Folklore, Fairy Tales and the Bible

Folklore and fairy tales appear in many different forms. These stories are cross-cultural, that is, every society or culture has similar stories with similar themes, motifs and heroes/ heroines. Fairy tales are not sweet bedtime stories, although they have been relegated to that category due to their Disney makeover. In most situations, fairy tales are actually quite extreme and focus on situations that might be rather distressing to children (wife-beating, incest, abusive fathers, etc.)

The Orthodox Jew has a vested interest in fairytales, though he might not know it. You see, fairytales and the Torah are intertwined to a degree that is absolutely compelling. I do not have the historical background to posit which came first- the folktale or the Torah- but either way, knowledge of folklore and fairy tales is truly helpful when it comes to understanding and analyzing the Torah.

How so?

Let's begin with two important systems of categorization.

1. The Aarne-Thompson Tale Type Index
2. The Motif Index of Folk Literature

The Aarne-Thompson Tale Type Index assigns numbers to fairytales that fall into a certain category due to their repeating certain key themes and ideas. This is especially helpful when it comes to categorizing fairytales across different cultures. For example, the popular "Cinderella" is tale type 510A, "the persecuted heroine." This tale type applies to "Rashin-Coatie" from Scotland, "The Wonderful Birch" from Russia and other fairytales across the globe.

What allows Aarne-Thompson to group these fairytales together is their motifs. All fairytales in tale type 510A share particular motifs, although they may not be the same motifs. In one version of "Cinderella" the heroine has a fairy godmother; in another version she goes to her mother's grave to request help, in yet another version her tears water a birch tree who aids her. She loses a glass slipper, or in one Persian version, an ankle bracelet. The stories are similar enough, however, to group them under a particular tale type.

The categorization of motifs in The Motif Index to Folk Literature is invaluable for analyzing the similarities and differences between different fairy tales. The Cinderella story that we know best features the following motifs, for example.

S31 Cruel Stepmother
F311 Fairy Godmother
D813 Magic Object received from fairy
D1050.1 Clothes produced by magic
F861.4.3 Carriage from pumpkin
D411.6.1 Transformation: mouse to horse
N711.6 Prince sees heroine at ball and is enamoured
C761.3 Tabu: staying too long at the ball
H36.1 Slipper test: identification by fitting of shoes
F823.2 Glass slipper
L162 Lowly heroine marries Prince

Here is an online Motif Index.

Now we come to the Bible and fairytales/ folklore. These two types of categorization are invaluable for determining connections between the two, and hence allowing us an enhanced understanding of the text.

For example, arguably one of the most important tales in the Torah, that of Adam and Eve, is echoed in many, many fairytales due to the specific motif involved. "The Forbidden Fruit," as in, there is one fruit that the two are expressly forbidden to eat, they eat it and must suffer the consequences. That idea appears under the following Taboos (Tabu for our purposes) in the Motif Index. (I won't list all of them because there are many, many variations, as you can see here. For our purposes, however...)

C611. Forbidden chamber -- Person allowed to enter all chambers of house except one. C611.1. Forbidden door. -- All doors may be entered except one.
C611.2. Forbidden stables. -- Person allowed to enter everywhere but into three stables.
C611.3. Forbidden ladder.
C612. Forbidden forest. (Cf. C614.1.0.2.)
C614. Forbidden road. -- All roads may be taken except one.
C621. Forbidden tree. -- Fruit of all trees may be eaten except one.
C621.1. Tree of knowledge forbidden. # J165. Tree of knowledge.
C621.2. Tabu: touching fruit. .
C622. Forbidden drinking horn. -- One may drink from anything else. # H411.4. Magic drinking horn (cup) as chastity test. (Cf. D1171.6.) -- Unchaste woman cannot drink from cup.

Anyone who has read the Arabian Nights can think of countless tales that fit motif C611, "the forbidden chamber." Anyone who reads Russian fairytales will instantaneously think of "Koschei the Deathless," otherwise known as "Marya Morevna." Otherwise, anyone who has read The Odyssey or The Adventures of Sinbad the Sailor will think of Odysseus'/ Sinbad's very clear statement to their men not to eat the sun-god's sheep/ not to eat the roc chick. And so on and so forth.

All right, so the motif categorizations are essential for analyzing the Torah. But then there are the tale type categorizations that are just as fascinating.

For example, does this sound familiar?

For a long time they lived happily together, and then one day the old king went out riding, lost his way, and arrived at their castle. He was puzzled because he had never seen it before and decided to enter. The princess recognized her father immediately, but he did not recognize her, for he thought she had drowned in the sea a long time ago. She treated him with a great deal of hospitality, and when he was about to return home, she secretly slipped a golden cup into his pocket. After he had ridden off, she sent a pair of knights after him. They were ordered to stop him and search him to see if he had stolen the golden cup. When they found it in his pocket, they brought him back. He swore to the princess that he had not stolen it and did not know how it had gotten into his pocket.

"That's why," she said, "one must beware of rushing to judgement." And she revealed to him that she was his daughter. The king rejoiced, and they all lived happily together, and after his death, Simple Hans became king.

That's from "Simple Hans" by the Brothers Grimm (but it's a tale that has evolved and exists in many, many forms. It's Aarne-Thompson type 675, "The Lazy Boy," where a boy wishes a virgin princess pregnant, his wish is fulfilled, the father sends her and her supposed lover off to die in a barrel in the sea, the boy wishes for a castle and wealth, and voila, they're saved! Later the father stops by and learns he was wrong/ judged her falsely by virtue of her having planted a cup/ apple/ other precious object on him, so that he too is judged falsely even though he is innocent.)

Anyway, of course you know what that fairytale echoes- Joseph and his brothers!

Or there's AT type 780, The Singing Bones, where body parts of murdered victims literally cry out for justice, and if that doesn't echo the verses in Tanakh referring to "the voice of thy brother's blood" by Abel and Zecharia's bubbling blood, I don't know what does.

There are loads more...Aesop's fables, for instance.

