National Scholar Updates

Book Review of Rabbi Dr. Moshe Sokolow's "Pursuing Peshat"

Book Review

Dr. Moshe Sokolow, Pursuing Peshat: Tanakh, Parshanut, and Talmud Torah (Kodesh Press, 2024)

 

By Rabbi Hayyim Angel

 

Just as a bride is festooned with 24 trinkets and if she lacks even one, she is nothing, so must a scholar be familiar with all 24 books [of the Bible], and if he lacks even one, he is nothing (Song of Songs Rabbah 4:11).

 

          Rabbi Dr. Moshe Sokolow has taught Tanakh and Pedagogy for over 50 years, during which time he has made the case for the centrality of Tanakh in Jewish education. He introduces his latest book with the assertion that he is “a modern Orthodox Bible scholar and educator who firmly believes that no branch of knowledge in the domain of Jewish studies is as vital to Jewish religious development as Tanakh” (ix).

          In this volume, Dr. Sokolow takes a close-up look at some of the areas addressed in his earlier book, Tanakh: An Owner’s Manual (2015). There, he explores central issues in Jewish Bible interpretation, the use of modern scholarship, and pedagogy. In Pursuing Peshat, Dr. Sokolow builds more comprehensively upon that foundation with many more specific examples.

          The first section of this volume investigates the theoretical underpinnings of Tanakh learning, the peshat-derash relationship, and the debates over the role of Tanakh in a Jewish curriculum. Dr. Sokolow provides extensive surveys from the period of the Talmud, through the leading figures of the medieval period, down to the modern period. These lucid reviews provide the required background knowledge to appreciate what occurs on every page of a Mikraot Gedolot Tanakh, where commentaries throughout the ages surround the biblical text and provide their own interpretations.

          While expressing his preference for the centrality of Tanakh in the Jewish curriculum (one strongly shared by this writer), Dr. Sokolow also presents the debates over the millennia between those rabbinic thinkers who similarly stressed the need for deep learning of Tanakh, and others who downplayed Tanakh study in favor of Talmud and halakhah. Those who reduced emphasis on Tanakh generally emphasized Talmud and halakhah which lead to religious practice; some found Talmud study more rigorous; Talmud is uniquely Jewish, whereas Christians share our Bible; and improper study of Tanakh could lead to heresy. Of course, these concerns sadly led to the proverbial throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As Dr. Sokolow observes in his introduction, all branches of Jewish knowledge and study derive their authority from the divinely revealed texts of Tanakh. 

          After examining the theoretical underpinnings of Tanakh study, Dr. Sokolow moves into text learning. His section on pedagogy focuses on specific skills one should develop as a learner. Central to that pursuit is the appreciation of the polyphonous nature of the biblical text (i.e., it contains multiple meanings), the peshatderash relationship, and the fact that many verses contain ambiguities that need to be interpreted.

          Perhaps the most illuminating discussion pertains to ambiguities that present a conflict between the syntax of a verse and the broader context of that verse. For example, Judah implores Joseph to take him prisoner instead of his younger brother Benjamin, who has been caught with Joseph’s cup. As a central part of his plea, Judah states: “We said to my lord: The young man cannot leave his father; were he to leave his father, he would die” (Genesis 44:22).

          Who would die? From a syntactical perspective, Benjamin is the subject of the verse. Therefore, Judah’s concern that “he would die” should likewise refer to Benjamin dying if he is taken prisoner. Contextually, however, it appears more likely that Judah is appealing to the potential death of their old, frail father Jacob, who would die of grief were Benjamin not to return (cf. 44:31). In this instance, the classical commentators are divided between those who favor the syntax (e.g., Rashi, Ramban, Ibn Kaspi) and those who interpret based on the context (e.g., Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Bekhor Shor).

          In the book’s final section, Dr. Sokolow provides several text studies that apply the methodologies and tools discussed in the earlier chapters. For example, in his study of the Tower of Babel, Dr. Sokolow examines classical interpretations, mines historical considerations such as Babylonian ziqqurats and mythology, and also applies modern literary scholarship to the biblical passage. Demonstrating how each area contributes to our understanding, Dr. Sokolow arrives at a more comprehensive interpretation of the enigmatic narrative. It is an artistically presented condemnation of self-centeredness, as well as a polemic against the Mesopotamian tradition regarding the origins of Babylon.

          In a different study, Dr. Sokolow evaluates the opinions of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Ramban regarding the Torah’s laconic characterization of Nimrod: “He was a valiant hunter before the Lord (lifnei Hashem).” What does this cryptic phrase mean regarding this ancient king? 

Building off of midrashic traditions which vilify Nimrod as a tyrannical idolater who cast our Patriarch Abraham into a fiery furnace, Rashi interprets the verse to mean that Nimrod brought people into rebellion against God. Rejecting this midrashic approach, Ibn Ezra understands the expression in a positive light. Nimrod built altars and brought sacrifices to God. Ramban in turn rejects Ibn Ezra’s reading on the grounds that “he is vindicating a villain because our rabbis knew of his villainy through tradition.”

In this instance, one must decide whether to base one’s interpretation on a nexus of rabbinic Midrashim (as do Rashi and Ramban), or solely on the text (as does Ibn Ezra). Dr. Sokolow leads readers through a process of evaluating these opinions to reach resolution. He supports Rashi and Ramban’s position on the grounds that the talmudic Sages would not attack Nimrod unless they had a received tradition that he was wicked. Moreover, the Sages view the name Nimrod as deriving from mered, rebellion. Finally, Nimrod is mentioned as the king of Babylonia in Genesis chapter 10, and this narrative is immediately followed by the Tower of Babel in chapter 11. Perhaps Nimrod was the Tower’s instigator and builder. Despite his preference of the rabbinic interpretation, Dr. Sokolow continues to ask, “What if Ibn Ezra is right?” By giving each side a fair hearing, Dr. Sokolow carefully leads us through the learning process.

          Early in the volume, Dr. Sokolow quotes the eminent 20th century scholar Professor Yehuda Elitzur:

A contemporary exegete is required, of course, to examine things in the light of contemporary knowledge…If he does so, then he is following in the footsteps of the ancients even if he disagrees with them in a thousand details. However, one who only copies the ancients, shutting his eyes to newly discovered facts and knowledge, is abandoning the ways of the ancients and is rebelling against them (25).

With his extensive knowledge of classical commentary and their methodology, as well as a command of contemporary scholarship and its tools, Dr. Sokolow develops a comprehensive approach to learning to promote religious engagement and growth through Tanakh study. He thus epitomizes walking in the footsteps of our classical commentaries. More importantly, he shows readers how they, too, can and should walk in those venerable footsteps.

          Rabbis, educators, and advanced students stand to gain the most from Dr. Sokolow’s new volume. Because it is written in an accessible manner, those who study Tanakh who want a broader perspective from within a traditional framework also will benefit from reading this book.

 

Book Review of Rabbi Gil Student's "Articles of Faith"

Book Review

By Rabbi Hayyim Angel

 

Rabbi Gil Student, Articles of Faith: Traditional Jewish Belief in the Internet Era (Kodesh Press, 2024)

 

          For the past 20 years, we have been treated to Rabbi Gil Student’s online presence. Through his website and blog, Hirhurim-Torah Musings, Rabbi Student addresses critical issues pertaining to Orthodoxy and the broader Jewish community. He tackles the most controversial issues from a balanced, erudite, and reverent perspective.

          Now, Rabbi Student has collected several of his seminal essays into a full-length book. The volume is an excellent investigation of many of the most important topics that engage various segments of the broader Modern Orthodox community: Torah and science, the role of the internet in the halakhic process, dogma, Bible criticism, women and the rabbinate, religious Zionism, and so much more. Agree or disagree with Rabbi Student’s conclusions, any thoughtful individual should read this formidable book and mine its wealth of sources and analysis.

          In his essays, “Faith in the Postmodern World” and “A Response to Biblical Criticism,” Rabbi Student develops the approach that new theories—philosophical or biblical—cannot be conclusively proven. Drawing from luminaries such as Rambam and Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer (1795-1874), Rabbi Student asserts that unproven theories cannot replace faith. Rabbi Kalischer noted that the theories of great philosophers of the past have since been demolished. This historical reality should cause anyone who exhibits too much confidence in contemporary theories to pause before accepting them as dogma and rejecting our millennia-old faith. The same holds true for various hypotheses of biblical criticism, which, by definition, remain unproven.

