who is singularly described, at least for a short time, as having successfully integrated all aspects of his life, including inner as well as outer influences and responsibilities, offers us an ideal equilibrium toward which to aspire.  

And Yaakov came shalem (as a balanced, whole being) to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Paddan-Aram, and encamped before the city. (Bereishit 33:18)[iii]

The most widely-known interpretation for the term shalem in this verse is found in Rashi’s commentary, based upon Rav’s (175–247 bce) understanding of the term recorded in Shabbat 33b:

1.  “Shalem” with respect to his body, because he recovered from his limp;[iv]
2. “Shalem” with respect to his finances, because he did not lose anything from offering a considerable gift;[v]
3. “Shalem” in his Torah, because he forgot none of it while in the house of Lavan. (Rashi (1040–1105) s.v. shalem)[vi]

Various Rabbinic sources add additional dimensions to the concept of Yaakov’s “wholeness,” for example,

…4) “Shalem” with respect to his children, Yaakov’s having been afraid that Esav would kill members of his family to such an extent that he divided everyone into two groups (Bereishit 32:8–9). (Tanhuma Yashan, Parashat vaYishlah #9)[vii]

5. “Shalem” with respect to his wives… (Me’Ein Ganim, manuscript)[viii]

One could understand these various aspects of being shalem in strictly quantitative terms, i.e., Yaakov 1) was physically well; 2) his possessions were intact; 3) he remembered all that he had studied with his father and grandfather as well as anything he may have learned while at the Yeshiva of Shem veEiver;[ix]  4) his children were alive and well, 5) as were his wives to whom he was still married. And it is easy to understand how such a state of affairs could lead one to being very content with where he finds himself in his life.

But a source from the Zohar implies that there is another, more existential manner in which to approach these elements from a global perspective:

6) “Shalem” “above” and “below”; “Shalem” in Heaven and “Shalem” on earth. (Zohar Hadash, Helek 1, #172b)[x]

Rather than looking at Yaakov’s life as merely replete with the various things that he loved and cared about, the Zohar suggests that his sheleimut was a state of mind that informed both his this-worldly (day-to-day actions and responsibilities) as well as his other-worldly (spiritual life and divine service) activities. Although the Zohar’s understanding still allows for a compartmental approach whereby interpersonal commandments (i.e., monetary and domestic matters) and between humans and God (i.e., Torah study and its subject matter) exist in pristine isolation from one another, it nevertheless minimally promotes the conception that at least all this-worldly endeavors are not to be viewed as separate from one another, but rather as part of a complementary whole, with the same being said for other-worldly activities.

I would argue that Rabbi S. R. Hirsch takes advocacy for the integration of the ostensibly disparate aspects of one’s entire life one step further, when he writes,

7) “Shalem”—in full harmonious, undiminished completeness, not only in material matters, but also above all in moral and spiritual matters, especially considering the moral dangers that beset a man who has to make the most strenuous efforts to secure material independence…

            “Shalem” is the expression of the most complete harmony, especially the compete agreement of external matters with internal ones. All true peace worthy of the word “Shalom,” even of civil strife, is not one made according to stereotypical external patterns, but must come from inside, from the nature and ideal of the harmonious order of the matters of life.

R. Hirsch was well-known for advocating an approach to life as a whole that he referred to as “Torah im Derekh Erets” (Torah along with the way of the world)—see, e.g., Avot 2:2.[xi] In addition to legitimizing an observant individual’s participation in general society in order to meet his financial obligations to his families and communities, the ideational aspect of this perspective was to claim that additional value was created when ideas of Torah interacted with high secular culture and vice versa. Therefore, R. Hirsch’s understanding of Yaakov’s, and for that matter all of humanity’s, ultimate “wholeness” would reflect a similar complementarity of the physical and spiritual worlds on personal, psychological, philosophical, domestic, and political levels. Furthermore, “harmony,” a blending of pronouncedly different sounds in order to create from such a “mix” an even more profound aesthetic and artistic achievement, becomes an evocative metaphor for the combining and coordinating of what appear to be varied and even dissonant components of an individual life.

R. Hirsch’s perspective seems to me to extend to human “wholeness,” to even a theological dimension as a fulfillment of Imitateo Dei (emulating God).[xii]  Although it is a particular challenge for humans to coordinate the various components of their makeup and experience, which, left to their own devices, appear to be in constant conflict with one another, “Oneness” is part and parcel of the definition of God:

This God Is One. He is not two or more, but One, Unified in a manner which (surpasses)           any unity that is found in the world; i.e., He is not one in the manner of a general          category which includes many individual entities, nor one in the way that the body is        divided into different portions and dimensions. Rather, He is unified, and there exists no        unity similar to His in this world…. (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah             1:7)

Yet for all of God’s “Oneness,” one of His subsidiary Names is “Shalom”:

The following dictum of R. Hamnuna on Ulla's authority: A man may not extend a greeting of “Shalom” to his neighbor in the baths, because it is said, (Shofetim 6:24) “And he called it, ‘The Lord (Is) Shalom.’”  (Shabbat 10b)

While this could be understood as indicating that God is so much “of a single piece” that He is the ultimate example of “Shalom” or “sheleimut,” the Name could also represent the exquisite level of integration of diverse forces and qualities that are by definition parts of God’s makeup. For example, when considering how God describes His attributes to Moshe (Shemot 34:6–7), one notices that there is a distinct dichotomy regarding the list of divine qualities:

Therefore, when a person attempts to unify his or her own tendencies, predilections and qualities, it could be said that on some level, that person is emulating the divine. By trying to be as shalem as we can, we achieve ever-greater holiness, as defined by approaching one of God’s fundamental qualities.

A perspective such as that of R. Hirsch would reframe the five categories of Yaakov’s “sheleimut,” mentioned in the Talmud and Midrash as follows:

1.  His body was not merely functioning well to the point that he didn’t notice any aches and pains, but his physical being was completely “in sync” with all aspects of his life;
2. As opposed to Hillel’s observation in Avot 2:7 that “marbeh nekhasim, marbeh da’aga” (the more possessions one has, the more concern and distraction he will experience), Yaakov felt privileged and happy that he could live such a comfortable existence, and was at peace with respect to what was his;
3. Yaakov was confident that he was living consistently with the values and directives that had comprised his formative religious education, despite the challenges posed by the likes of Esav and Lavan, as well as the responsibilities arising from taking care of a large family consisting of four wives and 13 children;
4. The sharp sibling rivalry that had marked his children’s interactions while they were growing up had at long last dissipated and everyone seemed to be getting along;
5. Even Rachel and Leah, as well as their handmaidens Bilha and Zilpa, instead of continuing to bicker and compete for Yaakov’s love, had accepted their respective places within the family, only adding to Yaakov’s overall sense of well-being and domestic tranquility.

Thinking about Yaakov in these terms points out how all of us, at certain moments throughout our lives, feel that circumstances are such that everything “comes together” in the spirit of James Joyce’s concept of “epiphany” first in his novel Stephen Hero,[xiii] and later in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.

Yet, what also makes such moments particularly poignant—and it was as true for Yaakov as it is for us—that however perfect these special times may seem, they are relatively short-lived. In Yaakov’s case, the trauma of Dinah’s rape follows shortly after the text attributes to him “sheleimut” (Bereishit 34:1 ff.), along with the death of Rachel (Ibid. 35:16–20) and the disappearance of Yosef (Ibid. 37:1 ff). In short order, Yaakov is beset by shock, a sense of violation, mourning, and an ongoing experience of loss when his family is disrupted beyond repair. One wonders about how these events impacted upon his belief in God, if not also his Torah observances.

I remember once hearing an evocative parable from R. Avi Weiss that encapsulates the realization that the best times of our lives simply don’t last forever:

A father, who had just married off his last daughter, was overheard appealing to God, saying, “Just a nail; please give me a nail!” A rabbi explained the father’s strange plea:

            This man recognizes that life is like a giant wheel, upon which one is either going up or going down. He feels he has reached the height of his happiness and therefore wishes to affix the wheel in place to assure that nothing will change.

Sadly we only know too well that such a plea is futile, and the wheel continues to rotate with all of us “simply along for the ride,” holding on for dear life.

            The relatively stark metaphor of life being like a “wheel,” whereby there are only two options, up or down, is in my view somewhat ameliorated by an alternate image offered by R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, in his work, Peri HaAretz:[xiv]

…(Life can be compared to a pendulum.) A pendulum cannot move to only one extreme. If it swings far to the left, it must also swing back to the right in equal measure…. It is impossible to constantly ascend. Everyone inevitably experiences descents and falls… each person in his own way…. One cannot ignore the dark side inherent in a life of dramatic ascents and jumps: equally dramatic descents and falls…

Whereas the metaphor of the wheel is dependent upon the object’s rotation, with one spin possibly encompassing an entire lifetime, a pendulum is more likely to swing back and forth repeatedly. In the case of Yaakov, certainly all that he lost cannot be restored, but high points come again, albeit without the terminology of “sheleimut,” when he hears that Yosef is alive, he is reunited with his beloved son, and he lives to see the offspring of his children.