Fable #202, The Oak Tree and the Reed, echoes the statement of someone in the Gemara who states that Ahijah's curse was better than Bilam's blessing. For Bilam blessed the Jews by describing them as "cedars beside the waters" (Numbers 24: 6) and Ahijah cursed the Jews by saying "the LORD will smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water" (Kings I 14: 15).

Oh, and in fairytales/ folktales worldwide, babies are always thrown into the lakes/ water, either in baskets or barrels, sometimes even tarred or pitched baskets and barrels. Just look at any of the "Envious Sisters" stories, whether they be in the Arabian Nights or Pushkin's Tale of Tsar Sultan.

Fairytales and folklore only enhances one's understanding of the Bible. They are excellent in terms of comparing and contrasting Biblical stories- it's interesting to note the variations, and to see how similar ideas have been taken out of context and placed into a new context. The question becomes- are fairy tales corrupted Bible stories, or are some of the tales of the Bible or the Talmud derived from common fairy tales and folktales? It's easier to say that in the Talmud, certain ideas could certainly have come from folklore, as the sages even cite common phrases and so forth at certain times. I'd have to do more research into the alleged origins of folktales to see when they are supposed to have originated...Someone once told me, though I still need the source, that the Rambam reads some of the tales in the Torah allegorically. Depending on which tales those are, the idea of fables/ fairytales/ folktales makes sense as well.

In any case...there ought to be a class on Fairy Tales and the Bible, a comparative class, that is. That would be utterly fascinating, and it would appeal to everyone, whether secular or religious. See, it's yet another score for understanding the modern world- if you refuse to read stories and dismiss fairytales as inherently bad because they contain magic, you'll never be able to see how beautifully the Bible complements and creates the motifs and ideas behind them!

Must God be Good? A Question for Atheists

So I'm really curious about this.

It appears that many people don't believe in God due to the problem of theodicy. My question, however, becomes- what has one to do with the other?

That is, why must God be good?

Say God appeared evil to human beings. Or say that he really was evil, a cruel, tyrannical, jealous ruler. These attributes don't negate the fact that he is still God, creator of the world and the universe! How can one definitively decide that if God doesn't appear to rule the world in a just way, that is, if he appears evil, he doesn't exist? I don't understand the correlation.

Suppose you lived within a faith structure that suggests that God is good. Suppose that you don't see the evidence for that. Well then, why not dismiss the part that seems to be untrue- the goodness factor- while keeping the God factor?

Incidentally, I realized tonight that nowhere in the Torah (if I am correct) is the word "good," as in the Hebrew word tov, ever used to describe God. God does good things; he creates the universe and his creations are pronounced "very good." He gives the Jews a "good land." He knows "good and evil." He makes "good promises." He does what is "good in his sight." But He himself is not termed good.

Please read the 2nd comment (Yair's) for places outside the Torah proper (that is, the 5 books of Moses) that reference God as good.

In fact, the only place I could find where God actually claims goodness for himself (rather than having it ascribed to him by mortals) is in the New Testament. The verse is repeated in each of the Gospels; here's one place.

17 As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’

18Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.

-Mark 10:18

(Perhaps Christians, then, are justified in saying that if God is not good, there is no God.)

The Old Testament God is described as possessing 13 Attributes of Mercy (incidentally, for those of you reading the translation, hesed is generally translated as kindness, not goodness), but they describe just that- God's merciful side. To whom does He show mercy? Well, that is implied, but not clearly stated. The verse itself does not state that only penitents are the recipients of this mercy.

Thus it seems to me that the following reasoning, for example, is faulty:

1. God made a law that forbids men to lie with one another in the way that they would lie with a woman.

2. This law causes much suffering for people who are homosexual. Potentially, they suffer, are humiliated, hurt, ostracized and cannot have a sexually fulfilling life, or if they do, are sinners.

3. A just or good God could not make such a law.

4. Therefore, God does not exist.

The problem lies with clause three, "A just or good God could not make such a law." Aside from the question of whether what we see as good or humane is truly good (as in, perhaps a just and good God could make such a law; he is simply not just or good by our contemporary standards), one has to wonder, who determined that God was good? Suppose that we agree with you that a just or good God could not make such a law, but a cruel God could. That cruel God can still exist; he simply does not fit the rosy picture one would like to have of God.

Of course, in such a scenario, one could, while still believing in God, argue that it is morally impermissible to serve such a God, that is, that a cruel God does not deserve one's dedication or worship. And perhaps one would be justified in arguing this. But this still does not negate God's existence.

Thus, it seems to me that saying that God does not exist because of the problem of theodicy is untenable. To claim that God does not exist due to other reasons, whether they be admittedly emotional, historical, scientific, etc, might perhaps be logical. But how can one claim that "there's so much bad stuff going on in the world- there can't be a God?"

Now, since I very much doubt that it's possible for me to have demonstrated a flaw in an argument that so many people use as to why there is no God, I'm really curious as to what the answer is. How does it flow from the statement that "good things happen to bad people" that God can't exist? Or is it simply that claiming theodicy as the reason that God can't exist is an irrational emotional argument, rather than a rational one?

In Memoriam (Virginia Tech)

Please stop by the YU Students Stand with Virginia Tech blog. The comments section helps me. It shows that people care.

Formerly, I had written this post (about us, hatred, Columbine and Elliot Aronson's book), and had thought it would be true. I have always been impressed by his book, Nobody Left to Hate. Its aim was to teach compassion after Columbine, to prevent such a tragedy from occurring again. Its aim was also to avoid what the media is doing right now- attempting to paint the killer in vivid, sensational tones, to see him as a black evil creature who should have been sniffed out from the first day he entered that school. I watch the media circus and I think about how right Aronson was.

It's worth quoting him again:

...this book is about creating an atmosphere in which there is nobody left to hate. It is intended to provide parents and teachers with the tools to make schools more humane and more compassionate places, without sacrificing the basic academic material students are supposed to learn. There is nothing mutually exclusive about learning biology, literature, and calculus while also learning important human values. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that the one will enhance the other.