          In that essay on philosophy, Rabbi Student articulates a cardinal principle of Jewish learning: “In order to reach the 19th century, we have to start in the 10th so we can see the past on which the present is built” (30). This elegant statement encapsulates the wisdom of Jewish tradition in every arena. Those who decontextualize contemporary ideas are likely to get swept up in them because they have no broader context. In contrast, Jewish thought, halakhah, and all other areas of scholarship and practice engage with the wisdom of earlier authorities, carefully evaluate their views, and then reach decisions fully rooted in the traditional process of Torah learning. Rabbi Student’s essays model that wisdom in the fullest sense.

          In his essay “Fundamentals of Faith: Debating the Boundaries,” Rabbi Student critiques a bedrock argument of Professor Marc Shapiro in his exceptional volume, The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles Reappraised (2004). Shapiro claims that halakhic authority is restricted to the area of halakhah, but not aggadah (rabbinic teachings without a halakhic ruling). 

Rabbi Student carefully demonstrates that Rambam, the Shulhan Arukh, and other leading halakhic authorities never drew that distinction. Rather, they distinguish between halakhah and aggadot that have practical halakhic ramifications, and aggadot that do not. That latter category in fact is non-binding, and people may choose from among many opinions. The former, however, is subject to the halakhic process since there are halakhic ramifications. Definitions of a heretic (one who denies fundamental tenets of Jewish belief, or who adopts beliefs foreign to Judaism), therefore, have halakhic significance. Individuals may choose to believe or not believe, of course, but halakhists should and do define the boundaries of authentic Jewish belief.

In his essay, “In Defense of the Local Rabbi,” Rabbi Student carefully asserts the role of community rabbis to make decisions for their own communities. Nobody else knows that particular community as intimately. Of course, community rabbis often must consult leading halakhic authorities to determine the range of halakhic possibilities. Ultimately, however, the local rabbi should make the most appropriate decision from within that range of opinion.

          Thoughtful individuals who take Modern Orthodoxy seriously will benefit immensely from Rabbi Student’s volume. On a personal level, I wish I had it when I was writing some of my earlier articles. Aside from the many sources that were new to me, Rabbi Student challenges several basic assumptions that I have since revisited (and have revised the drafts of those articles). That is the greatness of Torah, which encompasses a lifetime of learning and growth. 

Rabbi Student introduces his book, “The strongest force in the world is the power of an idea” (xxv). These ideas are what are needed to build a stronger and more vibrant community.

 

Strength and Tears: Thoughts for Parashat Vayhi

Angel for Shabbat, Parashat Vayhi

By Rabbi Marc D. Angel

As Joseph rose to a position of power in Egypt, we imagine him to have been a clear-headed, pragmatic official. He had to develop a plan for gathering and storing seven years worth of produce. He then needed a plan for responsible distribution of food during the seven years of famine. He had to create a vast bureaucracy to implement fourteen years of complicated management of resources. As the years of famine continued, Joseph centralized government control so that Egypt’s land became nationalized under Pharaoh.

This amazing work would have required a strong, efficient and single-minded leader, one who would not let emotion get in the way of pragmatism. Yet, Joseph is the character in the book of Bereishith who displays the most emotion!

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks noted that the Torah records seven acts of Joseph weeping. “They span the full spectrum of emotion, from painful memory to the joy of being reunited, first with his brother Benjamin, then with his father Jacob. There are the complex tears immediately before and after he discloses his identity to his brothers, and there are the tears of bereavement at Jacob’s deathbed. But the most intriguing are the last, the tears he sheds when he hears that his brothers fear that he will take revenge on them now that their father is no longer alive.”

Joseph was not only a strong-minded official; he was also a soft-hearted human being. By stressing Joseph’s weeping, the Torah is reminding us that ideal leaders must not only be strong and pragmatic, they also need to be sensitive human beings.

Some people are efficient but hard-hearted. Some are compassionate but inept. Some are neither efficient nor compassionate. And some are in the Joseph model. They work hard; they are single-minded in getting things done; they are clear-headed and pragmatic; but they are also kind, empathetic and sensitive human beings. 

Years ago, I met with a congregant who was chairman of a huge company. I imagined it would have been impossible to rise so high without being very tough and competitive. Yet, this congregant was very affable, kind, generous, thoughtful. I asked him: how did you become chairman of the company when you are such a nice man? He answered: to succeed, one needs good judgment and the ability to work effectively with others. One can be a strong leader and a nice person at the same time.  This congregant followed the Joseph model!

We all can learn from the Joseph model. We can strive to be efficient and pragmatic while also being compassionate and considerate. It’s good to be strong…and emotionally healthy.

 

 

 

Greatness Where Least Expected: Thoughts for Parashat Va'era

Angel for Shabbat, Parashat Va’era

By Rabbi Marc D. Angel

 

“Amram took into his [household] as wife his father’s sister Yocheved, and she bore him Aaron and Moses” (Shemot 6:20).

 

Amram and Yocheved were Israelite slaves; they lacked wealth, social status, or political influence. Yet, this seemingly undistinguished couple gave birth to Moses, Aaron and Miriam.  Their children were among the most outstanding figures in human history.

Moses became the greatest prophet and religious leader. Aaron was Moses’s partner in confronting Pharaoh and working for the redemption of the Israelites; Aaron went on to become high priest. Miriam was gifted with prophecy and was a significant leader of the people.

We might have expected that these illustrious siblings would have had an impressive background. Such heroic figures might more naturally have arisen among nobles and parents of great distinction. But the Torah specifies: they were children of slaves. 

The Bible often describes outstanding leaders, prophets and teachers as having derived from humble beginnings. The lesson: greatness is not inherited; it is not the preserve of a royal class; it cannot be purchased. Each individual, regardless of background, has the possibility of rising to great heights. 

The Talmud (Nedarim 81a) instructs: “pay attention to the children of the poor, for from them the Torah will emerge.”   Many of the most remarkable scholars and teachers of our people came from poor, uninfluential families. They rose to greatness by dint of their own strivings. They lacked the seeming advantages of wealth and family distinction; but they succeeded eminently.

“Humble beginnings” may be difficult in some ways; but they may also be blessings in other ways. Parents who are poor in finances and status may be rich in faith, wisdom, and lovingkindness.  They may not have been able to give their children an abundance of material assets, but they conveyed wonderful values, idealism, love of learning, spiritual dignity.

Even the least affluent and influential parents can raise outstanding children. Even children born without great material advantages can rise to preeminence. 

The Torah tradition teaches us that greatness can emerge where least expected. 

 

 

Reclaiming "Bible Zionism"

 

 

What is Zionism after all?

The term seems to have originated in the 1890s by Nathan Birnbaum, founder of the Kadimah nationalist Jewish students’ movement. Theodor Herzl popularized the term as the expression of the Jewish People’s national aspiration to return to their historic homeland in Zion. 

The term “Zionism” is often used by friends and enemies of Israel without proper reference to its historic roots in biblical times. Zionism didn’t just pop up in a vacuum, as though it was a new and artificial framework for Jews to return to their land. Although the term as a political movement dates from the late 19th century, it in fact encapsulates thousands of years of Jewish attachment to their historic homeland. 

Zion is mentioned over 150 times in the Hebrew bible. While originally referring to Mount Zion, it came to refer to Jerusalem and then to all the land of Israel. 

Rabbi Dr. Henry Pereira Mendes, who was associated with the historic Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue of New York from 1877 to 1937, advocated what he called “Bible Zionism.” He was proud of the fact that Theodor Herzl asked his cooperation in organizing the Zionist movement in the United States. Dr. Mendes was elected vice-president of the Federation of American Zionists and a member of the actions committee of the World Zionist Organization. He believed that Zionism had the goal of establishing a Jewish State founded upon the principles and ideals of the Jewish religious tradition.  In a letter to Haham Gaster of London (July 21, 1903), Dr. Mendes wrote: Here is true work for Zionists: to keep Hebrews true to Jewish life, Jewish law, Jewish sentiment.”

