National Scholar Updates

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.

Ashley Perry (Perez) is President of Reconectar (reconectar.co) and Director General of the Knesset Caucus for the Reconnection with the Descendants of Spanish and Portuguese Communities. He was adviser to Israel's Minister of Foreign Affairs from April 2009 to January 2015. He has also worked with several other government ministers, Members of Knesset and many of the leading international Jewish, Zionist and Hasbara organizations.

Last week, history was made in a manner of speaking, as a Ministry of Education Committee, tasked with empowering Sephardi and Mizrahi cultural studies and history within the general education curriculum, led by Israel Prize laureate Erez Biton, handed its recommendations to Education Minister Naftali Bennett.

While for many, this will barely merit a blip on their radar, for the millions of Jews of Sephardi or Mizrahi background, it is a day that has finally arrived, albeit 68 years too late.

Statistically, every other Jew in Israel comes from the Middle East or North Africa and when the Jews of Morocco, Iran, Spain, Portugal, Yemen, Greece, Afghanistan, Egypt and other places throughout the Sephardi and Mizrahi world study their history and culture at school, it was largely ignored or skipped over.

The lack of education about the history of these Jewish communities allows for bigoted reactions simply largely because of a lack of knowledge and awareness.

Many still refer to Sephardi Jews as somehow “backward,” “superstitious”, “oriental” or “medieval”, as we heard from a well-known radio film critic recently, which is simply bizarre when one understands that, to give but one example, during the last century some of the worldliest, educated, successful and cosmopolitan Jews in the world could be found in places like Cairo and Baghdad.

Others will simply refer to Jewish history, culture and tradition through an entirely Ashkenazi lens.
I can’t count the amount of times I have heard people refer to the “usual” prayer book, the “normal” way of doing things or “traditional” Jewish culture when referencing Ashkenazi custom and tradition.

For those who think this is an exaggeration, try a little thought experiment. When you think of Jewish music, food or language, do you think of anything other than klezmer, gefilte fish, or bagel and lox, and Yiddish, or similar examples?

Do you know any Judeo-Spanish romansas, ever tried Kubbeh matfuniya or heard Judeo-Berber?
This has an effect of creating an “otherness” in respect to these communities, which creates the impression that they are somehow outside the normative social identity of the state and society.
There is no one Jewish way in anything, not history, culture or tradition.

There are a myriad of histories, a kaleidoscope of cultures and cacophony of traditions which makes the Jewish People a beautiful mosaic, each with its roots in our ancestral homeland but with different experiences during the millennia Diaspora.

The State of Israel has always had a tension between two models of identity politics, that of ‘melting pot’ and multiculturalism.

While many of the founding fathers and mothers understandably sought to create a ‘New Jew’ and new society for the reestablishment of sovereignty in our national homeland, it largely meant that it was constructed along Central and Eastern European lines that they had experience of and attempted to emulate.

Israelis Jews were expected to melt away their cultural prism into a largely Central and Eastern European pot.

Unfortunately, this meant that the history and culture of the Jews from other parts of the world were deemed superfluous and even damaging to this national ethos.

Nevertheless, in recent generations there has been a greater move towards multiculturalism, where multiple cultural traditions have gained slightly more prominence, if still not equality.
I firmly believe that the roots of gaining this sought after equality is awareness, knowledge and education.

In 2013, it was released that a new set of four Jewish poets were slated to be placed on Israeli banknotes. Immediately, there was a backlash when all four, Shaul Tchernichovsky, Rachel, Leah Goldberg and Natan Alterman, were Ashkanazi and none were to be Sephardi.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, who only recently discovered that he, like a large number of Ashkenazi Jews, has Sephardi heritage, claimed that the next series will feauture Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi.
All of the four Ashkenazi poets were from the Twentieth Century, yet the Prime Minister of the State of Israel could only come up with a singular Sephardi poet from the Twelfth Century. This episode aptly demonstrates the desperate need for education.

So the committee’s recommendations should be lauded and implemented as soon as possible.
In fact, the committee mentions in its recommendations the issue of the descendants of Sephardi communities who were forcibly disconnected from the Jewish People, the Anousim, and that there should be greater awareness and education of their presence.