I haven't allowed myself to think about what happened at Virginia Tech, to really think about it. And I'm not going to do so. Because I'm not at home, where it's safe to break down and cry; I'm in a room with three other people who would be concerned if I did that. And I don't want to cry in front of them; it's not safe. So I don't think. I block it out. I don't think about the fact that these were people just like me, just my age, who were gunned down by a person who wasn't necessarily evil, but an outcast. An outcast who viewed the world as hating him, and who hated back, who was ill. Then again, perhaps he was evil. But evil is a very strong word.

In Memoriam (Virginia Tech) 1

And so falls the burning leaf,
to call them from out of God's world.
Abandoned here, I do despair;
the world is dark and made nightmare.
They have all gone into the world of light!
So I cry, but don't believe,
and then impassioned, angrily,
I take on death, so cold, unclean.
Death, be not proud; you have not claimed
these shining lights all for your own.
For death is wedding, even strewn
with crimson petals softly flown
to light upon their pearly cheeks,
to grant the solace that they seek.

Abraham the Renovator: Polytheism as an Advanced Culture

Rabbi Soloveitchik has a quote where he says that he loves innovators, creative individuals, people who have a new sense of vision and forge new paths. He cites Abraham as an example. (If you know the source of the quote, please tell me. I can't find it, and I've spent too much time looking.)

I'm reading a fascinating book by Adin Steinsaltz called Biblical Images. Rabbi Steinsaltz provides us with quick sketches of biblical figures, allowing us insight into their characters and personalities. The book is very well-done, because it's clear, short and concise, and presumably of interest to people of all affiliations. His chapter on Abraham was particularly interesting, if only because it quite upsets my established idea of Abraham the Innovator. Steinsaltz explains:

A rereading of the Bible text is enough to show that there is no mention of Abraham's role as a great prophet bringing to the world the belief in a single God.

[...]

Monotheism is not a higher stage of some process of growth following on a lower stage of polytheism. Monotheism is itself primary and basic; it has been the dominant mode of worship from as far back as human memory goes. All the other modes of religious faith came after it, and not before. For this truth, the scriptural text itself, though it does not say so in precisely this fashion, is the chief evidence. And like Maimonides and other Jewish stages, modern scholarship, especially in the field of anthropology, tends to question whether polytheism, even in its primitive forms such as fetishism or voodoo, is not a degeneration of primary monotheistic cults (13).

Polytheism is described as follows. It is the development:

from the unity to the multiplicity. In other words, from simple monotheism- the direct faith in something not specific or clearly oriented (which is perhaps like the faith of a child)- to a complex faith, derived from the endeavor to isolate certain things and subjects.
[...]

Polytheism is thus a complicated and sophisticated system of worship springing from the need to establish a "rational" and direct contact with the Divine. Instead of trying to communicate with a basic supreme essence, polytheism believes in the possibility of usefulness of intermediaries, such as specific gods or a set of semidivine forces (15).

He then explains Abraham's role within this culture.

This intellectual world of polytheistic religion- with all its sophistication and corruption- was the world in which the patriarch Abraham lived. He did not emerge from a pastoral world of wandering shepherds, uncouth and unlearned. He came from great cities, centers of culture and hubs of commerce. In these cities, there were banks and letters of credit, as in our own day, even if documents were written on bricks of clay. A world of elaborate civilization, already ancient and worldlywise in its own way: Ur of the Chaldees, Babylon, Egypt...It was a polytheistic, idolatrous urbanity, the height of an ancient culture, representing the most advanced ideas and the most refined concepts in science, art and philosophy.

And in this world, the "modern" world of the ancient past, Abraham found himself believing in a single God. It was not a new discovery on his part; on the contrary, it was a reaffirmation of a very old truth, one that had almost been forgotten and was probably considered by his contemporaries as barbaric and primitive. Abraham was thus not an innovator but an ultraconservative, like someone belonging to a cult of ancient origin. On the other hand, Abraham did represent something very new: he was a prophet in that he called for a renewal of faith, a return (almost a repentance) to the divine Oneness. He tried to restore the faith of a distant past; but his contemporaries probably saw him as a crude and rather old-fashioned preacher (17).

That's a wonderful interpretation of Abraham. I have always liked the idea of Abraham as an Innovator, discovering God and forging a new path. But it is just as important if not more important to realize that someone who believes in the old ways, a Renovator, can be just as inspiring a figure. We may not always need to discover new things. Sometimes, we may simply have to cling to our supposedly foolish beliefs and ideas, even if they run quite counter to the contemporary, civilized society of the time. For sometimes, you see, those beliefs, even though they seem outdated, foolish and primitive- are true.

Citizen Kane and Gail Wynand

Citizen Kane is Gail Wynand with a different motive.

Kane wishes to find something to fill the emptiness, to be loved for himself; Wynand wishes to bring himself up and out of Hell's Kitchen, to show the world what he has become, that he has power even though once they ordered him around.

This makes the two of them very different men. It's the similarities that are so compelling, though, and it's those that I want to discuss.

From Gail Wynand in The Fountainhead, page 617:

"All this power I wanted, reached and never used...Now they'll see what I can do. I'll force them to recognize him as he should be recognized. I'll give him the fame he deserves. Public opinion? Public opinion is what I make it."

Compare to Kane:

Emily: Really Charles, people will think-...
Charles Foster Kane: - -what I tell them to think.

Kane is constantly fighting losing battles. He is threatened and he refuses to back down; he prefers to face scandal, certain that he can order people to think of him as he wishes, sway public opinion as he chooses. The same is true of his relationship with his wife. He has her sing in the opera, even though she has a terrible voice, and forces her to keep singing- why?

KANE (angrily) That's when you've got to fight them. That's when you've got to make them. That's -

Susan's head turns and she looks at him silently with pathetic eyes.

KANE I'm sorry. (he leans over to pat her hand) You won't have to fight them anymore. (he smiles a little) It's their loss.

Kane doesn't believe in giving up. He believes he has the power, the money and the ability to make the public do exactly what he wants. If the public refuses to listen, he becomes angry; he views this as a fight and he means to fight to the death. He believes that he can win.