Dr. Mendes taught that “Bible Zionism” aspired to go beyond simply providing a homeland for Jews. It had a universal message and goal:Peace for the world at last and the realization of reverence for God by all men. These are the essentials for human happiness. Zionism stands for them.”

We rarely hear about “Bible Zionism” from Israeli political leaders, media, or the various Zionist organizations worldwide. But wouldn’t it be nice if leaders and opinion makers reclaimed “Bible Zionism” and reminded the world at every opportunity of the biblical roots of Zionism?

“Bible Zionism,” as Rabbi Mendes pointed out, has a dual agenda. It stresses the national aspirations of the Jewish People to live in their own historic homeland and foster their religious and cultural traditions. The prophet Isaiah foresaw that Jews will “come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing will flee away” (Isaiah 35:10). He taught that “Zion will be redeemed with justice and those that return to her with righteousness” (1:27).

But “Bible Zionism” also points to the ultimate victory of justice and righteousness for Israel and the entire world. Isaiah taught that many people shall come to Zion “for out of Zion shall go forth Torah and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Isaiah 2:3). Isaiah looked to the day when “the nations shall see your righteousness and all kings your glory” (62:1-2).  The prophet Zechariah (8:3) taught that the Lord has returned to Zion and that “Jerusalem shall be called the city of truth and the mountain of the Lord of hosts the holy mountain.” Zion was to be a bastion of truth, justice and wisdom for the entire world.

 

Recent months have seen ugly manifestations of anti-Zionism throughout the world. The haters have distorted the meaning and mission of Zionism. We need to embrace “Bible Zionism” in every forum to set the record straight.

 The Psalmist sang (122:6): “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem; they who love you will prosper; peace be within your walls, prosperity within your palaces.”  Just as those who love and support Zion will be blessed, the Psalmist warns (129:5): “May all who hate Zion be put to shame and turned back.”

As for us, we must heed the words of Isaiah (62:1-2): “For the sake of Zion I will not hold my peace, and for the sake of Jerusalem I will not be still, until her righteousness goes forth like radiance and her salvation like a burning torch.”

 

A New King? Thoughts for Parashat Shemot

Angel for Shabbat, Parashat Shemot

By Rabbi Marc D. Angel

“A new king arose in Egypt who did not know Joseph” (Shemot 1:8).

Rashi records the Talmudic comments of Rav and Shemuel. One said that an actual new king arose; the other suggested that it was the same king who made new decrees, behaving as though he did not know Joseph.

Neither Rav nor Shemuel offered evidence for their statements; they were not debating about a historical fact.  Rather, they were offering keen insight into human psychology. From a historical standpoint, one of them was correct and one was incorrect. From a psychological viewpoint, they both were perceptive students of the human condition.

An actual new king arose: this is the most likely meaning of the verse. Joseph was 56 years old when Jacob died, and at that time he was still in a position of power in Egypt. But the Torah tells us nothing about Joseph’s career from then until his death at age 110. During those fifty-four years, was Joseph still a government official? Did he become “emeritus” at some point? Did the Pharaoh who had originally appointed him continue in power for all those fifty four years or did he die and leave his position to a successor? It is certainly plausible that a new Pharaoh arose who may not have known or worked with Joseph.

But why did the new Pharaoh ignore the earlier achievements of Joseph? How could the new Pharaoh “not know”—not appreciate and respect—Joseph’s accomplishments? The answer: people remember what they want to remember and “forget” what they want to suppress. The new Pharaoh was interested in consolidating his own power; he ignored Joseph’s achievements because he was interested in undermining the status of the Israelites.

That “new Pharaoh” was like many people. They enjoy benefits of others but are quick to turn on them; they “don’t know”—don’t want to be reminded—about the gratitude they owe. They are interested in promoting themselves and enhancing their own power.

What about opinion that the same Pharaoh ruled, but feigned not to know Joseph? This is an example of particular ruthlessness. After all that Joseph had done for him, Pharaoh had the audacity to pretend that he didn’t even know Joseph. Whereas a “new Pharaoh” might justify his misdeeds since he didn’t actually know Joseph, the “same Pharaoh” had no such justification. He knew Joseph; he worked with Joseph; he benefitted immensely from Joseph. Nevertheless, he hard-heartedly cut Joseph off.

Rav and Shemuel were not debating a historical point: they were commenting on human perfidy and betrayal. They were echoing the teaching of Rabban Gamliel (Pirkei Avot 2:3): “Be wary of your dealings with the ruling power, for they only befriend a person when it serves their needs. When it is to their advantage they appear as friends, but they do not stand by a person in their hour of need.”

The problem, though, doesn’t only relate to ruling powers. Ingratitude and betrayal manifest themselves in many situations.  Self-serving people in all walks of life use others but “don’t know them” once they are no longer needed. 

“A new king arose in Egypt who did not know Joseph.” Do we know people like that? Are we ourselves like that, even sometimes?

 

 

 

Ideal and Evolutionary Morality in the Torah:Traditional Commentary in an Age of Humanism

 

 

Introduction

 

One of the overarching goals of the Torah is to refine people’s moral character. Many laws and narratives overtly focus on morality, and many others inveigh against the immorality and amorality of paganism. The biblical prophets place consistency between observance of God’s ritual and moral laws at the very heart of their message.

Rabbi Saadyah Gaon insists that God chooses only good things to command. He rejects the position of the medieval Islamic school of Ash‘ariyya, which maintained that whatever God commands is by definition good.[1]

Similarly, Rambam asserts that every commandment teaches justice and noble qualities, or corrects philosophical errors (Guide 3:27). Rambam cites God’s desire to have all the nations of the world perceive the moral superiority of the Torah:

 

Observe them faithfully, for that will be proof of your wisdom and discernment to other peoples, who on hearing of all these laws will say, “Surely, that great nation is a wise and discerning people.” For what great nation is there that has a god so close at hand as is the Lord our God whenever we call upon Him? Or what great nation has laws and rules as perfect as all this Teaching that I set before you this day? (Deuteronomy 4:6–8)

 

Many other Jewish thinkers likewise adopt the position that the Torah promotes the highest moral values.

In recent generations, this position has been augmented with the discovery of many ancient Near Eastern laws and narratives. Leading scholars of the twentieth century demonstrated how the Torah promotes moral values vastly superior to those of the prevailing cultures of that day.[2] Contemporary writers also have demonstrated the extent to which the Torah’s values have exerted a decisive influence on contemporary Western morality.[3]

Contemporary readers, though, confront a troubling question. Does the Torah promote the highest morality? Several commandments appear to conflict with modern moral sentiments. Although there might not be unanimity on what contemporary moral sentiments are or should be, we can point to several areas that have attracted serious attention among traditional thinkers.

For example, the Torah permits slavery and polygamy. It permits the blood relatives of one who is killed accidentally to kill the manslayer without trial if he or she fails to reach, or subsequently leaves, a City of Refuge. The Torah commands the total eradication of the Canaanites and Amalekites. Granting that both societies were depraved and evil, and that these laws are not applicable today, God’s stark commandment to kill men, women, and children remains in the Torah. There is a clash between the Torah’s severe prohibition of homosexual relations and the sentiments of many people today. While the sacrificial order of the Temple raises different issues, it also is difficult for many in the modern era to fathom.

Over the past two centuries, Jewish thinkers have engaged in a thoughtful conversation about these and related issues. Some of these discussions have roots in ancient and medieval thought, but these questions have received far more attention in the modern era, driven at least in part by humanistic values.

Rabbi Yaakov Medan, one of the Roshei Yeshiva at Yeshivat Har Etzion, rejects the dangerous fundamentalist approach that we must blindly draw our morality from Tanakh without further inquiry. He also rejects the position of Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz (1903–1994), who insisted that there is no connection between God and morality, and that Jews simply must obey God’s laws. Rabbi Medan states that there are two basic approaches for those who believe that the divinely revealed Torah is moral: (1) Apologetics, reconciling what we see in the text with our moral sentiments. This approach is dishonest, as it imposes the will of the reader onto the text. (2) Attempting to understand God’s word on its own terms, while simultaneously retaining our own moral sense. God is beyond our comprehension, but we never stop struggling with these complex moral issues.[4]

In this essay, I adopt the latter view of Rabbi Medan. Although it is impossible to be objective, it appears that the evidence supports the notion of an evolutionary morality regarding certain tolerated practices. At the same time, the Torah’s mandatory commandments may reflect realities of its ancient setting, but remain eternally binding as God’s word. In the latter case, there is room for evolving interpretations of the law.