Our education system, in Israel and the Diaspora, should be widened to include the millions of our Sephardi brothers and sisters who were forcibly disconnected from us over the centuries and are seeking a reconnection to the Jewish world. Our education system should be preparing the formal Jewish world for the immense and necessary challenge of reconnecting our people.

Moreover, the more we learn about our history and shared ties and culture with the Hispanic world, the more the Hispanic world, whether in the Iberian Peninsular, Latin or North America, will understand their Jewish roots.

This can have a profound and positive effect on bringing our communities closer across the globe.
The Sephardi and Mizrahi world is a massively diverse and multi-faceted arena, and it should be opened up and taught thoroughly to our students and given an equal footing in society.

This committee is an important first step, but there is a lot more work to be done, but the initiators and committee members should be applauded for giving voice to and supporting the rectification of this historical injustice.

These articles by Isi Leibler originally appeared in the Jerusalem Post and Yisrael Hayom.

The tensions created by the ultra-Orthodox Chief Rabbinate within Israeli society have extended to the Diaspora and are now undermining relations with the Jewish state.

Ironically, this is taking place at a time when many Israelis are returning to their spiritual roots. Although Tel Aviv remains outwardly a hedonistic secular city, the secular Ashkenazi outlook that dominated Israeli society is in decline, and even setting aside haredim, Israelis today have become increasingly more traditionally inclined and religiously observant.

The past decades have witnessed the emergence of observant Jews at all senior levels of society. There has been a dramatic revolution in the Israel Defense Forces with national-religious soldiers now occupying senior positions, assuming roles in combat units parallel to what their kibbutz predecessors did in the early years of statehood. There is even a thirst for spiritual values among secular Israelis, accompanied by a major revival of the study of Jewish texts.

Yet simultaneously, there is revulsion and rage at the corruption, extortion and political leverage imposed by powerful haredi political parties and their rabbis.

Unfortunately, the ultra-Orthodox rabbis have effectively exploited their political leverage to assume control of the Chief Rabbinate, which, ironically, they themselves have always despised.

Current Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi David Lau and his Sephardi counterpart, Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, represent the antithesis of the Chief Rabbinate created 90 years ago by Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, who strove to unite the nation. They stand in sharp contrast to earlier occupants such as Chief Rabbis Yitzhak Herzog and Ben-Zion Meir Hai Uziel, who were great scholars, passionate Zionists, and always sought to blend Judaism with compassion and worldliness.

The current incumbents are narrow-minded bureaucrats completely dominated by the most extreme ultra-Orthodox elements who seek to impose their stringent religious interpretations upon the entire nation.

Today these rabbis are creating significant tensions throughout Israeli society by their lack of compassion and the inflexibility in which they administer issues relating to personal status. As a monopoly, they are able to wield their power and ignore the current conditions facing Jews in a modern Jewish state and instead they impose the most rigid interpretations.

Our rabbinic sages were innovative and practical. Take for example the biblical cancellation of debts in the Sabbatical year. The great rabbinic scholar, Hillel the Elder, saw the hardship that this would cause and, with his Sanhedrin, issued the famous prozbul, which circumvented the law -- and which is still in place today in a modern state and enables the banking system to function. More recently, the heter mechira was instituted by our rabbis in the late 19th century as a solution in relation to shmitta -- the biblical requirement that the land of Israel remain fallow every seven years -- to assist the agricultural sector, including the majority of kibbutzim, that would have suffered economic hardship. These are examples of rabbinic creativity and leadership.

The late Chief Rabbi Ovadia Yosef displayed similar courage and leadership when he effectively closed the debate on immigrants from Ethiopia, deeming them to be halachically Jewish on the basis of historic grounds.

The 300,000 Russian Israelis who are the children of immigrants from mixed marriages pose fewer halachic obstacles than the Ethiopian Jews. Taking into account the history and the Soviet persecution of Judaism, there is little doubt that a courageous and learned rabbi could find halachic precedents that, at the very least, would both encourage and create means of easing the process of conversion for these grown children of Russian immigrants. They contribute toward and share in the burdens of defending the Jewish state and currently face severe problems and humiliation from Rabbis when wishing to marry.

Indeed the former revered Chief Rabbi Zion Ben Uziel actively encouraged and made minimum demands whilst promoting the conversion of children of mixed marriages whom although not halachic Jews, he regarded as a separate category from gentiles, referring to them as Zerah Yisrael - the seeds of Israel.