Do you know why he loved her to begin with? Because she loved him for himself. Not for his glitter or gaudy fame, but for himself. She didn't even know who he was. It's that pure emotion, the love for him and not all that his money can buy, that he's seeking. At the same time, he has the drive to control people, to rule them and make them think as he thinks. He doesn't truly realize that he cannot do this, he cannot force people to love him, to think as he thinks, cannot bribe them into submission, until Susan leaves him.

I can't do this to you!
(she looks at him)
Oh, yes I can.

Wynand, alternatively, comes to the realization on his own, when he realizes that he has to betray Howard Roark. Wynand always saw himself as powerful, dictating what others thought, said and did. In truth, however, they controlled him.

Speeding in the subways under your feet. Crawling up in elevators through vertical cracks around you. Jolting past you in every bus. Your masters, Gail Wynand. There is a net- longer than the cables that coil through the walls of this city, larger than the mesh of pipes that carry water, gas and refuse- there is another hidden net around you; it is strapped to you, and the wires lead to every hand in the city. They jerked the wires and you moved. You were a ruler of men. You held a leash. A leash is only a rope with a noose at both ends.
~The Fountainhead, 691

Poor, poor Gail Wynand! He was not born to be a second-hander. But then again, neither was Kane. The difference? One chose this, the other had it inflicted upon him.

Roark looked at him and realized that he had said all the things he had tried not to say to Wynand. He answered:

"That you weren't born to be a second-hander."

Wynand smiled. He heard the sentence- and nothing else.

Afterward, when Wynand had gone below to his cabin, Roark remained alone on the deck. He stood at the rail, staring out at the ocean, at nothing.

He thought: I haven't mentioned to him the worst second-hander of all- the man who goes after power.

~The Fountainhead, 636

Compare this to Kane, who knows what he is and that it is not what he was meant for:

Charles Foster Kane: You know, Mr. Bernstein, if I hadn't been very rich, I might have been a really great man.
Thatcher: Don't you think you are?
Charles Foster Kane: I think I did pretty well under the circumstances.
Thatcher: What would you like to have been?
Charles Foster Kane: Everything you hate.

So, there's the one who craves love while simultaneously wishing to be other than he is, but taking on his role because it is the only one that is left to him. Then there's the other who believes that he has gained the power he so desperately wanted, and can save all those he loves. Both are crushed, both defeated, but Wynand's defeat comes about because he does care; he cares about Roark. Kane's defeat is because he does not care, for anyone or anything, except for a past which he cannot regain.

Who is the more to be pitied? They both suffer. Kane loses his wife's innocent love (she's more like Katie than Dominique, however) and alienates Leland (a cowardly version of Roark.) I think, however, that it may be Kane, for while Wynand loses his crusade and hence realizes that he has lived a worthless life, at least he has been able to know and love Dominique and Roark. Kane has no such comfort.

It's interesting that Citizen Kane came out in 1941 and The Fountainhead came out in 1943. I don't think Rand stole the idea from Kane; it simply occurs to me that this must have been an idea that resonated with the people of the time. Kane, I see, is based on real-life figures and personalities; Wynand is described in Rand's notes as "a man who rules the mob only as long as he says what the mob wants him to say. What happens when he tries to say what he wants. A man who could have been." He's more symbolic than real.

Both characters build themselves palaces- but Xanadu is a tomb, whereas the Wynand Building is a testimony to Roark's spirit. Kane is destroyed; Wynand immortalized. Yes, it is Kane more than Wynand who is to be pitied. Kane was destroyed by others; Wynand destroyed himself. Like, Satan, it occurs to me.

they themselves ordain'd thir fall.
The first sort by thir own suggestion fell,
Self-tempted, self-deprav'd: Man falls deceiv'd
By the other first: Man therefore shall find grace,
The other none: in Mercy and Justice both,
Through Heav'n and Earth, so shall my glorie excel,
But Mercy first and last shall brightest shine.

(Paradise Lost, Book 3)

Satan and the angels were self-tempted, self-depraved. Man, on the other hand, "falls deceiv'd" and therefore shall find grace. Wynand, too, freely chose to grapple for power; he is self-tempted, self-depraved. Kane, however, was sold into his lot by his mother, who was laboring under the misconception that she was helping him. He did not pursue wealth; he was given it. He "falls deceiv'd." He lashes out, is cruel and unkind and acts almost like a dictator, but all this stems from the fact that he cannot love and is not loved. It is worse because once he could command this love; his newspaper dictated what others thought. Now it is not so...and he confines himself to gloomy Xanadu, there to die, wishing for the past.

God, I love my teachers

God, I love my teachers.

How do I love them? Let me count the ways.

This morning, Rabbi Mordechai Cohen began class by talking about the terrible events that happened at Virginia Tech. Always soft-spoken and sweet, Rabbi Cohen says something along the lines of, "I don't know if any of your other teachers have addressed this, but..." and proceeds to discuss the value of human life, the way in which it is imperative for us to think about what has happened, and to some extent, to learn if we can, and realize how precious our lives are. The entire time I am mesmerized, simply because I finally seem to have chanced upon a teacher who feels, a teacher who cares, not exclusively about Jews but about humans on a whole. A teacher who thought it necessary to discuss this with the class.

That was my first class.

My last class was Bio Lab. Professor Aimee Luers just spent forty-five minutes to an hour, going overtime, in order to explain the fetal pig to me. See, I can't memorize. If someone shows me what looks like odd bulging vessels and random white cords, I can't suddenly attribute names to these things. I need to understand. I need to know where one organ is in relation to another; I need to see that this cord connects to that bodily structure while that one doesn't.

Knowing that, Professor Aimee Luers had the patience, tolerance and kindness to sit with me and to go over every single structure I need to know for my final, explaining the Latin names where it would help me understand better and helping me realize the distinctions and differences between various veins and arteries. I feel empowered. See, we had extra time- we finished the lab early, at 6:15 maybe, but class goes till 6:40. So from 6:15 till about 6:55 she sat with me and patiently taught me everything, mapping out the body alongside me, intuitively knowing that I needed to take notes and write down what I saw. When I guiltily looked at the clock at 6:40, she said, "Don't worry. Go on."