 

Ancient and Medieval Precedents

 

Talmud

            The Torah gives laws pertaining to a “beautiful captive” (yefat to’ar) taken in battle (Deuteronomy 21:10–14). Commentators debate the plain meaning of the biblical text. Some maintain that an Israelite soldier may have one-time sexual relations with her immediately at wartime (Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 8:2–7, Abarbanel), while others insist that the soldier first must wait 30 days and then decide if he still wants to marry her (Ibn Ezra, Ramban). The Talmud supports the former view, and therefore the one-time sexual union with the captive is permissible in halakhah. Why would God allow this act, instead of prohibiting it outright? The Talmud answers:

 

With respect to the first intercourse there is universal agreement that it is permitted, since the Torah only provided for man’s evil passions. (Kiddushin 21b)

 

In this approach, God would have outlawed this sexual union, but knew that many ancient soldiers would violate the prohibition. Therefore, God chose the lesser of the two evils and permitted but discouraged the act by focusing on the humanity and humiliation of the captive. God thus legislated for a flawed human reality, provided a realistic law and circumscribed it, and simultaneously taught the ideal value and mode of conduct, that no soldier ever should perform this act.

 

Rambam

Rambam maintains that God revealed many laws to wean the Israelites away from pagan culture to the service of God (Guide 3:29). Having spent so long in pagan Egypt, the Israelites had a strong predilection to offer animal sacrifices. God recognized this propensity and therefore instituted animal sacrifices. God further prescribed specific boundaries for this form of worship by insisting that animals could be sacrificed only in authorized shrines such as the Tabernacle or later the Temple. Prayer and contemplation, which are higher forms of serving God, thereby were encouraged as substitutes for animal sacrifices (Guide 3:32).

Ramban (on Leviticus 1:9) attacks Rambam on this assertion: “Behold, these words are worthless; they make a big breach, raise big questions, and pollute the table of God.” He maintains that the Temple, sacrifices, and related laws are ideal means of communing with God, and not concessions to the ancient Israelites’ historical setting. [5]

In addition, Rambam’s view raised the fundamental question: Now that we have become more sophisticated, what would be the relevance of these ritual commandments in our times? Living in the nineteenth century, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch lamented the terrible misapplication of Rambam’s thought among assimilating German Jews. Many were using Rambam’s logic in the Guide as precedent for abandoning other ritual commandments as well.[6] Rambam himself was concerned with the possibility of the masses’ losing respect for many commandments if their reasons were revealed (Guide 3:26).[7]

Elsewhere in his writings, Rambam stresses the value of animal sacrifices, considering them among the commandments that we cannot fully understand (Hebrew hukkim, Hilkhot Me’ilah 8:8). He maintains that in the messianic future, sacrifices will be restored with the rebuilding of the Temple (Hilkhot Melakhim 11:1). More broadly, Rambam maintains that all of the Torah’s commandments are eternal, including into the messianic era (ninth principle of faith; cf. Guide 2:39; 3:34).[8] Rambam’s placing sacrifices in their historical setting, then, never renders them obsolete as laws.

To summarize, the Talmud discusses an instance where the Torah tolerates behavior as a concession to human weakness. Instead of outlawing the undesirable behavior, it circumscribes the action and makes it clear that one ideally should not do it at all. In Rambam’s explanation of the rationale behind the Temple and sacrifices, the eternal observance of the commandments is absolute regardless of the time-bound aspect of the Torah responding to its ancient pagan setting. God developed an evolutionary educational program to teach Israel certain religious ideals over time.

Regarding conventions that the Torah permits, one may pit the Torah’s ideal values against ancient social reality and explain that the Torah created an evolutionary program with the goal of eliminating certain practices that were too difficult to abolish at the time of God’s revelation of the Torah to Moses. With mandatory commandments, we may change our interpretations, but not the commandments themselves.

We now turn to a few examples where modern thinkers interpret certain tolerated practices of the Torah as parts of the Torah’s evolutionary educational program for Israel and for humanity.

 

Less-than-Ideal Actions Tolerated by the Torah

 

Polygamy

            The Torah permits polygamy; yet one may argue that this permission was a concession to ancient reality and is distant from the Torah’s ideal of monogamous relationships.

            The Torah introduces the concept of a loving monogamous marriage at the very beginning of human existence:

 

And the Lord God fashioned the rib that He had taken from the man into a woman; and He brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called Woman, for from man was she taken.” Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh. (Genesis 2:22–24)

 

Biblical narratives that involve polygamy such as Abraham-Sarah-Hagar, Jacob-Rachel-Leah, and Elkanah-Hannah-Peninah invariably yield tension in the household. Tellingly, the biblical word for wife-in-law is tzarah, tormentor (I Samuel 1:6; Leviticus 18:18).

            Given the Torah’s ideal portrayal of a monogamous marriage in Eden, its negative portrayal of polygamy, and the fact that there is no mandatory commandment for a man to marry more than one wife, we may consider polygamy an institution that the Torah tolerated as a concession to ancient reality. A monogamous society is the Torah’s ideal from its inception. The Torah set out its ideal values so that one day, they could be realized and polygamy would be abolished.

 

Blood Vengeance

            The Torah permits a close relative to kill an accidental manslayer without trial. The manslayer must escape to the City of Refuge and remain inside that city for safety (Numbers 35:9–34; Deuteronomy 19:1–13).

            The nineteenth-century commentator, Rabbi Samuel David Luzzatto (Shadal on Numbers 35:12) asks: Why does the Torah not simply outlaw vigilante justice and leave the matter to the courts? He suggests that the Torah presents a weaning process. In the ancient world, people would have felt like they did not love their deceased relative if they would refrain from killing the accidental manslayer. Many therefore would violate the Torah and kill the manslayer anyway. Acknowledging that reality, the Torah circumscribes blood vengeance by protecting the accidental manslayer and emphasizing his or her innocent blood. Ideally, the relatives should not engage in blood vengeance.

            Professor Nehama Leibowitz (1905–1997) agrees with Shadal, and adds that the Torah succeeded in its evolutionary educational program. The talmudic Sages refer to going to the Cities of Refuge as “exile” (Mishnah Makkot 2:1), replacing the Torah’s usage of the term “to flee” (Exodus 21:13; Numbers 35:15; Deuteronomy 19:5). Professor Leibowitz suggests that this change in terminology stems from the fact that the Torah eradicated the urge for blood vengeance. No longer did accidental manslayers “flee” the blood relatives out of fear being killed, but instead went into “exile” as a consequence of the Torah’s legislation.[9]

 

Slavery

            The Torah’s legislation regarding slavery is vastly more humane than any other form of slavery in the ancient world.[10] And yet, why does the Torah permit slavery at all? Several contemporary rabbinic thinkers, including Rabbis Norman Lamm and Nahum Rabinovitch, discuss this phenomenon and reach similar conclusions.[11] The following is a brief amalgam of their views.

            The ultimate goal of the Torah is for humanity to realize that slavery is wrong, and should be abolished. From Creation, the Torah teaches that all people are equal. All people derive from the same ancestry, and are created in God’s image. However, humanity went astray. Men subjugated one another and distinguished between slaves and masters. When God revealed the Torah to Moses, the world economy depended on slavery, so the Torah could not realistically outlaw slavery. Rather, it taught society to advance step by step, until the goal of the elimination of slavery could be fully achieved. 

            Many laws remind Israel to care for the downtrodden of society, since the Israelites were slaves in Egypt. Shabbat gives a taste of the ideal world, where slaves rest also. While tolerating slavery, the Torah revolutionized the institution. It set a floor that prevented descent to the vile abuses practiced by other nations. Its ultimate goal is that over time, people should question why we have slaves at all. The abolition of slavery in most of the world today is a realization of the ideals taught by the Torah.