Finally, a disconcerting rabbinic comment suggests that not only does our inherent mortality prevent even the best of situations from reaching a state of unremitting constancy, but that God prefers us to be in a state of disorientation and uncertainty rather than calm, self-satisfaction and completeness:

…And there is a further homiletic interpretation concerning it: “And Yaakov dwelled”—Yaakov wished to dwell in peace and quiet. The aggravation of Yosef sprang upon him. “The righteous wish to live in peace and quiet?” Said the Holy One, Blessed be He. “Is it not enough that a place has been reserved for the righteous in the World to Come, that they also wish peace and quiet in this world?”  (Rashi on Bereishit 37:2 s.v. Eileh Toledot Yaakov)

            According to this view, Yaakov’s loss of sheleimut was actually orchestrated by God Himself in order that he continue to strive to improve his own as well as other’s physical and spiritual conditions. Consequently, it can be asserted that striving to reach a state of sheleimut is a meta-value for every observant individual. However, to expect that this is a state of affairs or even a state of mind that will inform an individual’s entire life is simply unrealistic. It sets up each human being, however righteous and admirable, for deep disappointment and frustration. Life then is clearly about “process” rather than “product,” and true joy can be achieved, at least from time to time, once we realize and embrace our existential and religious realities.

Paul Gaugin, the famous 19th century French artist, commented: “When I want to see clearly, I shut my eyes.”

He was referring to two different ways of perceiving reality. With our eyes open, we see surface reality—size, shape, color etc. But with our eyes shut, we contemplate the context of things, our relationship to them, the hidden meanings.

With our eyes open, a dozen roses are 12 beautiful flowers. With our eyes shut, they may be full of memories and associations—roses given or received on our first date; roses at our wedding; roses growing in our childhood home's back yard; roses on our grandmother’s Shabbat table.

How we see fellow human beings is also very different with open or closed eyes. With our eyes open, we see their physical features. With our eyes shut, we remember shared experiences, friendships, happy and sad moments. When we want to see clearly—comprehensively—we shut our eyes.

Mircea Eliade, a specialist in world religions, has written in his book, The Sacred and The Profane, about the pagan view of New Year. For them, human life is a series of recurring cycles, always on the verge of chaos. On New Year, people descend into this primordial chaos: drunkenness, debauchery, chaotic noise.

The Jewish view is radically different. For Jews, reality isn’t a hopeless cycle of returns to chaos, but a progression, however slow, of humanity. Rosh Hashana is not a return to primeval chaos, but a return to God, a return to our basic selves. Our New Year is observed with prayer, repentance, solemnity, and a faith that we can—and the world can—be better.

The pagan New Year is an example of seeing reality with open eyes. Things really do seem to be chaotic when viewed on the surface. Humanity does not seem to improve over the generations. We always seem to be on the verge or self-destruction.

The Jewish New Year is an example of viewing reality with our eyes shut, of seeing things more deeply, more carefully. While being fully aware of the surface failings of humanity, we look for the hidden signs of progress and redemption. We attempt to maintain a grand, long-range vision. This is the key to the secret of Jewish optimism. While not denying the negatives around us, we stay faithful to a vision of a world that is not governed by chaos, but by a deeper, hidden, mysterious unity.

The problem of faith today is not how to have faith in God. We can come to terms with God if we are philosophers or mystics. The problem is how can we have faith in humanity? How can we believe in the goodness and truthfulness of human beings?

With our eyes open, we must view current events with despair and trepidation. We see leaders who are liars and hypocrites. We see wars and hatred and violence and vicious anti-Semitism. We are tempted to think that chaos reigns.
But with our eyes shut, we know that redemption will come. We know that there are good, heroic people struggling for change. We know that just as we have overcome sorrows in the past, we will overcome oppressions and oppressors of today.

Eyes open and eyes shut not only relate to our perception of external realities, but also to our self-understanding. During the season of Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, we focus on penitential prayers. We confess our sins and shortcomings. But as we think more deeply about our deficiencies, we also close our eyes and look for our real selves, our deeper selves, our dreams and aspirations.

Rabbi Haim David Halevy, late Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv, noted that the high holy day period is symbolized by the shofar. The shofar must be bent, as a reminder that we, too, must bow ourselves in contrition and humility. But shortly after Yom Kippur comes Succoth, with the lulav as a central symbol. The lulav must be straight, not bent over. The lulav teaches us to stand strong and tall, to focus on our strengths and virtues. The holiday season, then, encourages us to first experience humility and contrition; but then to move on to self-confidence and optimism. Our eyes are open to our shortcomings; but when we shut our eyes, we also can envision our strengths and potentialities.

Rosh Hashana reminds us to view our lives and our world with our eyes open—but also with our eyes shut. We are challenged to dream great dreams, to seek that which is hidden, to see beyond the moment.
Rosh Hashana is a call to each individual to move to a higher level of understanding, behavior and activism. Teshuva—repentance—means that we can improve ourselves, and that others can improve, and that the world can improve.

This is the key to Jewish optimism, the key to the Jewish revolutionary vision for humanity, the key to personal happiness.

By ARIK BENDER

Former antisemitic Hungarian MP who discovered Jewish roots to make aliya

A one-time MP for Hungary's extremist right-wing and antisemitic Jobbik party, who quit when he discovered he was Jewish, is now making aliya to Israel.

In an interview with The Jerusalem Post's Hebrew language sister newspaper, Ma'ariv, Csanad Szegedi said that he is waiting with bated breath for the moment that he becomes an Israeli citizen and can contribute from his wide experience to the fight against international antisemitism.

Szegedi, 34, revealed his intention to make aliya with his wife and two children at a World Zionist Organization conference that took place in Budapest over the weekend.

Prior to discovering his Jewish roots, Szegedi was known for his extremist positions and antisemitic statements as a member of Jobbik. He was one of the founders of the Hungarian Guard, an extreme nationalist group whose members don black uniforms and see themselves as the descendants of the Hungary's fascist Arrow Cross Party, which collaborated with the Nazis during World War II. Szegedi rose in the ranks of Jobbik through the years, becoming a senior member and even serving as the party's vice president until 2012, and as the party's representative to the European Parliament.

In June 2012, Szegedi stunned Hungary, particularly his fellow Jobbik members, when he revealed that his grandparents on his mother's side were Jewish. His grandmother survived Auschwitz and his grandfather was in forced-labor camps. Szegedi began to learn about Judaism, to observe the Sabbath, to keep kosher and to go to synagogue. He has since had the opportunity to visit Israel.

After discovering his roots, he quit all of his posts in Jobbik, which distanced itself from him, claiming that the reason for his leaving was not his Jewishness, but rather a corruption scandal. Since undergoing the transformation, he has become an activist against antisemitism in Europe as a whole, and in Hungary in particular. He is now completing the transformation by making aliya to Israel with his family.

Why did you decide to make aliya and live here with your family?

"Israel is an amazing country, and I believe that every Jew who lives in the Diaspora seriously considers making aliya to Israel, at least once in his life. There are many more positive elements than negative elements in being a Jew, and the biggest gift for any Jew is the existence of the State of Israel. After the nightmares that my relatives underwent in the Holocaust, my family and I very much want to be part of the positive dream that Israel constitutes for us."

Have you already signed up for aliya?

"I've begun the aliya process. I submitted the paperwork and am awaiting the approval of my documents. My family is very supportive."

Does the security situation in Israel deter you?

"No, not at all. I've visited Israel a number of times in recent years and I always felt safe. I know that the security in Israel is among the best in the world."

Where do you want to live in Israel?

"It is very difficult to make such an important decision because there is much uncertainty. Of course I have great love for the capital, Jerusalem, and that is a serious possibility for me, but I would like to also contribute to the community and strengthen a less central city, so I'm still thinking about it."

In Hungary you were a member of the Jobbik party. Do you want to be in politics in Israel as well?

"There is no doubt that I have the political bug. I closely follow politics in Israel, but I still have not considered joining a specific party. Right now, I am acting in the arena that I am familiar with, Hungary and Europe, in order to raise awareness on the issue of antisemitism and to work for the betterment of Israel, as a sort of compensation for the past. However, I have a lot of years of experience in politics and I would be happy to contribute my experience to Zionist organizations in Israel as well."

Would you like to get closure by serving as a Knesset member in Israel?

"As I said, I have a lot of political experience and I do not completely rule out entering politics, but in the initial stage I would like to continue to focus on my activities against antisemitism in Europe."

What is the first thing you will do when you officially become an Israeli?

"Professionally, I will immediately look for bodies and organizations with which I can coordinate in the fight against antisemitism, and I will of course seek to join the World Zionist Organization's extensive activities in Israel and abroad. Personally, I will visit Jerusalem and the Western Wall, and of course, I will go out to eat real Israeli food, falafel and hummus."