This is an observant, caring, kind, helpful, funny, entertaining, clever woman. I am so lucky to have her as a teacher.

The two of them made my day. May they be blessed, and blessed, and thrice blessed!

The False Zionist

My friend quoted something to me that Rabbi Riskin said in the name of the Rav:

"Religious Zionism is a compound noun. One cannot be religious without being a Zionist, and one cannot be a Zionist without being religious. If you are not a Zionist, something is lacking in your religion."

I've been thinking about this subject for a long time. I know something to which I'd rather not admit: I'm not, as much as I wish to be, a true Zionist.

Oh, I am from a very detached perspective. I believe in the absolute good that is the creation of the State of Israel. I read about the people who fought and gave their lives for its creation and I am moved. Every time I hear HaTikvah, I think of my grandfather, whose very life was devoted and dedicated to the state in a way that I can only envy. I think of the words on his lips, and how much meaning they had.

I envy him, but it is difficult to envy something I can't understand...

However, if Love of Zion is expressed by living in the Holy Land, striking roots there, loving its soil and desiring its stones, sharing in the burdens of the community under siege, and being totally committed to the destiny of the Holy City of Jerusalem, then my uncle was a true lover of Zion. He refused to leave the Holy City even when the enemy besieged its gates. He totally rejected all proposals to emigrate to safe cities outside the Land of Israel. This true love of Zion found its total fulfillment and realization as a "Man of Halakhah" who was in theological opposition to the State of Israel and separated himself from its ideology. He was the true lover of Zion, and not the Jew who lives comfortably in New York or Los Angeles and regularly flies back and forth between the United States and Israel.

~Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, The World of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, page 115

Rabbi Soloveitchik has the most interesting insight regarding the love of Israel in my generation as opposed to other generations:

East European Jews were transfixed by the mere reference to the State of Israel. These Jews had always been stateless. They never really felt an inner commitment to the lands in which they resided. They were constantly subjected to persecution and hardship in these countries. Therefore they were enchanted by the very mention of a Jewish state. However, the Jew born in the United States is totally at home in his country. He is an integral part of America and benefits from completely equal rights and unlimited opportunities. The American Jew is not captivated by the mere concept of a Jewish state.

~Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, The World of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, page 98

He concludes by stating that the only motivating factor "which can inspire the American Jew toward Israel is the religious bond."

I've read excerpts from Orot and it is clear how much R' Kook felt for the land. His passion for it is beautifully rendered, sanctified and distilled into an essence of holiness.

So why can't I feel it? Why doesn't it press upon me?

Perhaps because I have not spent enough time there. Yes, that is possible- that with more exposure I could come to love the land more. But I didn't feel it- this sense of connection, of homecoming, of connecting- when I did come. I admired the beauty and the history and how lovely everything was, and in a strong way I saw it as being mine in that I was a Jew, I possessed it in a way that was different than if I had been touring some other foreign country, but I still didn't feel...connected, I suppose. I do not have the passion, the desire, the love for the land.

Every word was filled with endless longing for the Land which is saturated by divine light and radiant energy. Yes, my uncle possessed deep love for the Land, although he opposed the State of Israel. Many American Zionists are committed to the State of Israel, but they are totally unwilling to dwell there. The mere thought of aliyah engenders within them a sense of dread and distress. Who is more preferable- my uncle or these American Zionists? (Soloveitchik, 115)

Obviously his uncle is far more preferable...and obviously any weak Zionism I claim is very flawed- but why is that? It's not my parents. My father loves the land; in another life he would be living there at this very moment. My mother, too, loves the land; she too would live there if she could. So why do I balk and rebel, why can't I feel this love and desire, why don't I see this place as my home, why do I not feel any connection?

I went to the Kotel. I pressed my cheek against the wall; I placed my hand upon its surface. I felt nothing, nothing! Here, where so many others have cried, this place that the soldiers fought to win...and I come and I do not feel any connection to it. Of course, I am wrong to think that I suddenly ought to feel some kind of magical connection; it comes from within. But why do I seem so spiritually dead, so unmoved? Why don't I want to make aliya?

Well, the simplest reason is that the thought terrifies me (as Rabbi Soloveitchik correctly states.) Take me from everything and everyone I know and place me in a completely different land, and you expect me to flourish? But I like America and I like my house and its buildings and most of all, I like the fact that everyone speaks blessed, blessed English. I've long given up on my ability to ever master Hebrew, and it is maddening to have to try to express yourself in the language when you know quite well exactly what you'd like to say in English, and in twenty different ways, no less.

I like my books and I like my teachers and I like my life. I'm spoiled and I'm privileged, but I don't feel guilty about it, I accept it as my due. How can you expect me to move to a land where the English books are in short supply, and my friend can't find the continuation to the fantasy series she's trying to read? This is what I find important...perhaps I should not, perhaps it's flawed, perhaps it's wrong, but it's true. Is it a sin to want to read my books?

So what ought I to do? Move to a land out of a sense of obligation and hate it? That can't be the ideal. No, the ideal would be to cultivate what these other people have, this sense of love and a fierce desire to protect, this true, deep and abiding love of the land. I don't see how to do it, and I don't really think it's something that can be conveyed with words; you can give me all the rational reasons in the world and I'll still not feel as I should.

This is particularly disturbing when I encounter someone who is a completely secularized Jew but who flames with his love of the land, who tries to spend as much time as possible living and working there, who attends large rallies with his parents (and they give money generously), who has looked into all kinds of Zionist organizations to join...why does he have this love, but I don't? I'm jealous of him, yes, jealous.

Am I taking the easy way out if I say that I feel as though I were meant to live in America? Surely God would not give me a gift for words and then state that I am not meant to use it? Am I a sinner if I can really only learn English and manage Biblical Hebrew, but find Modern Hebrew torturous? Do I really have to move to a country where I would feel so out of place, so unable to be me, so much less than who I am in order to prove a love that I do not feel? Am I a traitor if I don't? Am I turning my back on God?