            To summarize, God responded to a flawed human reality by revealing laws that outlawed many ancient practices immediately, while tolerating and modifying/restricting other undesirable practices with the goal of eliminating them over time. In an ideal world, God would not have permitted soldiers to take beautiful captives, polygamy, blood vengeance, or slavery. God tolerated these practices as concessions to ancient reality, and simultaneously taught ideal morality so that Israel and humanity could evolve and abolish these practices over time. The fact that many people today consider these practices morally unacceptable is a tribute to the success of the Torah’s long term educational vision of ideal divine law.

 

 

Conflicts between Mandatory Commandments and Contemporary Moral Sentiments

 

Sacrifices and Other Temple Rituals

            As discussed above, Rambam viewed the Temple and its sacrifices as a necessary aspect of God’s evolutionary approach to reaching the ideal society. Ancient Israelites were unable to receive a religious system devoid of a Temple and its sacrificial rites. Yet, Rambam also wrote that the Temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices restored in the messianic era (Hilkhot Melakhim 11:1). This position is no different from Rambam’s suggestion that the prohibition of cooking a kid in its mother’s milk also served to wean Israel away from pagan practices (Guide 3:48), yet those laws are fully applicable for all time.

            Beyond Rambam’s general view on the eternality of the Torah’s commandments, Professor Menachem Kellner offers additional reasons why the restoration of sacrifices is critical for Rambam’s position on the messianic era. Rambam’s messianism is non-supernatural, and idolatry is an ever-present threat even in the messianic era. Therefore, sacrifices are necessary to continue to wean humanity away from the immorality and foolishness of paganism. Additionally, the messianic era is restorative, returning all institutions from the time of David and Solomon to their former glory. The reinstitution of the Temple, sacrifices, and the Sabbatical and Jubilee years are central to that vision.[12]

            Professor Micah Goodman adds that Rambam maintains that Abraham’s religion without commandments failed to preserve his philosophical monotheism for the long term among his descendants (Hilkhot Avodat Kokhavim 1:1–3). Absent rituals, God’s ideal religious values cannot endure in society. Rituals that uphold group identity and reinforce its core principles are required for long-term survival and religious flourishing (cf. Guide 2:31).[13]

            Despite what appears to be Rambam’s position, some extend Rambam’s approach and conclude that there will not be sacrifice in the messianic future. One contemporary thinker who has expressed his struggle from different perspectives is Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo. In one article, he concludes that were God to reveal the Torah today, it would not include laws of slavery or sacrifices:

 

[N]ot only would the laws concerning sacrifices and slavery be totally abolished once the people outgrew the need for them, but they would actually not have appeared in the biblical text had it been revealed at a much later stage in Jewish history.[14]

 

Rabbi Cardozo makes no distinction between the Torah’s toleration of slavery, which is not commanded; and sacrifices, which are mandatory commandments. He does not address Rambam’s other writings that insist on the eternality of all of the Torah’s commandments or that the sacrificial order will be restored in the messianic era. Rabbi Cardozo’s leap from tolerated practices to mandatory commandments appears to go beyond the evidence in the Torah and in Rambam’s writings.

            In a different essay,[15] Rabbi Cardozo restates his position that the Torah contains concessions to human weakness, and sets out an evolutionary road toward higher forms of worship. What of Rambam’s ruling that the sacrifices will be restored in the messianic era? Rabbi Cardozo submits, “I believe he thus expresses his doubt that the ought-to-be of Judaism will ever become a reality in this world.”[16] This position resonates with the view of Professor Kellner stated above, that Rambam maintains that the idolatrous urge will remain even in the messianic era so sacrifices will be necessary to counter that urge.

            To summarize, Rambam maintains that the laws of the Torah are eternal, and that the Temple and sacrifices will be restored in the messianic future. The law remains unchanged, but the religious meaning one ascribes to the commandments can change. When the messianic era arrives, we will be in a better position to judge what actually will happen.[17]

 

Homosexuality

            A similar approach can apply to the Torah’s unequivocal prohibition against male homosexual relations. The prohibition is unchangeable, but there has been a meaningful evolution within rabbinic responses in certain sectors of the contemporary Orthodox community. While there remains a wide range of opinion and approach within the Orthodox rabbinate and community, it is encouraging to see these more inclusive positions.[18]

 

War Against Canaan

            Granting that the Canaanites and Amalekites were depraved and evil, the Torah’s command to exterminate their populations, men, women, and children, remains stark. A full discussion of this issue goes beyond the parameters of this essay. It is noteworthy that of our medieval commentators, only Rabbenu Bahya (14th century) raised the moral question of the Torah’s command to kill even the children. His answers likely would not satisfy modern sentiments: It was a divine decree; once God decrees their doom they are considered as dead; they no doubt will grow up to be like their parents. Like amputating a limb to save the body, the elimination of Canaanites and Amalekites was good for humanity.[19]

It is not until the 20th century that rabbinic thinkers began to address this moral question more systematically.[20]  Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935) maintains that this commandment was restricted to the biblical period, and reflects ancient conventions of warfare. If Israel did not eliminate the Canaanites and Amalekites, they would regroup and attack Israel. The only way to stop enemies in an immoral world is to subdue them completely. As the moral expectations of the world regarding war improve, Israel must follow the highest moral standards and not apply the rules of the war against Canaanites and Amalekites (Iggerot HaRei’ah 1:89).

Rabbi Kook thus understands the parameters of the Torah’s commandment as God’s concession to the moral limitations and reality of the ancient world. The Oral Law enables later generations to improve moral standards, rather than remaining fixated on the ancient standards of war and applying them in later periods.[21]

 

Rambam vs. Abarbanel on Monarchy

 

We have discussed the distinction between less-than-ideal non-mandatory practices that the Torah tolerated versus commandments where interpretations change while the law is eternal. One debate that proves this rule is the disagreement between Rambam and Abarbanel regarding monarchy (Deuteronomy 17:14–20).

Rambam considers monarchy to be a positive commandment (Hilkhot Melakhim 1:1–2). Abarbanel rejects Rambam’s view based on several textual considerations and maintains that although monarchy is permitted if requested, it is viewed negatively by the Torah. Abarbanel likens monarchy to the laws of the “beautiful captive” (Deuteronomy 21:10–14) where the Torah tolerates certain less-than-ideal actions to forestall worse eventualities. He invokes the talmudic principle discussed earlier in this essay, “the Torah states this in consideration of the evil inclination” (Kiddushin 21b).[22]

Monarchy reflected the prevalent form of government in Israel’s ancient setting. The Torah and the people in Samuel’s time explicitly state that Israel wanted a king “as do all the nations” (Deuteronomy 17:14; I Samuel 8:5). For Rambam, however, the Torah commands this form of government so it transcends that ancient setting and is mandatory whenever it is politically feasible. For Abarbanel, monarchy is a tolerated negative practice until such time as people develop alternative forms of government.[23]

 

Conclusion

 

            The prophets and ancient and medieval rabbinic thinkers recognized the centrality of ethics in the Torah’s vision and law. In the modern era, many traditional thinkers perceived a growing gap between the morality of some of the Torah’s laws and the ideal morals of Western humanism.

            The talmudic analysis of the beautiful captive (Kiddushin 21b) provides the precedent for later thinkers to conclude that certain elements in the Torah tolerate a less-than-ideal reality as a concession to ancient mores. Rambam’s discussion of the Temple and sacrifices provides the precedent for later thinkers to distinguish between practices that the Torah tolerates as a concession, while simultaneously providing its ideal vision so that over time the Jewish people and all humanity can move closer to the ideal morality of the Torah.

            For matters that the Torah tolerates but does not command, such as polygamy, blood vengeance, and slavery, one may ascertain a gap between the Torah’s tolerance and its ideal to abolish these practices. For mandatory commandments, such as a Temple and sacrifices and the prohibition against male homosexual relations, the laws are eternal but there remains room for different interpretations of these commandments so that our attitudes and religious-moral experience can evolve with time.