Regrettably, a rabbi of the stature and courage of former Chief Rabbi Uziel has yet to emerge. Indeed, the haredi inflexibility and determination to deter conversions extends to marriage and divorce with similar rigidity, bureaucratization and lack of compassion. While the moderate Tzohar rabbis are conducting halachic weddings for nonobservant couples that highlight the positive and joyful aspects of a traditional wedding, their numbers are limited and the Chief Rabbinate attempts to exclude them from officiating beyond the confines of their congregations.

The decision by Rabbis Nahum Rabinovitch, Shlomo Riskin, David Stav and others to establish an independent rabbinic court that will perform Orthodox halachic conversions and authorize more Tzohar rabbis to officiate is an attempt to rectify this. But it is being bitterly contested by the Chief Rabbinate, which is backed by the haredi political parties.

Regrettably, progress made by the previous government to bring about changes on personal issues such as conversion, marriage and divorce and integrating haredim into Israeli society were nullified by the new government, now dominated by the haredi parties.

Over the past few years, the Chief Rabbinate has sought to determine the eligibility of Orthodox rabbis outside Israel to conduct conversions and marriages, effectively extending its authority beyond Israel and attempting to assume control of all Jewish life on a global basis. Those not on their accepted list may find that the validity of the conversions or weddings at which they officiated will be rejected by Israeli rabbinical courts.

Throughout the entire period of the Exile, rabbis recognized that there were many faces to Judaism. Independent rabbinical courts were established in every community and there were frequently bitter differences in interpretation between leading rabbis and sages. No rabbi or rabbinical court could claim to be the final arbiter on religious issues.

Yet the Israeli Chief Rabbinate is seeking to alter this and impose itself as the sole arbiter of Jewish law throughout the Jewish world. In effect it is setting itself up as a Jewish Vatican – something utterly unprecedented in our history.

In the current climate, many Orthodox rabbis, fearful of being criticized as tilting to “Reform,” tend to display their piety by adopting more extreme approaches and, as a consequence, the Chief Rabbinate has succeeded in coercing some of the major Diaspora rabbinical associations to accept its hegemony.

This is heightening tensions between Israel and the Diaspora. The histrionic attacks by the Chief Rabbinate against non-Orthodox groups, climaxing with Rabbi Lau’s recent condemnation of Education Minister Naftali Bennett for visiting one of the leading American Conservative day schools, is creating an upheaval.

There are of course fundamental issues concerning the Revelation and the halachic process that will always distinguish the Orthodox from other Jewish denominations. But in the current religious climate, it is surely time to stop this internecine warfare. The greatest challenges facing Orthodoxy, both in Israel and in the Diaspora, are the secularization of Jewish life and the dramatic erosion of Jewish identity.

In this context, Conservative and Reform Judaism, despite their failure to stem intermarriage and assimilation, not only promote belief in God, but encourage their adherents to retain some Jewish traditions.

Orthodox Jews are not compromising their own outlook or observance by reaching out and encouraging non-Orthodox groups to become more traditional and observant -- rather than constantly abusing them.

In addition, despite the failure of many to adequately support Israel, even in the Reform movement there are many rabbis and followers who remain passionate supporters of Israel. But the ongoing tendency of the Israeli rabbinate to delegitimize them will make Israel forfeit the support of major segments of American Jewry and provide encouragement to those post Zionist elements seeking to create a Bundist type Judaism in which Israel plays no role.

In Israel itself we should welcome the substitution of the current atheistic school education in the secular stream with the Conservative TALI curriculum, which encourages belief in God and provides children with a background of Jewish heritage.

To strengthen the Jewish religious revival that is occurring requires the dissolution or at least significant limitation of the power of the Chief Rabbinate.

The vast majority (65%) of Israelis favor dissolution. The obstacles are the dysfunctional political system and haredi retention of the balance of power in the government.

Naftali Bennett and the moderate majority of Habayit Hayehudi could well place themselves at the vanguard of bringing about change. They would be making a major contribution on behalf of religious Zionism for the well-being of the Jewish state and the entire Jewish people.

This requires a united approach by all the non-haredi parties, which has never been forthcoming on this issue. Today, with Israel-Diaspora relations at risk of a dramatic decline and the growing Israeli anger at the coercion imposed upon them, the need for reform or dissolution of the Chief Rabbinate before a crisis erupts is urgent.