WZO vice chairman-acting chairman Yaakov Hagoel, who organized the conference in Hungary, welcomed Szegedi's announcement and said that the WZO will assist his aliya process and help his family's absorption in Israel.

"Recently, it has been reported that 35% of the Hungarian population is antisemitic," Hagoel said. "This should turn on a red light for the Jewish community in Hungary and for all Diaspora Jews. In light of the grave nature of the situation in Hungary, there is no doubt that the story of Szegedi, who took an active part in incitement against Israel from within the Hungarian Parliament and now actively promotes its image to the world, serves as an inspiration."

Peace, Religious Pluralism, and Tolerance: A View from Bahrain

By Nancy Khedouri

(Nancy Khedouri is a Member of the Shura (Consultative) Council (Foreign Affairs, Defense, and National Security Committee), Kingdom of Bahrain. She is an active member of the Jewish community in Bahrain. This article appears in issue 26 of Conversations, the journal of the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals.)

New York was covered in a blanket of snow the Friday morning of March 4, 2016, when I arrived at the United Nations to participate in a Conference about Religious Tolerance and Pluralism and to share important facts about my precious homeland, The Kingdom of Bahrain. It was delightful to have met with many leading religious figures and to be enlightened by what each of them had to share.

In The Kingdom of Bahrain we are blessed to enjoy freedom of religion and freedom of worship. I personally prefer to use the words religious freedom, rather than religious tolerance, because when I participate at events whose titles carry with it the word tolerance, I anticipate that some will abuse that word. They will suggest that it represents a danger; they will suggest that it means “bearing or putting up with someone or something undesirable.”

Thankfully however, to most people, tolerance, has been redefined. We now understand it to mean “an attitude wherein all values, beliefs, lifestyles, claims to the message of truth, are treated respectfully.” Therefore, if taken within the context of this new definition of tolerance, i.e., if we are to promote a tolerance of all religious ways, beliefs, and doctrines and if we are to adopt a doctrine that will stop us from being “intolerant” of other people's beliefs, we improve life in this world for everyone. We want to adopt such a way of life because we know and believe that a) everyone has a right to his or her own opinion in any subject; b) each one of us is permitted to arrive at a definite conclusion or truth; and c) we are all entitled to our religious views.

Pursuing truth in this context of “tolerance,” means teaching our children to embrace all people, without necessarily following their beliefs. It means showing them how to listen to and learn from all people, without necessarily agreeing with them. It means helping them to courageously but humbly speaking the truth, with gentleness and respect, even if their honesty makes them the object of scorn or hatred. Being “tolerant” of each other and respectful toward one another, brings about a true community and culture in the midst of any diversity and disagreement.

At the March 4^th event at the United Nations in New York, much in the spirit of the typical Jewish Sephardic tradition where somehow everyone knows everyone, I met Rabbi Marc D. Angel, Founder and Director of the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals. I also knew of the Sephardic community members residing in New York, some of whom were related to my paternal family members—it is indeed a small world!

Rabbi Angel asked me to share an article for this issue of Conversations. I am thankful for this opportunity. I am a great believer as to how the power of the pen can have a great impact on thousands of readers throughout the world.

            I would like to write about my favorite topic: Peace.

            This wonderful topic of “Peace,” “Salam,” and “Shalom,” has no end. The topic is vast and it extends into many aspects of life. It relates to inner peace, while at the same time to peace in family. It relates to local societies, while at the same time to international peace. It is so sought after, yet so seldom achieved. It has so many definitions, some that we are already tired of because we despair that we many never achieve them.

            But I wish to share with you another definition of Peace.

            I wish to share with you the promise that it is achievable.

            I want to give that hope that we can each achieve Peace.

            The definition that I wish to share with you is the very name of my Country, Bahrain.

             The Kingdom of Bahrain, has managed to maintain a tolerant and peaceful framework for life, with mutual respect for all its citizens, of whatever religious or ideological background.  

            For those of you who may not be aware, The Kingdom of Bahrain has for many generations warmly embraced and respected citizens of different religions. This is not a new phenomenon. For hundreds of years, every single individual in Bahrain has been treated equally without segregation or discrimination.

            Bearing in mind my spirit of the Jewish heritage of more than 3,800 years, I am a Bahraini of the Jewish faith, who graduated from a Roman Catholic Convent School, “Sacred Heart School,” and studied Islam, scoring 100 percent for recitation from The Holy Quran. I take delight in sharing what my class teacher used to tell my Muslim classmates when they failed at recitation, “Shame on You! The Jewish student has scored 100 percent, and you have failed?!” Now that I have you confused as to my “international” identity, it is proof enough that we are all members of the universal civilization, which we recognize in each other’s faces, regardless of our color, race, religion, or geographical belonging.

            I have always been and will continue to be very proud of my identity as a Bahraini, a Gulf National, and Arab. I am proud to be identified as an “Arab Jew.”

            I felt privileged to have been appointed by His Majesty to The Supreme Coordination Council, to supervise preparations for The Inter-Civilization Dialogue, “All Civilizations in the Service of Humanity,” which was under the gracious patronage of His Majesty during May 2014, aimed to promote dialogue among different civilizations and cultures, to help promote a civilized alliance that ensures a better future for all human beings to live in peace and security.

            This event witnessed the participation of the United Nations and a distinguished group of thinkers, scholars, and opinion leaders. It issued the “Bahrain Declaration,” which has been circulated as an official document of the United Nations.

            We all continue with a positive determination to heed His Majesty King Hamad’s call for peace, tolerance, and inter-civilization dialogue. As Bahrain has always set a leading example for religious tolerance and peaceful coexistence, where people of all faiths have lived side-by-side in family harmony, it made me feel very proud that my country was the platform to host such a landmark conference.

            Regardless of our religious differences, we are all children of Adam and Eve, brothers and sisters who are to respect each other and stop the fighting. There is no doubt that we all stand united against all those who terrorize the innocent and attack them. Acts of terrorism are aggressive attacks on human life, freedom, and dignity, a dangerous threat to all countries and people, anywhere in the world.

            This keynote speaker at The Inter-Civilization Dialogue shared that in his opinion, this bringing together of all civilizations was taking place in Bahrain because of God’s will, as it is said in the Torah that, the Almighty does not come to the biggest mountain but to the smallest, as history proves, “God came to one of the smallest mountains called Mount Sinai and delivered his message to Moses.”

            As this fact could not have been structured more beautifully in a sentence, I obtained permission from the guest speaker to quote exactly as per what was delivered the day of that event, when he further expressed that, “The Kingdom of Bahrain is the land of a wise Leader who has never changed toward his people and has always stayed humble, forgiving and rich in doing charities, thanks to his deeply embedded heritage. His Majesty is a forward-looking King who opened the gates to his country, while his citizens opened their hearts to us in line with their ancestors, illustrated in the personality of their late father, His Highness Amir Shaikh Isa Bin Salman Al Khalifa, God bless his soul.”

            For those of you who have never had an opportunity to visit my country, I am proud to share with you that Bahrain is known for its uniqueness. It is a peaceful country that practices true Islamic values and principles, according to “Sharia,” where there exists respect for the Rule of Law, and where peaceful coexistence and religious tolerance prevail.

            The People of Bahrain have always been broadminded for many generations and continue to respect each other, regardless of religious or cultural differences. Citizens of Bahrain, whether Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Bahai, Buddhist, Sikh, or Jewish, continue to live amicably and remain a “United Family,” joined together by trust, respect, love, and genuine feelings of brotherhood. They all integrate well into the fabric of society. A Unity Quilt is displayed at Isa Cultural Centre for all to visit.

            There is no discrimination in employment within any sectors; applications for employment, promotion, training, or loans do not stipulate that the candidates reveal their religion or sect. This has been possible due to the strength of our leadership and the stability of the Al Khalifa ruling family.

            There has never been any segregation due to religious differences. The belief in freedom, in reform, in human rights and in the rule of law, are part of the core values of Bahrain.

            In Judaism, one of the most beautiful topics to describe is Peace.

            During the Six Days of Creation, God made many of the same group. He made lots of stars, many rivers, numerous lakes, various seas, and so on. When it came to plant-life, He made lots of varieties, and in those varieties He made many beings of the same variety. Even later on, when it came to living creatures, the fish and then the birds and the animals, He made many different kinds of living beings and in each of those species He made many.

            When it came to making humans, God created only one being (Adam and Eve were conjoined).

            Have you ever wondered why? 

            God knew that Man was the only Creature in existence that had the potential of being quarrelsome (or worse). This was so because Man was the only creature that was to be endowed with absolutely independent intelligence. Although intelligence is so truly wonderful, it can also be the seat of conflict. So, God gave us all a familial connection, because when we acknowledge that we all really one, we come from one Adam and one Eve, we should be able to rise above that which separates us and accept that we are all one family.

            Furthermore, when after the flood, Noah left the Ark, God gave him the Seven Universal Laws for Humankind. These laws contained six prohibitions (murder, idolatry, adultery, eating flesh removed from a living being, blasphemy, and stealing) and one instruction. This law commanded that every civilization should have a code of laws by which its inhabitants can be governed to live together in harmony. Effectively, this law would be one that obligates us to create an environment in which peace can flourish.