            This essay outlines several areas that have drawn the attention of modern thinkers. These discussions are a healthy and vital aspect of our relationship with God and our desire to live in accordance with the Torah’s ideal moral values.

            The world has a long way to go to realize the messianic ideal. We pray for a growing embodiment of the Torah’s ideals: A loving faithful marriage as the central bond for raising a family and transmitting religious values; a universal commitment to law and justice; a realization that all human beings are created in God’s image, with no racism, sexism, or other forms of discrimination; a universal desire to connect to God through living a life of holiness; and a world where all evil is eliminated, and humanity serves God and lives ideal moral lives.

 

Notes

 

 

[1] Howard Kreisel, Prophecy: The History of an Idea in Medieval Jewish Philosophy (Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001), p. 38. See also Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, “Does Jewish Tradition Recognize an Ethics Independent of Halakha?” in Contemporary Jewish Ethics, ed. Menachem Kellner (New York: Sanhedrin Press, 1978), pp. 102–123.

[2] See Moshe Greenberg, “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law,” and “The Biblical Concept of ‎Asylum,” in Moshe Greenberg, Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995), pp. 25–50; Nahum M. Sarna, Exploring Exodus: The Origins of Biblical Israel (New York: Schocken, 1996), pp. 158–189. For a summary of the current state of scholarship and a discussion of religious implications pertaining to the comparison of the Torah to ancient Near Eastern literature, see Amnon Bazak, Ad HaYom HaZeh: She’elot Yesod BeLimud Tanakh, ed. Yoshi Farajun (Hebrew) (Tel-Aviv: Yediot Aharonot-Hemed, 2013), pp. 317–346.

[3] See, for example, Joshua Berman, Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008); Jeremiah Unterman, Justice for All: How the Bible Revolutionized Ethics (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2017).

[4] Yaakov Medan, HaMikraot HaMithaddeshim (Hebrew) (Alon Shevut: Tevunot, 2015), pp. 255-349, especially pp. 255–265. For a more expansive discussion, see Eugene Korn, “Moralization in Jewish Law: Genocide, Divine Commands, and Rabbinic Reasoning,” Edah Journal 5:2 (2006), at http://www.edah.org/backend/JournalArticle/KORN_5_2.pdf. Accessed June 19, 2018.

[5] For analysis of the debate between Rambam and Ramban, and of the apparent contradictions within Rambam’s writings on the subject of animal sacrifice, see Russell Jay Hendel, “Maimonides’ Attitude Towards Sacrifices,” Tradition 13:4–14:1 (Spring-Summer, 1973), pp. 163–179; David Henshke, “On the Question of Unity in Rambam’s Thought” (Hebrew), Da’at 37 (1996), pp. 37–51.

[6] See the eighteenth of Rabbi Hirsch’s Nineteen Letters. Russel Jay Hendel observes: “Rabbi Hirsch praises the Rambam for preserving medieval Judaism but also severely criticizes him for the effect the Moreh’s views were having at Rabbi Hirsch’s time. There is a difference in tone between the Ramban and Rabbi Hirsch. Ramban although using quite strong language, nevertheless is basically criticizing the view of the Rambam. Rabbi Hirsch however criticizes the methodology of the Rambam” (“Maimonides’ Attitude Towards Sacrifices,” p. 179, n. 48).

[7] See Isadore Twersky, Introduction to the Code of Maimonides (Mishneh Torah) (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), pp. 374–484; David Henshke, “On the Question of Unity in Rambam’s Thought.”

[8] While this is Rambam’s view, it is not the only traditional rabbinic opinion. See survey and discussion in Marc B. Shapiro, The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles Reappraised (Oxford: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 204), pp. 122–131.

[9] Nehama Leibowitz, Studies in Devarim-Deuteronomy (Jerusalem: Eliner Library), pp. 187–194.

[10] For detailed analysis, see Elhanan Samet, Iyyunim BeParashot HaShavua (second series) vol. 1 (Hebrew) ed. Ayal Fishler (Ma’aleh Adumim: Ma’aliyot Press, 2004), pp. 377–397.

[11] Norman Lamm, “Amalek and the Seven Nations: A Case of Law vs. Morality,” in War and Peace in the Jewish Tradition, ed. Lawrence Schiffman and Joel B. Wolowelsky (New York: Yeshiva University Press, 2007), pp. 201–238. Nahum Rabinovitch, “The Way of Torah,” Edah Journal 3:1 (Tevet 5763), at http://www.edah.org/backend/coldfusion/search/document.cfm?title=The%20Way%20of%20Torah&hyperlink=rabin3_1%2Ehtm&type=JournalArticle&category=O…. Accessed June 19, 2018.

[12] Menachem Kellner, “‘And the Crooked Shall be Made Straight’: Twisted Messianic Visions, and a Maimonidean Corrective,” in Rethinking the Messianic Idea in Judaism, ed. Michael L. Morgan and Steven Weitzman (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2015), pp. 108-140 (I thank Professor Kellner for this reference). See also Moshe Halbertal, Maimonides: Life and Thought, trans. Joel Linsider (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014), pp. 223-228, 341-353; Aviezer Ravitsky, “‘To the Utmost of Human Capacity’: Maimonides on the Days of the Messiah,” in Perspectives on Maimonides: Philosophical and Historical Studies, ed. Joel L. Kraemer (Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1996), pp. 221–256; Netanel Wiederblank, Illuminating Jewish Thought: Explorations of Free Will, the Afterlife, and the Messianic Era (Jerusalem: Maggid, 2018), pp. 547–556.

[13] Micah Goodman, Maimonides and the Book that Changed Judaism: Secrets of the Guide for the Perplexed (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2015), pp. 113–137.

[14] Nathan Lopes Cardozo, “The Deliberately Flawed Divine Torah,” at http://thetorah.com/the-deliberately-flawed-divine-torah/, accessed June 21, 2018.

[15] Nathan Lopes Cardozo, Jewish Law as Rebellion: A Plea for Religious Authenticity and Halachic Courage (Jerusalem: Urim, 2018), pp. 219–223.

[16] See Rabbi Cardozo’s further exploration of this idea in his book, Between Silence and Speech: Essays on Jewish Thought (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1995), pp. 1–12.

[17] In his commentary on the prayer book, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook suggests that in the messianic future, there will be only flour sacrifices, and no more animal sacrifice (Olat Re’iyah, 292; cf. Rabbi Kook’s LeNevukhei HaDor, chapter 10, where he suggests that if righteous people in the messianic era are unwilling to bring animal sacrifice, it is within the right of the Sanhedrin then to reinterpret the Torah so that only flour sacrifices will be offered). However, Rabbi Kook’s view is more complex based on his other writings. See Netanel Wiederblank, Illuminating Jewish Thought, pp. 557–572. See also Rabbi Haim David Halevy, Asei Lekha Rav 9:36, who espoused a similar position to that of Rabbi Kook in Olat Re’iyah. However, Rabbi Halevy elsewhere also insisted that the full sacrificial order will be restored in the messianic future. For analysis of Rabbi Halevy’s position, see Marc D. Angel and Hayyim Angel, Rabbi Haim David Halevy: Gentle Scholar and Courageous Thinker (Jerusalem: Urim, 2006), pp. 85–87. For a few other recent rabbis who suggested that there will not be animal sacrifices in the messianic future, see Marc B. Shapiro, The Limits of Orthodox Theology, pp. 128–130.

[18] For an excellent formulation of the inclusive position, see the Statement of Principles on the Place of Jews with a Homosexual Orientation in Our Community, at http://statementofprinciplesnya.blogspot.com/, accessed June 21, 2018. More broadly, see Chaim Rapoport, Judaism and Homosexuality: An Authentic Orthodox View (London: Vallentine Mitchell, 2004).

[19] See Menachem Kellner, “And Yet, the Texts Remain,” in The Gift of the Land and the Fate of the Canaanites in Jewish Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), pp. 153–179.