*****

The scandalous depths to which the haredi extremists who have abused their rabbinical authority are sinking seem limitless. It is high time for Jews in Israel and the Diaspora to publicly vent their rage and insist that their shenanigans must cease.

The Jewish people can no longer remain hostage to a small group of unworldly ultra-Orthodox radicals who, with a total lack of compassion, monopolize control of Jewish life and seek to impose on the entire community stringent interpretations of Jewish law that even most observant Jews would consider excessive.

What makes this even more grotesque is that the ultra-Orthodox community has profound contempt for the institution of the Chief Rabbinate, which was initially harnessed to promote religious Zionism. It neither feels bound nor accepts the reliability of its supervision and merely exploits the institution to impose its stringent interpretations. It is also an institution where corruption is rampant and jobs are provided as rewards for leading followers.

The power of the extremists derives from Israel’s dysfunctional political system where the ultra-Orthodox political factions hold the balance of power and are in a position to extort.

The straw that may break the camel’s back was the recent public disclosure that conversions conducted in New York by Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, the revered patriarch of the mainstream Modern Orthodox community, were not recognized by the Petach Tikva Rabbinate which is under the jurisdiction of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate.

Lookstein’s father, Rabbi Joseph Lookstein, was one of the early trailblazers of Orthodoxy in the U.S. and a stalwart in promoting the growth of Yeshiva University. A passionate religious Zionist, he was also one of the founders of Bar-Ilan University in Israel, over which he presided as president from 1957 to 1967. He founded the Ramaz day school in 1937 and on his demise in 1979, his son Haskel assumed his father’s role and presided over the community, the synagogue and the school, which has now become a global model for the Modern Orthodox day school.

He has also played a major Jewish leadership role on communal issues such as Israel advocacy and the struggle for Soviet Jewry, and symbolizes the best attributes of Modern Orthodoxy, influencing many thousands. Last month I was privileged to be present when this modest man was awarded a well-deserved honorary doctorate from Bar-Ilan University.

Thus, it can only be described as an abomination when a formal Orthodox conversion conducted by such a respected rabbi is considered ineligible in Israel on the grounds that the Chief Rabbinate decided to exclude him from their “list” of acceptable marriage celebrants.

This is completely unprecedented. The Chief Rabbinate was never intended to globally endorse the credentials of Orthodox rabbis on a Vatican-style register – especially not those in the Diaspora. In this case, the absence of transparency created further chaos with a spokesman from the Chief Rabbinate and the Petach Tikva Rabbinate making contradictory statements about the issue. Ultimately Chief Rabbi David Lau approved Lookstein’s conversions, despite the fact that they were rejected by the Petach Tikva rabbinical court - which is accountable to the Chief Rabbinate.

Former Chief Rabbis Isaac Herzog, Yitzhak Nissim, Shlomo Goren, and Benzion Uziel were deeply learned but also worldly and sought to reconcile Jewish law with the needs of a modern state. The stark contrast between them and their successors, many of whom are ignorant of the world in which they live, lack compassion and compete with one another to display greater stringency in interpreting Jewish law, conveys a totally distorted image of Judaism.

They have sought to impose their standards on all Israelis in relation to issues of conversion, marriage, divorce, and kashrut, bitterly opposing efforts to enroll their students to share the burden of defense, and in some cases denying them the opportunity of receiving an education, thus turning many of their graduates into permanent social welfare cases. This has exacerbated social and religious tensions at all levels.

Efforts by the previous government to enable more moderate rabbis to service the needs of the nation have been foiled.

In recent months, feeling politically empowered, haredi political spokesmen have descended to the gutter in their vile and defamatory outbursts against Reform, Conservative and even Modern Orthodox and religious Zionist Jews. They have created needless tensions with Diaspora – especially American – Jews, and every effort to reach accommodation has been treated with contempt.

They have also sought to purge esteemed Orthodox rabbis like Rabbi Shlomo Riskin and the chief rabbi of the Ethiopian community, Rabbi Yosef Hadane, who were critical of the Chief Rabbinate’s attitude toward conversions.