And why, why, why don't I feel this love that others do?

His Dark Materials

His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman is incorrectly marketed as a trilogy for teenagers or young adults. I must have been thirteen the first time I tried to read this series, and I broke my teeth on it. I was frustrated, irritated, dismissed the books as pointless and idiotic, but most of all, I knew that I did not understand them. I was missing something fundamental and it upset me. So I put the books away, as though not seeing them meant that they did not exist.

It was only recently, upon reading Milton's Paradise Lost in class, that Pullman's trilogy shot to the forefront of my mind. This was because I had just read the lines:

He took the golden Compasses, prepar'd [ 225 ]
In Gods Eternal store, to circumscribe
This Universe, and all created things:
(Book 7)

Can it be? I thought, and soon realized that the titles for The Amber Spyglass and the trilogy as a whole, His Dark Materials, were also taken from Paradise Lost. At this point, I figured that I ought to attempt to read the trilogy again.

I did this and was shocked by the utter grandeur, scope and magnificence of the trilogy Pullman created. This work is utterly original, very different from other types of fantasy, a mixture of science, religion, philosophy and fiction that is utterly incomprehensible to anyone who has not read Paradise Lost. Some children can read it, certainly, and perhaps they'll understand it on its most basic level, but there's quite a lot that will be lost on them, so they ought to read it again.

His Dark Materials focuses most particularly upon the discovery of certain subatomic particles throughout the parallel universes. The particles have been named Dust, Shadows and the like, but are most commonly referred to as Dust. Scientists and theologians have noticed that Dust congregates much more strongly around adults, while children do not appear to attract it until the onset of puberty. The Church has determined that Dust is actually the presence of Original Sin, and believes that the reason the particles do not congregate around children is because children remain pure and innocent until puberty, at which time they begin to lust and engage in other sins. In the world of one of the trilogy's protagonists, Lyra, this leads to the creation of the General Oblation Board (G.O.B.) whose members are termed Gobblers. Lyra's world allows for the physical manifestation of the soul, named daemon. During childhood, the daemon assumes many forms (animals/ birds) and settles into a specific form upon the onset of puberty. The Gobblers, hoping to save the children from the curse of Original Sin, perform a surgery in which they sever the bond between child and daemon, thus not allowing the daemon to influence the child's thoughts upon puberty. The child is then soulless and heartbroken, wounded, sometimes unto death. Needless to say, this is extremely cruel and utterly unwarranted. Mrs. Coulter, Lyra's mother, is a member of the General Oblation Board.

Lord Asriel, Lyra's father, claims to be disgusted by the idea that God (or The Authority, as he is termed throughout the books) showers Dust as Original Sin upon all beings. He believes God to be a tyrant, cruel and unfair. He decides to make war upon the Authority, telling Mrs. Coulter (his former wife) that he wishes to free the people and destroy Dust forever. In truth, however, he wishes to serve the Dust (he believes it to be a good thing) and destroy the Authority. He makes a portal to another world (a parallel universe) and begins to mount a very Tower of Babelesque campaign against God.

Lyra herself is in the unique position of being an exceptional liar who is blessed with the ability to read the altheiometer (the golden compass) which only tells the truth. She meets up with Will (from another world) who acquires the subtle knife (it is the only knife that can cut through the fabric of the other worlds/ parallel universes) and the two of them together aid in the revolt against God by freeing the spirits of the dead from the terrible place in which they reside- neither hell nor heaven, simply terrible nothingness. Lyra and Will have been assigned the parts of Eve and Adam. Lyra will be tempted and will fall, but this is a good thing. The Dust gathers around beings who have become aware of their consciousness; it is the process of thought, understanding and realizing one's true identity that attracts it. Far from being bad, Dust is actually good.

Pullman's trilogy is far more sophisticated than my quick synopsis implies. There are witches, armored bears, daemons, shamans, physicists and all manner of beings who come into play. No one is wholly good or bad but human, utterly human. Mrs. Coulter, one of the most evil characters in fantasy, still feels a deep measure of affection and love for her daughter. Lord Asriel, on the other side of things, kills a young boy (severing his connection with his daemon) in order to acquire the power to create a portal between worlds. Although he wishes to do something good (kill the Authority, that is, God), do the ends justify the means?

Also, biblical theology has been changed in this new conception of the worlds. God is actually an Angel who has lied and claimed that he created all beings, when in truth he did not. Eve's fall does not lie so much in the fact that she disobeys the explicit command of God not to eat the fruit, but what eating that fruit implies (for the Church, at least)- the fulfillment of sexual desire, lust and pleasure. When Lyra reenacts Eve's choice, she is choosing a deep, committed and pure love (with sexual undertones.) That is her "sin."

The most fascinating and subtle aspect of Pullman's work is the way in which he utilizes the Bible while simultaneously critiquing it (or at least, any authoritarian and overly ascetic approach towards it.) Lord Asriel's campaign against the Authority begins with his building a tower against God, very Babelesque. Angels are described as lusting after flesh, and Pullman makes specific reference to the nephilim, the fallen angels who lay with the daughters of men. Taking that idea further, he offers the tremendous idea that angels are actually jealous of humans because humans possess a beautiful, firm flesh while angels are transluscent, beings of light. This, of course, suggests that humans are superior to angels.

One scene in particular that amply illustrates what I mean when I refer to Biblical references:

There was a sudden lull, and everyone stood still, astonished at this crazy behaviour. The bear himself, who had been gathering his strength to charge the gunners, stayed where he was, but every line of his body trembled with ferocity. His great claws dug into the ground, and his black eyes glowed with rage under the iron helmet.

"What are you? What do you want?" he roared in English, since Will had spoken in that language.

The people watching looked at one another in bewilderment, and those who could understand translated for the others.

"I’ll fight you, in single combat," cried Will, "and if you give way, then the fighting has to stop."

The bear didn’t move. As for the people, as soon as they understood what Will was saying, they shouted and jeered and hooted with mocking laughter. But not for long, because Will turned to face the crowd, and stood cold-eyed, contained, and perfectly still, until the laughter stopped. He could feel the blackbird-Balthamos trembling on his shoulder.