            So, just imagine if Adam and Eve awaken from their deep sleep in their burial place in the Cave of Machpelah, and start touring the world to see what their offspring have done. Sure, they would be well surprised with all the technological advances that we enjoy. Then they have a look at their children and become horrified; “Children, Children!” they would exclaim. “What are you doing? Why are you fighting one another?”

            In all religions, the gift of life is so important and must be honored, and whoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of a whole world.

            About 2,000 years ago, there lived a Sage by the name of Hillel. He had a motto: “Be of the disciples of the High Priest, Aharon; he loved peace, he pursued peace, He loved all creatures, and He drew them close to the Torah.” A non-Jewish person once approached Hillel with a strange request. “Convert me to Judaism while I stand on one foot!” Hillel answered, “That which you despise do not do to others.” Hillel added: “That is the entirety of the Torah, the rest is its commentary. Now go and study.”

            With Bahrain enjoying freedom of the press, I authored a book entitled From Our Beginning to Present Day, about the history of the Jewish people of Bahrain. Words cannot express my gratitude toward the motivation, information, and photos I received from members of the Muslim and Christian communities, alongside my own, which enabled the book to be appreciated and valued as an important historical document.

            We live in a world that is becoming more connected all the time. We have unparalleled opportunities to experience different cultures and get to know people of all kinds. I once read that “variety is spice for the life of the soul.” One is able to cultivate deeper appreciation by seeking to understand another’s spice, and by paying attention to the qualities of each variety.

            During November 2008, I was privileged to join the Official Delegation of His Majesty and attended the Inter-Faith Conference at the United Nations in New York. The importance of interfaith dialogue was discussed, and personally, I felt Bahrain had so many important lessons and examples to show the world. Bahrain has set an example of showing tolerance toward religious communities and promoting peaceful coexistence, freedom, and understanding. It is the only Gulf country to have a synagogue, which has been established since the 1930s.

            His Majesty was so kind to enquire about the well-being of all the Bahraini Jewish people who decided to leave of their own free-will after 1948 and during the 1960s. One meeting took place in London and another in New York during 2008. Words cannot express how touched they were by His Majesty’s humbleness and warmth.

            In Bahrain, there also exist Hindu Temples and Sikh Temples. Sikhism has been practiced for over half a century on the island, and Hinduism has been practiced for over 150 years. From the words of Mr. Shastri VijayKumar Mukhiya, head of the Hindu community, I quote, “We have complete cooperation from the Government of Bahrain and from the local community and are allowed to celebrate our festivals without any difficulty.”

            In Bahrain, there also exist a large number of registered Christian churches and congregations. The largest Christian community is the Sacred Heart Catholic Church, headed by the Apostolic Vicariate of Arabia. Furthermore, just to name a few of our churches, the Anglican Church is over half a century old while the National Evangelical Church dates back to the end of the nineteenth century, when medical missionaries from the Reformed Church of America came to Bahrain. Their legacy remains in both the Church and the American Mission Hospital, located in the same compound.

            From the words of Rev. Hani Aziz, Chairman of the National Evangelical Church (NEC), Pastor for the Arab-Christian Congregation of the NEC and Founder of The Bahrain National Council for Tolerance and Coexistence, I quote, “We experience no restrictions. Bahrainis are open-minded and respect everyone’s opinions, interested to understand about various religions while maintaining their own faith. When we visited H.R.H. Prince Khalifa Bin Salman Al-Khalifa, the Prime Minister of Bahrain, all Governors and the Minister of Social Development, we were welcomed and supported. In fact, we were encouraged to establish the existing Council into a Society, as that would be one of the first in the Arab world. Recently, we had a festival entitled, “Pray for Bahrain” in which many participated and the prayers were in over 30 languages.”

            When His Majesty King Hamad met Pope Benedict XVI at The Vatican in July 2008, he also had the opportunity to meet with Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, Secretary for Relations with States, and The Vatican praised Bahrain’s tolerance. Its information services reported the following: “In the course of the discussions, which took place in a cordial atmosphere, the Vatican authorities had the opportunity to thank the King for the welcome he has shown to many Christian immigrants in the Kingdom of Bahrain.”

            His Majesty described his visit as a continuation of the dialogue initiated a few years ago with the late Pope John Paul II, and I quote, “We stressed the importance of promoting bilateral co-operation and building bridges of tolerance, moderation and peace.” His Majesty also highlighted the crucial role of the Vatican in advocating peace, openness between religions and civilization saying, “Such lofty values would only preserve international security and stability and enable all nations to live in a peace-loving world.” A visit to Bahrain by the Pope was warmly welcomed.

            Bahrain remains a country in which people can succeed in establishing themselves, regardless of religious differences. Because of the constant influx of various nationalities, which shapes its identity, the example it gives to the world is that coexistence can occur successfully, because it has done, and always will, continue to exist in Bahrain.

            One of many examples that shows the importance His Majesty gives to religious tolerance can be seen on a National Monument erected in Bahrain, known as the National Charter Monument (NCM), in section of Multi-faith Religious Photography – Islam and Tolerance. The Kingdom, under the directives of His Majesty, has been able to overcome all obstacles that shook the Middle East, by maintaining its “One-Family” philosophy, which has bolstered solidarity, stability and security, and we all pledge our continued and undivided loyalty to Bahrain.

            In 2001, a National Referendum had 98.4 percent of the nation vote in favor of our Constitution, in which the system of government was declared a Constitutional Hereditary Monarchy, with Sovereign being given title of “King.” Bahrain, which was formerly known as “State of Bahrain,” was then officially declared as “Kingdom of Bahrain.”

            My country had its parliamentary system restored after a gap of 27 years. Previously, it was a unicameral system. However, it was deemed best for Bahrain to enjoy a bicameral system of parliament, one chamber being appointed by His Majesty and the other chamber by direct free elections. This would enable all citizens of various faiths to enjoy equal participation.

            It was indeed a great privilege to have been appointed by His Majesty King Hamad Bin Isa Al Khalifa, during 2010 and re-appointed during 2014, to The Shura (Consultative) Council, to serve as a law-maker, together with my Muslim and non-Muslim colleagues, passing Bills (Draft Laws), for the benefit of our country and the Bahraini citizens, regardless of our religious differences. We all enjoy immunity and can debate about any subject-matter freely.

            What happened in my country during 2011 was that a peaceful call for reform was hijacked by political extremists. Many who were unaware of the “essence” of my country, started misrepresenting facts. What happened in other brotherly countries was very different to what was occurring in Bahrain. Sadly, it has taken a few years for the truth to be finally understood; yet, one continues to come across articles that tend to repeat incorrect notions. When 18 of our colleagues from the Elected Chamber decided to resign during 2011, it was sad because they let down their constituencies, who needed their presence in parliament to debate about important subject matters, propose Draft Laws for the benefit of our country and for the nation.

            A secret to Bahrain’s uniqueness lies in its “National Unity.” There is no doubt that during the temporary period of disruption that occurred in the Kingdom during 2011, the binding chord that kept Bahraini citizens as a united family may have loosened slightly but by God’s grace and because of the wise directives of our leadership, this cord was not severed. In fact, the tie of National Unity started pulling everyone closer together in a stronger way as soon as they began to realize what they had taken for granted all these years. That was the blessing of national peace and security, which our country has always offered and the profit of a peaceful coexistence that always prevailed among its citizens, regardless of religious differences.

            Furthermore, the call for National Unity to show support for a national dialogue attracted a crowd of over 350,000 people from all the religious groups. It was the strength of our nation that helped unravel the truth to the world, when opposition tried to unfairly tarnish Bahrain’s shining image. Note that the word, opposition, does not seem the most suitable word to use because two or more individuals could disagree on a subject and this is classified as a healthy way of coexisting. However, when individuals incite hatred and sow seeds of sectarian division and aim to overthrow the existing System of Government, they can only be described as “destroyers.”

            Then, there was and still seems to be huge fuss made about human rights violations, but please beware of those who try to twist perception by the fabrication of lies, to unfairly condemn a country and inhibit its path toward reform, to try to make it lose the respect that it has gained globally through its strong diplomatic relations. Bahrain should instead be known for its continuous positive pace toward further reform, for the benefit of its entire nation.

            The great courage of His Majesty inviting an Independent Commission of Inquiry to investigate into the 2011 happenings, was applauded. If mistakes were made, they were solely on an individual level and were punishable by law, as no one can interfere with the independence of the judiciary. As we all know, it is always important to obtain both sides of any story before rushing into believing what might be the fabrication, and thus be unfair towards the actual truth. With this in mind, it was rather unfortunate that respected foreign media were so quick to jump to their preferred, sensationalized version of the events in Bahrain, misrepresenting many of the facts about what actually took place; but once the actual truth was known, they still made no effort to correct misrepresented facts.