The disclosure that Rabbi Haskel Lookstein’s converts, including Ivanka Trump, whom he converted and who is now religiously observant, were initially not recognized in Israel, received major coverage in The New York Times. Such embarrassing exposure may bring matters to a head.

It is a time for all Jews and in particular moderate Orthodox Jews to speak out. Where is the voice of the Rabbinical Council of America that was once headed by Rabbi Emanuel Rackman, who represented the antithesis of everything the Chief Rabbinate promotes? He would not have remained silent. Where are the outcries from other Orthodox rabbis?

And where is the voice of Habayit Hayehudi – our National Religious party? Such issues represent the very core and the raison d’etre of religious Zionism. It is not enough for them to mumble protests or for Naftali Bennett to say that the court’s decision was “arbitrary and odd” and should be reversed. He and his party have a historic obligation in this issue and should be leading the charge for reforming or dismantling the system – which would receive the endorsement of the vast majority of Israelis. If religious Zionists do not stand up against such abominations, one cannot expect others to act.

This Chief Rabbinate and extremist haredi politicians alienate Israelis from Judaism. However, the majority of haredim do not seek to coerce the nation to uphold their standards of observance. Indeed, many today recognize the folly of the radical elements and are quietly encouraging reforms within their circles.

The time has come for all Jewish political parties to declare a moratorium and force the government to take action to bring an end to this scandalous state of affairs by breaking the monopoly of the Chief Rabbinate and resisting the extortion of the haredi politicians. The government must be pressured into either reforming or dissolving or it and creating a new system that will provide appropriate religious facilities to serve the Jewish nation.

Failure by Orthodox leaders and organizations to stand up and be counted on this will have catastrophic repercussions on the Jewish values that should represent the foundation of the nation.

Isi Leibler may be contacted at [email protected]

Monique Benun has been a teacher for the past nine years, primarily teaching science in yeshiva high schools in Brooklyn, New York. She earned a bachelor’s degree in Biology from Rutgers University and a master’s in General Science Education from CUNY. This article appears in issue 25 of Conversations, the journal of the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals.

Failure to learn is a result of exclusion from participation. When students are active participants in the processes of learning rather than passive recipients of transferred knowledge, learning is optimized. [1]

As educators, we are confronted with many areas in which improvement is possible and most often, necessary. In this article I propose that the methodologies of student-led learning and project-based learning can solve many problems faced by school leaders today. These methodologies are the keys to unlocking student’s potential by increasing standards, individualizing learning, and improving students attitudes toward learning so they may reach their highest academic potential.

Why Honors Tracks and Special Programming May Not Translate Into Higher Academic Achievement

Many schools today advertise elective classes that require qualification to lure better students with promises of high academic standards. However, for several reasons these classes are not translating into actual higher learning.

One problem is the teachers’ failure to design a different curriculum. Many teachers equate “busy work” with higher learning. Gifted students can learn a curriculum on a deeper level and in a shorter amount of time than average students. Teachers often fill the void by assigning extra work that often leaves students feeling like they are being singled out for punishment. Since the work is not of the students’ choosing, it often deflates their motivation and has them regretting that they joined the honor’s track.

A second problem with special programming is the administration’s lack of commitment to the supplemented programs. Although the school may pay for teachers to be trained to teach the advanced curriculum, the school may not follow up to attain and maintain a supply of resources, space, and staff support to keep the program running effectively.

A third issue with the honors track is that there are few teachers to choose from who are knowledgeable enough with the content of the subject area to successfully design and teach a high-standard curriculum. Even when given the parameters for the curriculum, teachers are uncomfortable with the material and do not understand it well enough to teach it effectively.

Fortunately, even for schools which have no extra funds to allocate to better programming, using the student-led and project-based learning methodologies lead to individualized learning standards and address teachers’ lack of knowledge to provide high achieving students with opportunities to reach their potential.

What Are Student-Led and Project-Based Learning?

“PBL is the ongoing act of learning about different subjects simultaneously. This is achieved by guiding students to identify, through research, a real-world problem (local to global), developing its solution using evidence to support the claim, and presenting the solution through a multimedia approach based in a set of 21st-century tools.”[2]

Practically speaking, project-based learning is a way of learning that requires the student to be fully engaged in the identification of a question or problem, and to design, plan, and implement a solution to that problem.