When the people were silent, he called out, "If I make the bear give way, you must agree to sell them fuel. Then they’ll go on along the river and leave you alone. You must agree. If you don’t, they’ll destroy all of you."

He knew that the huge bear was only a few yards behind him, but he didn’t turn; he watched the townspeople talking, gesticulating, arguing, and after a minute, a voice called, "Boy! Make the bear agree!"

Will turned back. He swallowed hard and took a deep breath and called:

"Bear! You must agree. If you give way to me, the fighting has to stop, and you can buy fuel and go peacefully up the river."

"Impossible," roared the bear. "It would be shameful to fight you. You are as weak as an oyster out of its shell. I cannot fight you."

"I agree," said Will, and every scrap of his attention was now focused on this great ferocious being in front of him. "It’s not a fair contest at all. You have all that armour, and I have none. You could take off my head with one sweep of your paw. Make it fairer, then. Give me one piece of your armour, any one you like. Your helmet, for example. Then we’ll be better matched, and it’ll be no shame to fight me."

With a snarl that expressed hatred, rage, scorn, the bear reached up with a great claw and unhooked the chain that held his helmet in place.

And now there was a deep hush over the whole waterfront. No one spoke — no one moved. They could tell that something was happening such as they’d never seen before, and they couldn’t tell what it was. The only sound now was the splashing of the river against the wooden pilings, the beat of the ship’s engine, and the restless crying of seagulls overhead; and then the great clang as the bear hurled his helmet down at Will’s feet.

Will put his rucksack down, and hoisted the helmet up on its end. He could barely lift it. It consisted of a single sheet of iron, dark and dented, with eye-holes on top and a massive chain underneath. It was as long as Will’s forearm, and as thick as his thumb.

"So this is your armour," he said. "Well, it doesn’t look very strong to me. I don’t know if I can trust it. Let me see."

And he took the knife from the rucksack and rested the edge against the front of the helmet, and sliced off a corner as if he were cutting butter.

"That’s what I thought," he said, and cut another and another, reducing the massive thing to a pile of fragments in less than a minute. He stood up and held out a handful.

"That was your armour," he said, and dropped the pieces with a clatter on to the rest at his feet, "and this is my knife. And since your helmet was no good to me, I’ll have to fight without it. Are you ready, bear? I think we’re well matched. I could take off your head with one sweep of my knife, after all."

Utter stillness. The bear’s black eyes glowed like pitch, and Will felt a drop of sweat trickle down his spine.

Then the bear’s head moved. He shook it and took a step backwards.

"Too strong a weapon," he said. "I can’t fight that. Boy, you win."

-The Amber Spyglass, Chapter 8

That, of course, is a reworking of the famous David and Goliath encounter, with the one difference that rather than killing Goliath, Will ensures his victory by a practical demonstration (and later ends up befriending the bear.) Even the idea of Will's theoretically needing armor is biblically expressed (Saul offers David armor, after all.)

There's a lot of this kind of thing in the books- reworked biblical scenes, ideas or references. Those are utterly fascinating and highly ironic given the idea behind the work- throwing down the unlawful, totalitarian regime of the Authority, and most specifically his regent, Metatron. Pullman's main idea, especially in the reenactment of the Adam and Eve scene, is that life is meant to be lived with delight and joy, which allows for passion as well, and making these feelings into a sin (as apparently the Church does) is very wrong.

The trilogy ends on an incredible, tragic note, the kind of ending that leaves the reader with a poignant sort of ache. So as not to ruin it for you I won't tell you exactly what happens; I'll only explain that it fulfills the Tolkien ideal of sacrifice as expressed by Frodo:

So I thought too, once. But I have been too deeply hurt, Sam. I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: someone has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them. (The Return of the King)

Pullman's trilogy is utterly magnificent, astonishing and brilliant.

And a sidenote- any author who writes something like this has to hold a place in my heart:

I have stolen ideas from every book I have ever read. My principle in researching for a novel is "Read like a butterfly, write like a bee," and if this story contains any honey, it is entirely because of the quality of the nectar I found in the work of better writers. But there are three debts that need acknowlegement above all the rest. One is to the essay "On the Marionette Theater," by Heinrich von Kleist, which I first read in translation by Idris Parry in The Time Literary Supplement in 1978. The second is to John Milton's Paradise Lost. The third is to the works of William Blake.

All glory to the man who admits whence his glory came.

Wow!

The JIBS are here!

(Calvin= Unnominated J-blogger)
The JIBS are here!

Here are the categories for which I qualify:

Best Student/ Student Life Blog
Best Live Event Coverage Post (See here.)
Best Small Blog

If you'd like, you can nominate me.

Whether you do or not, many thanks to all you guys. It's just not as much fun without the audience. You're an integral part, you see. Who'd be Calvin's buddy if he didn't have Hobbes?

Trembling before God

Tonight I watched Trembling before God.

Trembling before God is a documentary that addresses the issue of homosexuality within the Orthodox/ Charedi community and lightly touches upon how it is dealt with in the Modern Orthodox community. It succeeds in sensitizing its audience to the plight and pain of those who are homosexuals and struggle to remain otherwise observant Jews, but it is also revolutionary in its promotion of acceptance and support for homosexuality in halakhic Judaism rather than mere tolerance.

The part that really tore me up inside was Israel Fishman's monologue.

There was no reason in the world- the way I was treated by my family was a very abusive

Why? Because you were different than them?