[20] See Hayyim Angel, “War Against Canaan: Divine and Human Perspectives,” in Angel, Creating Space between Peshat and Derash: A Collection of Studies on Tanakh (Jersey City, NJ: Ktav-Sephardic Publication Foundation, 2011), pp. 74-83; reprinted in Angel, Vision from the Prophet and Counsel from the Elders: A Survey of Nevi’im and Ketuvim (New York: OU Press, 2013), pp. 41–48; Yoel Bin-Nun, “HaMikra BeMabat Histori VehaHitnahlut HaYisraelit BeEretz Cena’an” (Hebrew), in HaPulmus al HaEmet HaHistorit BaMikra, ed. Yisrael L. Levin and Amihai Mazar (Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi, Merkaz Dinur: 2002), pp. 3–16; Yoel Bin-Nun, “Sefer Yehoshua—Peshat VeDivrei Hazal” (Hebrew), in Musar Milhamah VeKibush (Alon Shevut: Tevunot, 1994), pp. 31–40; Shalom Carmy, “The Origin of Nations and the Shadow of Violence: Theological Perspectives on Canaan and Amalek,” in War and Peace in the Jewish Tradition, pp. 163–199; Yaakov Medan, HaMikraot HaMithaddeshim, pp. 255–349.

[21] See further discussion in Amnon Bazak, Ad HaYom HaZeh, pp. 404-417. It is noteworthy that only in the 19th century did Malbim raise the moral question of the mutilation (rather than quick execution) of Adoni-Bezek. Earlier generations of classical commentators did not.

[22] For further discussion, see Hayyim Angel, “Abarbanel: Commentator and Teacher: Celebrating 500 Years of his Influence on Tanakh Study,” Tradition 42:3 (Fall 2009), pp. 9–26; reprinted in Angel, Creating Space between Peshat and Derash: A Collection of Studies on Tanakh (Jersey City, NJ: Ktav-Sephardic Publication Foundation, 2011), pp. 1–24; Peshat Isn’t So Simple: Essays on Developing a Religious Methodology to Bible Study (New York: Kodesh Press, 2014), pp. 80–104.

[23] Consistent with his position, Rambam maintained that monarchy will return to Israel in the messianic era (Hilkhot Melakhim 11:1). Scholars debate whether Abarbanel believed that there will be a monarchy in the messianic era. Yitzhak Baer and Leo Strauss maintained that Abarbanel believed that the messianic leader would function as a king for the nations but not for the Jews, a situation resembling the biblical period of the Judges. However, Eric Lawee observes that Abarbanel is explaining the position of Rabbi Hillel in the Talmud, rather than explicitly expressing his own personal view. It therefore is possible that Abarbanel himself expected some form of limited monarchy in the messianic era. For discussion and references, see Eric Lawee, Isaac Abarbanel’s Stance Toward Tradition: Defense, Dissent, and Dialogue (New York: SUNY Press, 2001), pp. 137–141 and pp. 266–267, notes 62, 70. I thank Professor Lawee for this reference.

Jacob, Esau and Us: Thoughts for Parashat Vayishlah

Angel for Shabbat—Parashat Vayishlah

By Rabbi Marc D. Angel

“Now these are the generations of Esau—the same is Edom” (Bereishith 36:1).

The Torah devotes thirty verses informing us of the extended family of Esau, including lists of the various chiefs of the family divisions.  Why would we need to know this genealogical listing since Esau was the rejected son of Isaac and Rebecca?  The Torah will, of course, devote its full attention to Jacob and family, but why bother with the family and chiefs of Esau?

Perhaps we can gain some insight by considering the verse that precedes the Esau list. “And Isaac died and was gathered unto his people, old and full of days; and Esau and Jacob his sons buried him” (35:29). Esau and Jacob, twin brothers, come together to bury their father. In spite of the longstanding enmity between them, they were both sons of Isaac. Although the Torah’s story is ultimately about Jacob/Israel and family, it wants us to remember that Esau is also part of our family and part of our story. The togetherness of Jacob and Esau at Isaac’s burial is reminiscent of the togetherness of Isaac and Ishmael at the burial of their father Abraham.

In Midrashic typologies, Esau and Jacob are arch antagonists. Esau is portrayed as violent and wicked, the antithesis of the Godliness that Jacob typifies. They seem to represent an endless and non-reconcilable hatred. They seem to be engaged in an eternal zero sum battle: if one wins, the other loses.

It seems that way.

But the Torah, by devoting so much attention to Esau’s family and chiefs, is offering another way of seeing things. Jacob and Esau are brothers. They come together as family to bury their father. There is a great rift between them…but there is also the possibility of reconciliation.

The Torah wants us—the family of Jacob—to look more carefully at the family of Esau. It wants us to see that Esau’s clan also have virtues; they have leaders, family solidarity, traditions. They are still our relatives, in spite of all our differences.

By listing the clans of Esau, the Torah is suggesting that the ancient and deep antagonism doesn’t have to be forever. It is not a zero sum situation where one must win and one must lose. Rather, reconciliation is possible if both sides respect each other and see each other’s humanity. Both can win. There’s no reason for endless strife and competition. 

Esau and Jacob standing together at Isaac’s burial symbolize the possibility of peace between brothers. In spite of all the enmity that plagued their relationship, they were able to come together as brothers. The Torah’s listing of Esau’s family means that they continue to be important to us. 

Old rivalries and hatreds can be overcome. We can win together. With all our differences, we can find common ground. The Torah points the way.

 

Convivencia Achieved? Jews and Non-Jews in Haifa

Convivencia Achieved? Jews and Non-Jews in Haifa

By Rivka Kellner and Menachem Kellne

 

Convivencia is the term often used to describe the coexistence of Jews and Muslims (and

Christians) in the so-called Golden Age of Spain. Jews in Haifa have not yet produced figures

like Bahya ibn Pakudah, Judah Halevi, or Maimonides, nor have the Arabs of Haifa produced

figures like Averroes, but, withal, Jews and Arabs do get along pretty well in Haifa. We are

here to report on that.

Last Simhat Torah we were blissfully unaware of what was happening down South. We 

heard in synagogue that Hamas had fired a few rockets at Tel Aviv, but nothing more. Since that

day, our lives have been consumed by little else. After a day or so, we were led to expect that

Hezbollah would fire on Haifa, and people in my Rambam class were talking about buying

generators in case the electricity went out…in the event, I do not think any of them actually

did buy a generator.

Overall, aside from the scores of thousands of refugees from Israel’s North living in

hotels around the city (and our attempts to help them, Menachem with laundry and Rivka with

English lessons and packing toys) there was very little sense in Haifa that Israel is at war.

Glued to the news, of course, horrified at our losses and the undeniable Hamas-caused

suffering of Gazans, endlessly frustrated by our useless government (and all too often

embarrassed by it), daily life went on much as before. This includes the remarkably good

relations between Jews and Arabs in Haifa. Menachem used to joke that it is no surprise that

Jews and Arabs get along in Haifa, the real surprise was that Jews and Jews got along as well.

Jews and Arabs continue to get along well in Haifa, despite the war (or perhaps even because

of it, on that more below), thank God, but the anger at the Haredi community grows day by

day.

Rivka and Menachem wrote the above a month ago. Then the other shoe dropped.

Consciously or unconsciously, we are now constantly listening for missile and drone alerts.

When entering any enclosed space, be it a mall or a synagogue, we scan our surrounding for

the nearest shelter. Our building, ten stories, forty apartments, was erected in the early 70’s.

We are therefore lucky enough to have a safe room on every floor. Our building was certainly

advanced when it was built. New buildings have safe rooms in every apartment. Older

buildings usually have no safe rooms and no shelters.

It turns out that we have several new neighbors on our floor. We have usually seen them

bleary-eyed, confused, sporting the latest pajama attire, in our floor’s safe room in the middle

of the night after an air raid alert has most rudely ripped us out of our beds. More than once

Menachem was caught in the middle of shaharit if the alert came in the morning; he zoomed

into the safe room in tallit and tefilln (photos available on request). Our new neighbors are

recent immigrants from Ukraine who probably never saw tefillin before (and do not know

Hebrew or even English) --- the Tower of Babel has reached our safe room.

Having brought you up to date, as it were, we want to write about Haifa’s unique spread 

of religions, and the way in which we all get along, despite the war, the alerts and the rockets

(which do not distinguish Jews from Arabs).