In project-based learning, students choose a particular project of their own design to be completed over the course of a day, a week, or even a semester. During that time students are planning, researching, and presenting their findings and their project proposals to the class. Using rubrics and a timeline for estimated project milestones, teachers and students can verify the time to complete their projects, and teachers have a way to continually assess students’ progress and provide feedback.
Student-led learning supports student choice in how they learn objectives. The educational facilitator (teacher) introduces a concept and briefly explains it. The student then sets about modeling the concept to achieve a more thorough understanding. Using technology to research and present their findings, students become engaged in their learning employing means they are most comfortable with and gain deeper insight into concepts than offered by lecturing alone. “Rather than helping students develop an ability to memorize facts in a textbook, teachers should teach students metacognitive and self-evaluative skills, so they can assess what they need to learn in order to solve a problem or complete a project.” [3]

In a typical engineering class, we begin with a 10-minute introduction to a concept. After explaining the general principal, the class is turned over to the students for student-led learning and inquiry. Working in teams of two to four, students run a simulation and use that activity to generate values of certain units. Using the students’ measured values, mathematical and scientific theories or equations are discovered based on actual measurements.

Ideally, these classes are two periods long as set up and clean up can take up the bulk of time in a 45-minute lesson; however, with modifications to the lab activities, 45-minute periods can be manageable.

Due to the demands of the teacher and the action going on in the room, the learning is best suited to classes ideally limited to 16 students, at most 20, to one educational facilitator.

How Student-Led and Project-Based Learning Address All Skill Levels

The open-ended inquiry and learning is not limited to the highest achieving students or to science subjects. The issue is about its presentation and method of study, not about content. Even if a teacher is less well versed in a content area, the student-led approach to learning allows the teacher to become the educational facilitator, not the stereotypical omniscient lecturer. If a student has a question beyond the teacher’s ken, the student can research the question and write up a small report on the matter for extra points. Student efforts notwithstanding, the teacher should always look up any questions to continually grow in knowledge and have the ability to address and guide students.

Let us use a typical high school Talmud class, to show how the student-led approach may be implemented. In my experience and observations, there was a teacher at the front of the room reading the page and translating while students jotted down definitions to archaic words to try to keep up with the flow of discussion.

In our student-led class the teacher would begin with a short introduction (five to seven minutes) of the topic and brief summary of the discussion.

Next, students could be divided into small groups with a team leader of their choice. Each group would be assigned a section or discussion of a particular topic. The group can self-assign tasks for each individual; one looks up definition of words, one researches the time period to put the discussion into historical context, another student researches the rabbis in the discussion and examples of their general trend of opinions (strict versus lenient), one student is responsible for compiling the information into a slide presentation, and so on. The teacher remains in the room as educational facilitator, guiding and encouraging each group of students, making sure they are on task and focused, all the while reminding them they will be required to present their findings to the class.

Eventually, the groups would present their finding to the class. On that occasion, a department head or other administrator the students consider important would be invited to witness the efforts and success of the students. Informing the students in advance that this person will be invited encourages them to do their best. Once all of the presentations have been given, the teacher could pull all of the ideas together in comprehensive discussions to review the material and prepare students for an exam.

In the scenario above, the students are motivated to show up to class on time so as not to miss the most important part they cannot make up, the teacher’s introduction. Throughout the class students are fully engaged in the material they are learning, rather than being taught and passively absorbing the information. They have a vested interest in the rabbis’ 1,000-year-old discussion through their eyes as students as well as Jews. A subject that is usually deemed by today’s students as irrelevant and difficult to follow, unless watered down and taught at a snail’s pace, is now a dynamic and exciting endeavor in which history is brought to life.

There are many possible variations of the Talmud class example. One such idea is a grade-wide assembly of presentations in which parents may be invited to see their children’s learning and appreciate the opportunities the school gives them to shine and rise to a challenge.

How Student-Led and Project-Based Learning Increase Educational Standards

Despite my years of work preparing for my master’s in education and my years of teaching, I had barely been exposed to the student-led and project-based learning methodology.

Six years ago I was trained over a few week period to teach engineering to high school students. The class structure was organized into two parts: one-quarter part instruction, three-quarters part modeling the concept. This was a drastic change from how I was accustomed to learning and teaching.