            Furthermore, another word used by media was regime. Bahrain is not a regime, but rather, is a kingdom with humble and humane leadership who are close to their people.

            The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” One is filled with great pride to say that under Articles 18 and 22 of rhe Constitution of The Kingdom of Bahrain, it is clearly stipulated that “People are equal in human dignity and citizens shall be equal in public rights and duties before the law, without discrimination as to race, origin, language, religion, or belief” and that,“Freedom of conscience is absolute. The State shall guarantee the inviolability of places of worship and the freedom to perform religious rites and to hold religious processions and meetings in accordance with the customs observed in the country.”

            I take the opportunity to quote from the wise words of H. E. Dominique Villepin, former President of France at The Bahrain Strategic Conference during October 2013: “The domestic situation has changed. It’s no more a conflict between persons, opinions, ideologies. It’s a question of identities, which is always the most dangerous kind of war, because it knows no limits and no rules and because the only outcome is radicalization and hate. Today, terror is the rule…. The truth of today’s crisis in the Middle East is that it is a political crisis, and a political crisis needs a political response. We need to have a broader look at the events in the Middle East to understand what is happening. It is a forty-year war that is, I hope, drawing to an end. The first conflict is between secularization and Islamism has been raging since the Iranian Revolution in 1979.” He also expressed that the “…. conflict between Shi’a and Sunni Muslims has also come out of control with the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and then with the Iraq war in 2003.”

            The torrent of change that flooded large parts of the Middle East caused unjust reporting about Bahrain in the media, whose internal issue was totally different from other brotherly countries in the region. Kindly be reminded that human rights, religious freedom, peaceful coexistence, and diversity are positive cultural values attached to the Kingdom of Bahrain, which has always set the leading example by extending religious freedom to people of all denominations, respecting their right to exist without any discrimination.

            One of the most urgent issues that needs to be addressed globally today, is the fostering of understanding between people of different faiths. Those who can develop such an understanding, tend to contribute towards the harmonious progress of our world.  Bahrain sets an example for mutual respect and understanding among its citizens. For your further information, Bahrain is probably one of very few countries in which Muslim, Christian, and Jewish cemeteries are next to each other.

            Everyone is given a fair chance to play a role in the political life of Bahrain. For example, the Manama Municipal Council had Jewish members in the 1930s, and during recent years we have seen Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Bahais play an active role in the Bahrain Human Rights Watch Society (BHRWS). We have even had a Bahraini female of the Jewish faith, serving Bahrain’s Ambassador to The United States of America, to loyally serve our Kingdom in a diplomatic role there.  

            In conclusion, Bahrain is a very friendly and hospitable country and everyone who visits is really lost for words to describe their experience.

            We all strongly believe that human rights are universal and apply to all people, of every religion, ethnicity or culture, in all places and at all times, so we should also have not a shred of doubt that Bahrain is at the fore-front in making this come true. For we are the people who live on its shores and who practice its ideology day after day.

            I personally invite you all to visit Bahrain and witness for yourselves

“The Island of a Million Palm trees,” that is dedicated to embracing all religions, setting a shining example of reverence for our fellow islanders’ choice of faith, and continued tranquility in our lives alongside each other.

            The Talmud concludes with a lesson taught by Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Levi: The Almighty did not find a suitable receptacle to contain the blessing for Jewish people other than Peace, as the verse says (Psalms 29:11): “The Almighty gives His people strength, the Almighty will bless His people with Peace.” So, the closing word of the Talmud is SHALOM.

            We pray for Shalom for our leadership and our country. We pray for the peace of all good people everywhere. We pray for peace among all humankind.

Rabbi Hayyim Angel

To our members and friends,

I hope you have enjoyed a good summer. We look forward to another full year of classes and programs through the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals. Here is a brief summary of September offerings, as well as an overview of the upcoming co-sponsored classes of the Institute and Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun, where I serve as Rabbinic Scholar.

I will give a three-part series on the Torah and Haftarah readings of Rosh HaShanah at Lamdeinu Teaneck: An in-depth study of Genesis 21-22 (Abraham and Isaac), I Samuel chapter 1 (Hannah and Samuel), and Jeremiah’s prophecy of consolation in chapter 31.

Three Wednesdays: September 14, 21, 28, 12:00-1:15 pm, at Congregation Beth Aaron, 950 Queen Anne Road, Teaneck, New Jersey. To register, please go to lamdeinu.org.

On September 23-24, I will be the Shabbat scholar-in-residence at the Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto, 613 Clark Ave W, Thornhill, Ontario, Canada. For more information, please go to http://www.bayt.ca/.

Throughout the holiday season and the year, I will be speaking at the Sephardic Minyan at Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun (125 East 85th Street, between Park and Lexington Avenue in Manhattan). It is a warm, welcoming, vibrant community. Aside from Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur, when holiday tickets are required (please contact the synagogue office at 212-774-5600 for details), everyone always is invited to attend.

After the holiday season, I will resume our classes co-sponsored by the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals and Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun. Classes are free and open to the public.

Navigating Through Nach: A Survey of the Prophets

Although Tanakh lies at the heart of the vision of Judaism and has influenced billions of people worldwide, many often lack access to these eternal works. The best of traditional and contemporary scholarship will be employed as we study the central themes of each book. This year we will study the Twelve Prophets and the books of the Writings (Ketuvim). The course is taught at a high scholarly level but is accessible to people of all levels of Jewish learning. Newcomers always welcome. Free and open to the public.

Wednesdays from 7:00-8:00pm, at Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun, 125 East 85th Street (between Park and Lexington Avenue) in Manhattan.

Fall session (Twelve Prophets, Psalms) November 2, 9, 16, 30; December 7, 14, 21
Winter session (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Five Megillot) Feb 1, 8, 15, 22; March 1, 8, 15, 22
Spring session (Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles) April 26; May 3, 10, 17

If you would like to hear the twenty classes I gave last year in this survey course, they are available at our Online Learning section of our website: https://www.jewishideas.org//online-learning

I also will teach the three-part History at Home series at Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun:
Great Biblical Scandals

November 12: The Dinah Narrative: Moral Ambiguities in a Dreadful Story
December 17: King David and Bat Sheva: An Affair to Remember
January 14: King Ahab: Did He Do Something Right?

Co-sponsored by the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals and Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun.
Saturday nights from 8:30-9:30pm, at Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun,
125 East 85th Street (between Park and Lexington Avenue) in Manhattan.

I look forward to resuming our learning together, and stay tuned for updates!

I am grateful to the members and supporters of the Institute for making all of our programs, publications, and classes a priority in the development of American Jewish religious and communal life. Thank you,

Rabbi Hayyim Angel
National Scholar

Gloria J. Ascher is Associate Professor of German, Scandinavian and Judaic Studies, and Co-Director of Judaic Studies, at Tufts University.

Shalach Manot, His Hundred Years: A Tale
A Sephardic Review

This is no ordinary book. It is a unique contemporary Sephardic novel that is best honored and illuminated by a Sephardic review. So instead of the usual essay with smooth transitions and a predictable progression, here are five (lucky number!) notes that focus on distinctive aspects of the book and their implications.

1. The shiny, hazy gold-bronze-rose-toned cover with its Turkish Jewish image, adapted from an 18th-century Torah ark cover from Istanbul, evokes a faraway fantasy world, which, indeed, bursts into life in the opening pages when we are transported to “Canakkale, 1911.” That world is, as we discover, not so far away--in time--after all. The paperback cover is strong and substantial, but pliable – like the main character of the novel it introduces. The combination of fairy-tale allure and Jewish tradition, of flexibility and tenacity, even stubbornness, is a thread that runs through and binds together the main character and other Sephardim (“Turkish Jews”) we meet.

2. The Tale is told in twenty-eight unnumbered episodes, each identified by location and year, with a break before the last four indicated in the list of Contents. The first is the earliest and the last the most recent, but the rest of the episodes jump back and forth in time and place, with no apparent order. There are multiple tales in the same location and year, some presented consecutively, but two near opposite ends of the narrative. Some episodes take place at the same location in different years, and vice versa. Defying the limitations of narration in words, so convincingly delineated by the 18th - century German writer Gotthold Ephraim Lessing in his Laokoon, Shalach Manot forces us to recognize that the order and meaning of the years of a life are not ultimately determined by chronology.

3. Like the years of a life, the episodes in this Tale are bound together by connections, relationships, associations, and correspondences. For example, the “explosion” heard by the main character as a schoolboy that signals war, remembered by the now retired man on a flight to London, is echoed in the episode that follows, sixteen years later in New York, by the “explosion” in his head as a result of anesthesia before surgery. Both explosions are recalled and recounted, the first to an African-American boy, the second to a lawyer. These encounters prove unexpectedly but typically meaningful, for this man, in all stages of his life, has the gift of relating openly to other people, of whatever age or cultural background. His openness and empathy extend to other creatures as well, like the donkey he buys as a boy in Turkey. He is, in Ladino, ben adam, a real, regular human being in the best sense (from the Hebrew for “son of man,” used often by the Biblical prophet Ezekiel).