On an unremarkable day (as if any day during this war can be unremarkable), Rivka got

into a cab and noticed what was clearly a Muslim prayer book. She asked if she could look at it

(as a sign of respect to the driver) and, when she put it back down, she treated it like a siddur,

kissing the cover. She explained to the driver that halakhah mandates respectful treatment of

Jewish religious texts, and Rivka felt it appropriate to show respect to the texts of other

religions. This took place during Sukkot, and Rivka wished the driver a chag sameach (happy

holiday). She realized that he might have been offended since it was not his holiday, and she

said as much. He replied: “Why should I be offended? It is my holiday too --- I am also

Israeli.” (This is not the sort of story one will read concerning Haifa in the New York Times.)

In our experience Jews and Non-Jews in Haifa get along fine. Thus, for example, our favorite

neighborhood (kosher) coffee shop is jointly owned by a Jew and an Arab, staffed by a

variety of people, and enjoyed by the entire neighborhood. Did we not know his name, we

would not know that the Arab co-owner was an Arab (his Hebrew is certainly better than

Menachem’s!). Although the coffee shop is kosher, the clientele is diverse, including Arabs of

various types (although once we noticed that four of the patrons were members of our

synagogue).

Our family doctor has an Arab partner, Menachem’s rheumatologist is a Muslim woman 

(no hijab, but she observes Ramadan, and thinks that two 25-hour Jewish fasts are harder than

Ramadan), almost all our pharmacists are Arabs.

Unlike taxis in Jerusalem (or New York), getting into a cab driven by an Arab does not

 make Rivka nervous at all. Rivka freely engages these drivers into sometimes riveting

conversations about life, politics, and weather. Despite that, it seems to Rivka that

occasionally Arab “feminism” lags decades behind that of Jewish cabbies. Rivka suspects

that behind the rare examples of sexual harassment to which she was subjected, lay more than

“simple” sexism, but was also anti-Jewish honor-based overtone to the violence. Rivka

discussed these events with a different (Arab) cabbie, who though that she was over-reacting

and should be flattered.

One of Rivka’s cabbies told her that his relatives in Lebanon were not doing well (as is 

the case with Palestinians there). Rivka handed him a 20 shekel note and asked him to try to find

a way to alleviate their suffering. He was moved beyond words.

But neither Rivka nor Menachem ever felt that the Arabs with whom they dealt (in

 medical contexts, in malls, at the beach) harbored anti-Jewish prejudice. We have no idea what 

people feel in their hearts, but so far as outward behavior is concerned, we have never seen 

evidence of such prejudice.

Rivka has been laughingly called a JAP (Jewish American Princess); she always makes it

clear that she is a JIP (Jewish Israeli Princess). As such she is an expert on the many malls in

Haifa. In these malls she sees Jews, Muslims, Christians, and Druze working and shopping.

Recently she came across a cute little toddler who was being coaxed by his bemused mother

in Arabic to get up. Rivka crouched down next to the child and in Hebrew, English and broken

Arabic tried to get him to get up. The little angel smiled, got up, and gave Rivka a hug she

will never forget. She put her hand on his head and blessed him--and earned a smile from

the mother, who was clearly pleased.

Rivka teaches supplementary English to school children of all ages in a community

Center here in Haifa. Yesterday, one of her breaks between lessons was rudely interrupted by a 

siren. Rivka was pleasantly surprised by the way in which children and teachers all filed down to

the bomb shelter in an orderly fashion. When the mandatory 10 minutes were over, and

HKBH took care of them all, and nothing blew up, class resumed as if nothing had happened.

Rivka was impressed by the calm of her students and saddened that they appear unfazed by

the experience. No child should be used to such an event. It was clear to Rivka that we

protect our children, and do not use them as human shields.

Not long ago, Menachem stopped at a convenience store to pick up some milk. A 

customer with a complicated issue was there before him. The customer told Menachem to go 

ahead of him, since all he wanted was a liter of milk. Menachem complimented the customer for

allowing an older person to get ahead of him. Mustafa (as his name turned out to be) replied:

“it all depends on how one is raised at home.”

Why do matters work so well in Haifa? For one thing, we have a huge number of Russian

olim, strongly secular and usually very cultured, who help balance the growing Haredi

presence. For another thing, our Arab population is largely Christian and highly educated

(one of them, Prof. Mouna Maroun, a neuroscientist and expert in post-trauma stress disorder,

was recently elected to be the university’s rector). There are several varieties of Christians,

several of whom we know from our years at the University of Haifa. Among the Muslims,

very few of them appear to be Shi’ites and there is a large population of Ahmedi Muslims

whose religion commits them to peaceful coexistence 

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya). Rivka and Menachem were invited to their

annual convocation twice, where we were given kosher food! There are also Druze, most of

whom are fervent Israeli patriots, and of course Bahai

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%CA%BC%C3%AD_World_Centre). All of the

Arabs in Haifa know well that they would be murdered by Hamas and Hezbollah. This

mosaic of non-Jewish religions and their relative assimilation helps explain Haifa’s unique

success.

We do not want to give the impression that all is hunky dory here in Haifa. We both find 

the war enervating and feel that we are suffering from Pre-Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. We

are also living through an old (once almost amusing) joke: 1/3 of Israelis pay taxes, 1/3 of

Israelis do army service, and 1/3 of Israelis work for a living. The problem is that it is the

same 1/3! Our shambolic government is trying to sell out that 1/3 in order to keep

Haredim in the government

Convivencia between Jews and Arabs in Haifa is strong. Convivencia between those 

Jews who serve (and die) and contribute to Israeli society and those Jews who feel no obligation

whatsoever to do so, is getting weaker by the day. That may be another cost of the war.

 

Joseph, Judah and Us: Thoughts for Parashat Vayiggash

Angel for Shabbat, Parashat Vayiggash

By Rabbi Marc D. Angel

This week’s Torah reading features a confrontation between two brothers—Joseph and Judah. Joseph had contrived to arrest Benjamin and keep him in Egypt. Judah approached Joseph with an impassioned plea to save Benjamin, volunteering himself to stay as slave instead. Joseph is so moved by Judah’s words that he reveals himself as a brother. As the story unfolds, Joseph’s brothers return to their father Jacob and the entire family relocate in the land of Egypt.

In his thoughts on the Parasha, Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz contrasts Joseph and Judah. Joseph was handsome, the favorite of his father; he went on to become a high official in Egypt, second only to Pharaoh. Joseph is known in Jewish tradition as Yosef Ha-Tsaddik, Joseph the righteous. He was an exemplary person. By contrast, Judah was far from perfect. The Torah describes Judah’s sinful behavior toward Joseph, and toward his daughter-in-law Tamar. Yet, Judah was the only brother with courage to confront Joseph to plead for Benjamin’s freedom. Rabbi Steinsaltz suggests that Joseph typifies a Tsaddik, a naturally righteous person; and Judah represents a ba’al teshuva, a sinner who has turned from a sinful past and has emerged as a righteous person.

Joseph was handsome, wise, and righteous by nature.  By contrast, Judah had to overcome faults. His strength was in his ability to rise up after failure. He could admit error and improve his ways.

Joseph and Judah, in a sense, symbolize the two tablets of the Ten Commandments. One set was shattered by Moses when he found the children of Israel worshipping a golden calf. The other set remained intact as Moses brought it down a second time. The Talmud states that the broken pieces of the first set were placed in the ark together with the intact set (Berakhot 8b). Both, together, served as the spiritual foundation of Israel.

Similarly, Joseph—the intact set—and Judah—the broken tablets—jointly serve as models of leadership. Joseph is blessed with unblemished righteousness. He is dignified; he has amazing organizational and managerial skills; he leads by setting an example of righteousness and efficiency. Judah leads by dint of his resilience, determination and courage. He learns from his mistakes. In times of crisis, Judah rises like a lion, fearless and strong.

We need the Josephs and the Judahs working together for the wellbeing of our people and our world. We need honest, talented leaders like Joseph; we need courageous and forceful leaders like Judah. 

But for our people to flourish, we not only need Josephs and Judahs. We need an entire community committed to the highest values of our tradition. We need to raise a new generation of Josephs and Judahs-- proud, capable and courageous Jews. Each of us has a role to play.