Today, most learning follows the traditional method in which students copy down what the teacher says and memorize the material for assessments. Very little applicable knowledge is gained, and therefore, what is learned is easily forgotten. There is little room for student-led learning and this passive learning increases as the student progresses through the grades. [4]

Referring to Bloom’s taxonomy, a pyramid of educational goals organized to show the simplest form of learning on the bottom, and increased learning as you go up the pyramid, we can see that traditional learning satisfies at most, the two lowest forms of learning, remembering and understanding. With only lecturing and following pre-planned activities, student learning is limited. By employing student inquiry, student-led and project-based learning, the acts of applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating are carried out by students to achieve the highest forms of learning.

Teachers in an honors classes could use the extra time to do modeling and hands on projects with students, use special equipment, and promote student-led research and learning. Specific examples of these concepts in a science course are encouraged use of microscopes; research of a particular topic and class presentation of their findings; student modeling of scientific principles such as force or magnetism as it relates to electricity; development of an engineering project, a unique computer program, or web design.

It is up to the teacher to decide how much of class time is dedicated to student-led and project-based learning. Depending on the subject and the level of experience with these methodologies, teachers can divide class time accordingly between their preferred or necessary mode of educating and the student-led approach. Additionally, much of the project-based learning can be assigned outside of class leaving more time for traditional learning in the classroom.

Research and modeling are not limited to science classes. Students are surprisingly creative in formulating ideas to express a theory, concept or theme. Giving students the opportunities to explore a topic and present their findings in a manner of their own design, using today’s technology helps ensure students’ engagement, enthusiasm, and deeper understanding.

How to Turn Student Familiarity into Your Advantage

In today’s world, familiarity between teacher and student is more prevalent, and respect is secondary. However, there are advantages to this trend. A significant factor that can lead to a student’s success is the bond of friendship that the teacher can forge with his students.

It takes a fair amount of energy on the educational facilitator’s part to be aware of what his or her class is doing; all different things, in the same room, at the same time. However, the payback for student and teacher is tremendous. While student-led learning is going on, there is an opportunity for the teacher to express his or her belief in the student’s potential.

The most important thing the teacher can do is to continually encourage his students. In doing so, there is an avenue for teachers to express respect for students and understanding for their needs. In this way teachers have an easier time developing mutualistic relationships in which both teacher and student benefit. Teachers willing to take into account a student’s difficult circumstance or a conflict in responsibilities and adjust a test date or assignment due date are viewed as partners for whom the students will work harder not to disappoint.

This is not to say teachers should present themselves as pushovers. Generally, teachers need to remain caring but firm. However, when extenuating circumstances present themselves, teachers, like any person in a position of power, can put himself in the student’s shoes and, within reason, try to accommodate his or her needs.

Rigid teachers who demand respect and remain familiarly distanced from students will ultimately find less respectful, less willing, and less engaged students in the classroom. While this information seems self-evident, it is more common in practice. Those very teachers who are inflexible will often deny being so and see themselves as appreciated by students despite the reality to the contrary.

In an environment of mutual regard and consideration, students develop a greater respect for the teacher and themselves, at a time in their lives when they need it most. Moreover, students gain the confidence and experience they need as young adults to plan ahead and stay the course to achieve a goal.

Student inquiry and project-based learning are applicable in all subject areas and can be implemented by all teachers without requiring significant content-area knowledge or experience. Students with varying skill levels can utilize many different methods to accomplish the tasks of researching, organizing, and presenting information.
Additionally, the usage of technological resources and programs to accomplish these tasks become part of students’ skill set not limited to his academic career. The potential for learning in these settings is very high as the students are challenging themselves and pushed to their greatest abilities as seen fit by the educator to design, research, and carry out their own ideas as they relate to learning.

[1] Beloff Farrell, Jill. “Active Learning: Theories and Research.” Jewish Education Leadership, Volume 7:3, Summer, 2009.
[2] Wolpert-Gawron, Heather. “What the Heck Is Project-Based Learning?” Edutopia. January 26, 2015. Downloaded December 11, 2015.
[3] Checkley, Kathy. Student-Directed Learning. Education Update. Volume 37, Number 9 December 1995. Dowmloaded December 15, 2015.
[4] Exline, Joe. “Concepts to Classrooms,” WNET Education 2004. Educational Broadcasting Corporation. http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/inquiry/index.html. Downloaded December 10, 2015.