4. This novel is replete with Jewish and particularly Sephardic references, elements, and, above all, values, like openness, commitment to family, and personal dignity. Encouraged as a boy in Turkey by the success story of the Biblical Joseph, the main character identifies throughout as a Jew, attending synagogue services, teaching an African-American boy about the expulsion of the Jews from Spain and their new life in Turkey, finding meaning and self-worth as an old man upon touching the Torah scroll on Simchat Torah – even if he does sell his first insurance policy on Saturday, Shabbat. He sings the Marseillaise at crucial times, reflecting the French influence on Turkish Jews. Perhaps most memorable are the songs, proverbs, and names of foods in Ladino, which are not merely colorful expressions of a culture that spice up the text, but can become crucial vehicles of meaning, for characters and readers alike.

5. Sien anyos en kadena es mas mijor de una ora debasho de la tierra. A hundred years in chains is better than one hour beneath the earth. Though this Ladino proverb does not appear in the novel, it expresses the essential meaning of His Hundred Years: the value of life. The main character continues to delight in life, to find joy and strength and resourcefulness, to go forward to greater successes, taking pride in discovering new talents even as an old man. Beset by the chains of hunger and war, disappointment and loss, family fireworks and the accoutrements of old age, still he rises above them and persists, relishing hard-won moments of triumph. After his death he continues to impart this delight in life to an unlikely family member, and his one business failure is, in a way, reversed through a corresponding potential success, again involving family. He thus lives on, way beyond His Hundred Years!

These notes, as befits a Sephardic review, are far from exhaustive. Five of the many more aspects worthy of consideration:

1. the implications of the fact that the main character is never identified by name, but by what he is and what he does, as “the salesman,” for example (essence and substance rather than arbitrary label)
2. the sensitive and gripping portraits of diverse Turkish Jewish women caught in a patriarchal system
3. the Sephardic immigrant experience in the U.S.
4. the meanings of the subtitle: “tale” with mythical import, “tale” as folk tale, kuento
5. the short but thoughtful and useful Glossary

This Sephardic novel by Shalach Manot is, indeed, no ordinary book, but a gift for all seasons that entices you to join the adventure – and come up with your own list of notes, whether the number is 5 or 9 or 13! Mazal bueno, good luck, and enjoy!

Rabbi Hayyim Angel, National Scholar of the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals, teaches Tanakh at Yeshiva University and serves as Rabbinic Scholar at Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun. This article originally appeared in Jewish Bible Quarterly 40:1 (2012), pp. 41-51; reprinted in H. Angel, Peshat Isn’t So Simple: Essays on Developing a Religious Methodology to Bible Study (New York: Kodesh Press, 2014), pp. 254-267.
When Love and Politics Mix:

David and His Relationships with
Saul, Jonathan, and Michal [1]

Introduction

Few biblical narratives are so richly intricate as those in the Book of Samuel. Throughout these episodes, love and politics mix. While David and Saul and his family were human beings with personal feelings, they also were involved in a complex and oftentimes painful saga of royal succession and competition. They also had to maintain public images.

The prophetic narrator regularly reveals the feelings of Saul and his children toward David. At the same time, David’s feelings toward Saul and his children are concealed. [2] For that matter, the passionate David is never explicitly said to have loved anyone in the Book of Samuel! A number of contemporary scholars have exploited this and related textual evidence to describe the emotional imbalance in these relationships.

However, Susan Ackerman has observed that in most biblical relationships involving the term ahavah (love), only one of the parties is explicitly said to love (the Song of Songs is a notable exception). Generally, husbands are said to love their wives without explicit mention that the wives love the husbands. Parents are said to love their children without explicit mention that their children love them.

For example, Isaac is said to have loved Rebecca (Gen. 24:67), Jacob loved Rachel (Gen. 29:18), Samson
loved Delilah (Jud. 16:4), and Elkanah loved Hannah (1 Sam. 1:5). Rebecca is said to have loved Jacob while Isaac loved Esau (Gen. 25:28), and Jacob loved Joseph (Gen. 37:3-4) and Benjamin (Gen. 44:20).
Ackerman maintains that generally the more dominant party is said to love, even though the loving relationship may well be reciprocal. [3] Therefore, the omission of references to David’s loving Saul, Jonathan, or Michal does not necessarily indicate any lack of love from David toward these characters. In fact, it would have been surprising had there been explicit reference to David’s love!

These ambiguities become more pronounced when considering that the verb a-h-v (love) is used biblically both for affectionate interpersonal love and also for political alliances such as that between David and Hiram of Tyre (1 Kings 5:15). [4] To some degree, then, the ambiguity is due to the limited lexicon of Biblical Hebrew, where one word may serve multiple functions.

The Sages of the Talmud and medieval rabbinic commentators such as Ralbag and Abarbanel also were fully conscious of the public political roles of the protagonists. Contemporary scholars often have followed suit, ascertaining textual clues or simply speculating that the text may not depict the full range of the characters’ emotions toward one another. This article will consider the relationships between Saul’s family and David and how their different motivations are presented in the Book of Samuel. In most instances, it is exceptionally difficult to draw the line between where love stops and politics starts.

David and Saul

After Samuel anointed David as a replacement for Saul, Saul became afflicted by an evil spirit (1 Sam. 16:14). One of the king’s officials recommended David as one who could play the lyre and thereby soothe the troubled monarch. David was immediately successful: “So David came to Saul and entered his service; [Saul] took a strong liking to him [va-ye’ehavehu me’od] and made him one of his arms-bearers” (1 Sam. 16:21). The imbalance of the depiction of the respective feelings of Saul and David toward one another harks back to this, their first encounter. [5]

However, this does not mean that David had no positive feelings toward Saul. Perhaps the greatest expression of David’s feelings can be found in 1 Samuel 24, when David had the opportunity to kill Saul but instead cut off the corner of his robe to indicate that he had the ability to assassinate the monarch:

And David said to Saul, “Why do you listen to the people who say, ‘David is out to do you harm?’ You can see for yourself now that the Lord delivered you into my hands in the cave today. And though I was urged to kill you, I showed you pity; for I said, ‘I will not raise a hand against my lord, since he is the Lord’s anointed.’ Please, sir, take a close look at the corner of your cloak in my hand; for when I cut off the corner of your cloak, I did not kill you. You must see plainly that I have done nothing evil or rebellious, and I have never wronged you. Yet you are bent on taking my life. May the Lord judge between you and me! And may He take vengeance upon you for me, but my hand will never touch you. As the ancient proverb has it: ‘Wicked deeds come from wicked men!’ My hand will never touch you. Against whom has the king of Israel come out? Whom are you pursuing? A dead dog? A single flea? May the Lord be arbiter and may He judge between you and me! May He take note and uphold my cause, and vindicate me against you” (1 Sam. 24:10-16).

David expressed conflicted emotions of loyalty to Saul as God’s anointed, coupled with a desire for God to judge Saul harshly for his unjust actions.

Ralbag and Abarbanel suggest an additional reason why David did not kill Saul. Since David knew that he would become the next king, he wanted to send the unequivocal message that assassination of any monarch is unacceptable. These interpreters repeat this argument when explaining David’s killing of the Amalekite youth (2 Sam. 1:14-16) and Ish-bosheth’s assassins (2 Sam. 4:9-12). From this vantage point, David offered a calculated address and not exclusively spontaneous heartfelt thoughts. [6]

Responding to David’s address, Saul cried and poignantly referred to David as his “son”:

When David finished saying these things to Saul, Saul said, “Is that your voice, my son David?” And Saul broke down and wept. He said to David, “You are right, not I; for you have treated me generously, but I have treated you badly” (1 Sam. 24:17-18).

It appears that Saul loved David but also envied him to the point where he lost all balance. David also appears to have loved Saul but also cautiously protected his own future position as monarch. Because of this latter consideration, it is difficult to know whether to interpret David’s words as a sincere expression of his love for Saul, as rhetoric, or as some combination of genuine affection and political considerations.

David and Jonathan

After David killed Goliath, Jonathan became enamored of David and made a pact with him:

When [David] finished speaking with Saul, Jonathan’s soul became bound up with the soul of David; Jonathan loved David as himself…. Jonathan and David made a pact, because [Jonathan] loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the cloak and tunic he was wearing and gave them to David, together with his sword, bow, and belt (1 Sam. 18:1-4).

Whatever the reasoning behind Jonathan’s reluctance to fight Goliath, he graciously ceded his right to the throne to David as a result of David’s superior heroism. [7] That Jonathan is said to have loved David “as himself” attests to his remarkable feelings toward David.

Throughout the narrative, Jonathan reiterated his commitment to David’s well-being:

Jonathan told David, “My father Saul is bent on killing you. Be on your guard tomorrow morning; get to a secret place and remain in hiding. I will go out and stand next to my father in the field where you will be, and I will speak to my father about you. If I learn anything, I will tell you” (1 Sam. 19:2-3).

David fled from Naioth in Ramah; he came to Jonathan and said, “What have I done, what is my crime and my guilt against your father, that he seeks my life?” He replied, “Heaven forbid! You shall not die. My father does not do anything, great or small, without disclosing it to me; why should my father conceal this matter from me? It cannot be!” David swore further, “Your father knows well that you are fond of me and has decided: ‘Jonathan must not learn of this or he will be grieved.’ But, as the Lord lives and as you live, there is only a step between me and death.” Jonathan said to David, “Whatever you want, I will do it for you” (1 Sam. 20:1-4).

In the first instance, there is no recorded response by David. The second dialogue reports David’s first words to Jonathan in the text, and they hardly sound personal. David could have said these words to anyone. [8]

After Jonathan confronted Saul at a public meal and subsequently told David that he must flee, the scene ends with a touching encounter:

David emerged from his concealment at the Negev. He flung himself face down on the ground and bowed low three times. They kissed each other and wept together; David wept the longer (1 Sam. 20:41).

Although they kissed and David cried longer than Jonathan, this scene does not necessarily indicate David’s affectionate feelings toward Jonathan. He could have been distressed over becoming a fugitive from the king (cf. Ralbag). At the same time, however, this emotionally charged scene could indicate a profound mutual love as well.

Perhaps the most dramatic textual expression of David’s feelings toward Jonathan, and to some degree Saul, is found in his eulogy after they were killed in battle:

And David intoned this dirge over Saul and his son Jonathan—He ordered the Judahites to be taught [The Song of the] Bow. It is recorded in the Book of Jashar. “Your glory, O Israel, lies slain on your heights; how have the mighty fallen…. Saul and Jonathan, beloved and cherished, never parted in life or in death! They were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions…. I grieve for you, my brother Jonathan, you were most dear to me. Your love was wonderful to me more than the love of women. How have the mighty fallen, the weapons of war perished!” (2 Sam. 1:17-27).

Most of the lamentation is a heroes’ eulogy. However, verse 26 reflects the strong feelings David harbored toward Jonathan. Only after Jonathan’s death does David unambiguously express his positive emotions toward Jonathan.

Despite the seemingly heartfelt outpouring of David’s emotions, however, Robert Alter maintains that David’s public recital of this eulogy also served his political aim of proclaiming that David did not wish for Saul’s death. [9] Tod Linafelt suggests further that the eulogy reflects David’s positive personal feelings toward Saul and Jonathan but simultaneously is a carefully crafted rhetorical piece that reflects Saul and Jonathan as failures as military men and as national leaders. [10] These interpretations are reminders of the various elements likely to have affected all of David’s relationships.

One Mishnah idealizes the love between David and Jonathan as the quintessential friendship:

All love that depends on a [transient] thing, [when the] thing ceases, [the] love ceases; and [all love] that depends not on a [transient] thing, ceases not forever. Which is the [kind of] love that depends on a [transient] thing? Such as was the love of Amnon for Tamar; and [which is the kind of love] that depends not on a [transient] thing? Such as was the love of David and Jonathan (Avot 5:16).

Rabbi Jonah of Gerona comments that the Mishnah idealizes Jonathan’s love of David since Jonathan stood to lose directly by abdicating his right to the throne. Therefore, his love for David must have been pure. Of course, this interpretation does not account for David’s love for Jonathan. One easily can identify more utilitarian (though hardly negative) reasons why David would pursue a relationship with Jonathan. Jonathan protected David against Saul and also ceded his rights to the throne.

However, one also can identify less altruistic (though again hardly negative) motivations for Jonathan’s love toward David as well. During their last recorded encounter, Jonathan voiced his expectation that he would be second in command once David became king: “He said to him, ‘Do not be afraid: the hand of my father Saul will never touch you. You are going to be king over Israel and I shall be second to you; and even my father Saul knows this is so’” (1 Sam. 23:17).

There is nothing negative about Jonathan’s aspiration, but he evidently expected reciprocity for his graciousness. Consequently, one talmudic passage debates the extent of altruism underlying Jonathan’s covenant with David:

Rabbi [Rabbi Judah the Prince] … said, three were humble… Jonathan, the son of Saul, for he said to David, “You are going to be king over Israel and I shall be second to you” (1 Sam. 23:17). But how does this prove it? Perhaps Jonathan the son of Saul [spoke thus] because he saw that the people were flocking to David! (Bava Metzia 84b-85a).

According to Rabbi’s reading, Jonathan was gracious in ceding his right to the throne. According to the objection, however, Jonathan simply was acting prudently, correctly reading the writing on the wall that David would become king. This talmudic debate captures both sides of the complex relationship between David and Jonathan.

On a more ominous level, Jonathan was concerned that David would exterminate his family. [11] Jonathan reiterated their pact at every possible opportunity (see 1 Sam. 18:3; 20:14-16, 23; 42; 23:18). Perhaps the most striking is Jonathan’s reference to the pact juxtaposed to another mention that Jonathan loved David as himself:

“Nor shall you fail to show me the Lord’s faithfulness, while I am alive; nor, when I am dead, shall you ever discontinue your faithfulness to my house—not even after the Lord has wiped out every one of David’s enemies from the face of the earth. Thus has Jonathan covenanted with the house of David; and may the Lord requite the enemies of David!” Jonathan, out of his love for David, adjured him again, for he loved him as himself (1 Sam. 20:14-17).

John A. Thompson interprets this juxtaposition to mean that even this lofty expression of Jonathan’s loving David as himself combines interpersonal affection and the aspect of covenantal alliance. [12] Alternatively, Abarbanel (on 20:17), Malbim (on 18:3; 20:17) and Shimon Bar-Efrat argue that the reference to Jonathan loving David as himself indicates that Jonathan was not motivated by personal gain and self-protection even in the context of such a prudent covenant. [13] Following Moshe Z. Segal, Yehudah Kiel advances this argument even further, suggesting that David responded with silence since he loved Jonathan so dearly that he refused to acknowledge that he and not Jonathan would rule. [14]

At any rate, Jonathan’s pact with David proved effective. After Jonathan’s death, David cared for Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth: David inquired, “Is there anyone still left of the House of Saul with whom I can keep faith for the sake of Jonathan?” (2 Sam. 9:1). When David killed seven of Saul’s descendants to appease the Gibeonites, he spared Mephibosheth because of this oath: “The king spared Mephibosheth son of Jonathan son of Saul, because of the oath before the Lord between the two, between David and Jonathan son of Saul” (2 Sam. 21:7).

To summarize, although Rabbi Jonah of Gerona certainly is correct that Jonathan was an exemplar of graciousness by foregoing his right to the throne, the textual evidence indicates that Jonathan stood to gain as well. He expected to be second in command and also protected his progeny through his pact with David. [15]

David and Michal

Now Michal daughter of Saul had fallen in love with David; and when this was reported to Saul, he was pleased (1 Sam. 18:20).

Following David’s meteoric rise to national fame, Saul’s daughter Michal loved David. This is the only reference in the entire Bible to a woman said to love her man. Although no doubt Michal was attracted to marrying a hero, there appears to be genuine affection in her reaction, as well. When Saul sent his troops to capture David, Michal heroically put herself at risk by siding with David over her father (1 Sam. 19:10-17). [16] Once again, we never hear how David felt about Michal. Perhaps their love was reciprocal, but perhaps David viewed her primarily as another means of gaining legitimacy to the throne.

Rabbi Amnon Bazak assumes from the lack of mention of David’s love that David was more interested in marrying Saul’s daughter as part of his monarchial aspirations (see 1 Sam. 17:25; 18:23, 26). [17] However, Bazak’s assumption is not compelling. As noted at the outset of this essay, in most biblical relationships involving the term ahavah (love), only one of the parties is explicitly said to love. Following her thesis that the more dominant party is said to love, Susan Ackerman suggests that Michal was the more powerful party at the outset of the narrative. David depended on his marriage to Michal to advance his monarchial ambitions. [18]

At any rate, we still cannot ascertain if David really did not love Michal at all. Bazak argues more convincingly that the ongoing emphasis on Michal’s being Saul’s daughter may suggest that this aspect was paramount to David. David wanted Michal back when Abner expressed a desire to reconcile the two kingdoms:

He replied, “Good; I will make a pact with you. But I make one demand upon you: Do not appear before me unless you bring Michal daughter of Saul when you come before me.” David also sent messengers to Ish-bosheth son of Saul, to say, “Give me my wife Michal, for whom I paid the bride-price of one hundred Philistine foreskins” (2 Sam. 3:13-14).

When speaking to Abner, David stressed Michal’s being the “daughter of Saul” in order to legitimize the political unification of the north and south. When addressing Ish-bosheth, David referred to “my wife Michal,” since he wanted to emphasize his legal marriage to Michal so that Ish-bosheth would be responsive. [19]

In the final encounter between David and Michal, Michal again is three times referred to as Saul’s daughter. Aside from the surface debate over the dignity of the monarchy, Bazak interprets Michal’s outburst as an expression of her deep anguish at being unloved despite her love for David:

As the Ark of the Lord entered the City of David, Michal daughter of Saul looked out of the window and saw King David leaping and whirling before the Lord; and she despised him for it…. David went home to greet his household. And Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet David and said, “Didn’t the king of Israel do himself honor today—exposing himself today in the sight of the slave girls of his subjects, as one of the riffraff might expose himself!” David answered Michal, “It was before the Lord who chose me instead of your father and all his family and appointed me ruler over the Lord’s people Israel! I will dance before the Lord and dishonor myself even more, and be low in my own esteem; but among the slave girls that you speak of I will be honored.” So to her dying day Michal daughter of Saul had no children (2 Sam. 6:16-23).

This confrontation terminated their relationship and they had no children afterwards. David never spoke (in the text) to Michal until this explosion at the end, and then never again. However, the absence of mutual dialogue does not prove that David had not previously loved Michal. For example, Ralbag (on 6:22) suggests that David loved Michal before this confrontation, but afterwards, stopped loving her. However, it also is possible that David never loved her, and now realized that he no longer needed this marriage with Michal to legitimize his monarchy.

Conclusion

Do you know why you were unable at that time to know “the meaning of love”? Because one only knows it when one both loves and is loved. Everything else can, at a pinch, be done one-sidedly, but two are needed for love, and when we have experienced this we lose our taste for all other one-sided activites and do everything mutually. For everything can be done mutually; he who has experienced love discovers it everywhere, its pains as well as its delights (letter from Franz Rosenzweig to his fiancée Edith Hahn, January 16, 1920). [20]

Franz Rosenzweig stressed the mutual aspect of love to his fiancée, Edith Hahn. The Book of Samuel, in contrast, keeps David’s reciprocal feelings toward Saul, Jonathan, and Michal opaque. Though there are clues that David loved Saul and certainly Jonathan, many of these references can be interpreted in multiple directions given the nature of private and public, as well as personal and political relationships.

It appears likely that David viewed Michal as a ticket to the throne, and once David had secured a consolidated kingdom he no longer needed that relationship. However, it remains plausible, as per Ralbag’s reading, that they also enjoyed a mutual loving relationship until their final confrontation.
Although the text explicitly reports that Saul, Jonathan, and Michal loved David, their loves likewise featured political-public dimensions in addition to the personal affectionate love they likely felt toward David. These complexities and ambiguities further enhance the reader’s experience of such gripping narratives. What is striking is how these ancient texts continue to be so compelling precisely because the language is sufficiently multifaceted to sustain multidimensional interpretations.

NOTES

[1] This article appeared in Jewish Bible Quarterly 40:1 (2012), pp. 41-51.

[2] Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), pp. 118-9. This fact becomes all the more ironic in light of the name “David” likely meaning “beloved.”

[3] Susan Ackerman, “The Personal is Political: Covenantal and Affectionate Love (’AHEB, ’AHABA) in the Hebrew Bible,” Vetus Testamentum 52 (2002), pp. 437-458.

[4] See especially William L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” Catholic Bible Quarterly 25 (1963), pp. 77-87.

[5] Literally, the verse reports that “he took a strong liking to him” (va-ye’ehavehu me’od). The NJPS translation follows the reasonable assumption of virtually all commentators that Saul is the subject who loved David. For one objection to this reading, see Gordon C. I. Wong, “Who Loved Whom? A Note on I Samuel 16:21,” Vetus Testamentum 47 (1997), pp. 554-556. Although Yehudah Kiel favors the majority opinion, he expresses uncertainty as well (Da’at Mikra: 1 Samuel [Hebrew], [Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Kook, 1981]), p. 164.

[6] For a fuller analysis, see Hayyim Angel, “Why Didn’t He Do It? An Analysis of Why David Did Not Kill Saul,” in Angel, Through an Opaque Lens (New York: Sephardic Publication Foundation, 2006), pp. 169-185; revised second edition (New York: Kodesh Press, 2013), pp. 135-148.

[7] Cf. J.T. Pesahim 6:1 (33b): “Three set aside their crowns in this world and inherited the life of the world to come: namely, Jonathan, son of Saul….”

[8] Cf. Robert Alter, The David Story: A Translation and Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1999), p. 123.

[9] Robert Alter, The David Story, p. 198.

[10 Tod Linafelt, “Private Poetry and Public Eloquence in II Samuel 1:17-27: Hearing and Overhearing David’s Lament for Jonathan and Saul,” Journal of Religion 88 (2008), pp. 497-526.

[11] Similarly, Saul was concerned that David would exterminate his family: “‘I know now that you will become king, and that the kingship over Israel will remain in your hands. So swear to me by the Lord that you will not destroy my descendants or wipe out my name from my father's house.’ David swore to Saul” (1 Sam. 24:21-23).

[12] John A. Thompson, “The Significance of the Word Love in the David-Jonathan Narratives in I Samuel,” Vetus Testamentum 24 (1974), pp. 334-338.

[13] Shimon Bar-Efrat, Mikra LeYisrael: 1 Samuel (Hebrew) (Tel-Aviv, Am Oved, 1996), p. 262.

[14] Yehudah Kiel, Da’at Mikra: 1 Samuel, p. 207.

[15] See also Orly Keren, “David and Jonathan: A Case of Unconditional Love?” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 37:1 (2012), pp. 1-23.

[16] It is worth noting that the two most important biblical figures—Moses and David—both were saved by princesses who defied their own fathers’ murderous decrees. Pharaoh’s daughter rescued baby Moses (Exod. 2:5-10), and Michal saved David from Saul.

[17] R. Amnon Bazak, Makbilot Nifgashot: Makbilot Sifrutiyot be-Sefer Shemuel (Hebrew) (Alon Shevut: Hegyonot, 2006), pp. 109-121.

[18] Susan Ackerman, “The Personal is Political,” esp. pp. 441, 447, 452-453.

[19] When Michal saved David against the wishes of her father Saul, the text fittingly identifies her as David’s wife: “Saul sent messengers to David’s home to keep watch on him and to kill him in the morning. But David’s wife Michal told him, ‘Unless you run for your life tonight, you will be killed tomorrow’” (1 Sam. 19:11). Cf. Shemuel Avramsky and Moshe Garsiel, Olam HaTanakh: 1 Samuel (Hebrew) (Tel-Aviv: Dodzon-Iti, 1996), pp. 168-169; Shimon Bar-Efrat, Mikra LeYisrael: 1 Samuel, pp. 244, 249; 2 Samuel, p. 37.

[20] In Nahum Glatzer, Franz Rosenzweig: His Life and Thought (New York: Schocken

Janet R. Kirchheimer, a member of our Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals, is the author of How to Spot One of Us, and she is currently producing AFTER, a documentary of poetry about the Holocaust. Janet is a teaching fellow at Clal-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership.

Published in Mimaamakim

The Nature of Things

I was eleven the spring my father singed his eyebrows off
while burning down pear trees.

Anne Carson says dirt is a minor thing.
This is not true.
Perhaps she has not seen a string bean pushing
its way up through the dirt.

The Rabbis say that Adam gave names to all the animals,
but do not say who named the trees.

These are some of the plant names I love:
Joseph’s coat, Persian shield, Silver shrub, African mallow.

Once in January, my father woke me at four o’clock in the morning
to help cover the parsley in our garden with blankets.
Frost was on the ground.
Stars, so bright at that time of the year, lit the garden.

In June, I call home to ask my father about the gladiolas.
He says some are coming, some are going.

The Talmud says occasionally rain falls because of the merit
of one man, the merit of one blade of grass, of one field.

Published in The Arty Semite – Forward.com

You Think This May Be How It Happens

You’re sitting in an armchair,
it’s your favorite, though
beat up from years of use,
and there is a tear in the fabric
covering the seat cushion, and
it’s after noon, and you’re taking
your nap, and you

wake up and ask your daughter
if anyone is there, you feel as if
someone has been pulling
at your arm, and she tells you
no one is there, to go back to sleep,
and you begin to wonder
if someone was there,

perhaps the Angel of Death who comes
to distract you for the slightest moment
so he can take you, and if you concentrate
on something, studying, praying, or
performing a commandment, the Angel must pass you by
but he is cunning, and will do everything

in his power to distract you, and you are
tired these days and are having
trouble concentrating and remembering things,
and you know the Angel will not stop trying, and
your daughter tells you, again, to go back
to sleep, but you can’t, you keep wondering
if this may be how it will happen.
?

Published in The Arty Semite – Forward.com

One-Sixtieth Prophecy

Near the house,
next to the woodpile,
lies a dream

too weak to enter.

I hold my shadow down as it
tries to escape, shut the windows,
bar the doors, imagine myself
bright and shiny.

I am Joseph in the bor, the pit, empty of water,
but full of scorpions and serpents.

There is no one to listen

to my dreams, no one to interpret them but God.
Or I am Pharaoh.
The interpretations
do not satisfy me, I do not find any relief.

Who will interpret for me?

God will heal you with your own
wounds, declares the prophet Jeremiah.