That was only my- they may have sensed that I was different at a very early age, but even when I was- I was very observant when I was a youngster, five, six, seven, eight- I was a very good yeshiva bochur, I was much better than my brother, I know I live in my faith. I don’t know what that faith is, I don’t know what God is, I certainly know it’s not the God that tells me I shouldn’t do this, I shouldn’t do that; I’m not the God who stimulated that yeshiva bochur when I was in Ner Yisroel when I was fifteen years old to get me to confess that I had masturbated, that I had sex with my brother, and made me swear to Him that I would never do it again and drove me twelve weeks later to suicide and drove me to a mental hospital and drove me to have electric shock therapy that burnt out my brain. That’s not the God that redeemed Israel out of Egypt; that’s not the God that stood by me. You know, my sister won’t come into the house because I’m gay. Even though they won’t have anything to do with me, I know I live in my emunah. I know I live in my faith. I know and, and, and I come back here to redeem that part of me, the pintele yid that, the she’aris ha’plaita (saving remnant) within me, that part of me that should not have survived, that part of me that my father said, “What do you want? They didn’t make you a bar of soap.” You know, if my father said to me once, “You know, I’m sorry. I’m sorry I hurt you.” I wrote him a letter in 1988 was, I wrote him a letter outlining all the things, and I said, you know, I quoted from the Talmud and whatever and I heard nothing. I also took this same letter and took it to the gravesites of various people and I burnt it and I put it on the water and I did all kinds of mai’asehs and I heard more from the dead than I heard from the living. More from the dead than the living!

Israel Fishman is a distinguished-looking, fascinating man whose eyes blaze when he speaks. He's passionate and outspoken and hurt, and it's the hurt more than anything else that shines through him. He was obviously made to feel very guilty about his sexual desires, and the fact that he had been involved in an incestuous relationship with his brother could only have added to that shame and guilt. It is no wonder that he became ill. Everything he says is deeply moving. He says that he wants his Daddy; he wants to have his relationship with his father back, to have him sit at the Shabbos table with him and simply allow him back into his life. During one painful conversation- it is painful for us to watch- his father explains that he is very busy with "selikhos and work and building the sukkah" so he cannot meet with his son right now. The son asks whether he can meet with his father over Chol Hamoed Sukkos, but the father simply responds by wishing him good health. Fishman states that the father "doesn't hear...he doesn't want to hear."

I also connected to Shlomo Ashkinazy. Well-spoken, ostensibly modern, cleanly dressed, he explained that he had gone to see a prominent Orthodox sage to discuss his homosexuality. The Rabbi had warned him that anal sex was absolutely prohibited by Jewish law. Ashkinazy responded that he did not practice anal sex. The Rabbi was then at a loss as to what gay activity was and Ashkinazy was the one who had to inform him of such practices as hugging, kissing, mutual masturbation, and oral sex. The Rabbi asked him, "Why would a man want to put his shmekey in another man's mouth?" and Ashkinazy responded, using clear medical terms, "Why would a man want to put his penis in a woman's vagina?"

The insinuation there, of course, is that this Rabbi who was so well-versed in halakha and Talmud and is an obviously learned man, was not up-to-date when it came to issues affecting those living in the modern world. It shows this particular Rabbi to a disadvantage, of course, but it is also deeply affecting. It is quite clear, of course, how important it is for religious leaders to be aware of issues like these within their communities, and to be able to address them clearly and responsibly in proper medical terms.

That having been said, the film was balanced, on a whole. The Rabbis who were interviewed came across as compassionate but in a halakhic bind, as they truly are; the Torah says what it says and one cannot, as Rabbi Steven Greenberg suggests, simply reinterpret the verses in question. The Rabbis on a whole explained that they felt compassion toward those who were suffering and realized that these people were in pain, but they were not at liberty to change Torah law. I believe this to be a fair approach.

The only problem with the movie was its focus. There is a difference between understanding the pain and suffering of homosexuals and between claiming that this is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle and that everyone should happily applaud it, a difference between informing Jews that there are indeed homosexuals in the Orthodox community and that they must be treated with love and kindness, as one would treat any Jew, and between passionately supporting them and their lifestyle. There are parts of the extended features that are simply unacceptable when it comes to the halakhic religious approach. Here are two examples.

1. The director of the film explains that Rabbi Steven Greenberg met his partner because of the film's success. He makes a statement that there's an idea that after making 3 shidduchim one goes straight to Olam Haba (the World to Come). "Well, I've got one down, two to go," he says, laughing. Obviously, the intimation is that pairing Rabbi Steven Greenberg up with his male partner was a mitzvah, and that the director might actually be rewarded with a share in the World to Come for this.

2. The film is interspersed with sections that feature silhouettes of people engaging in holy activities-keeping Shabbos, observing the holidays. The director explains that one silhouette, showing a gay couple (male) ushering in the Shabbos is a vision of a "world to come" in which this would be acceptable, and the intimation to me seemed to be, preferable.

The film is extremely successful, however, in bringing the humanity of others to the fore. Homosexuals and lesbians are people, and those who are born into Orthodox or Charedi communities are faced with an extremely difficult choice. One man, David, tried everything from reciting prayers to eating certain foods to flicking a rubberband on his wrist every time he had thoughts about another man and none of it helped him. That having been said, what is his lot in life? To remain celibate, alone, childless, to have friends as his only comfort? Is this really God's wish?

On the other hand, and infinitely more disturbing to me, were the people who, trapped within the confines of the Orthodox community and knowing they would be shunned for admitting that they were gay or lesbian, actually married others and have even raised families- people who have children. There are frank interviews in which one woman, Devorah, explains that she even broached the idea of a "platonic marriage" to her husband, who understandably, was not pleased with the idea. There's another woman who is married and is having an affair with a married woman, is completely Charedi, and who absolutely cannot "come out" to others. The community in which she lives would shun her, might take her kids away from her, hurt her...

Obviously this is not a good situation. People cannot be made to feel inferior and guilty and ashamed of something that is integral to them. Neither can they be made to feel so powerless and trapped that they submit to another's will or society's will for them to marry, as that is (in the situations mentioned in the movie) deeply unsatisfying for them and cruel to their spouse. They must have the ability to speak up without fear of being shunned and hurt. Shuls must open their doors to gay people; they must be retained, be part of the community. There is a difference, however, between tolerance and agreement. The approach that I advocate for is the tolerant approach. This is the approach that states: The Torah states that homosexuality is a sin. We cannot reinterpret the Torah or rationalize it to make it say things it does not say. You are homosexual; that does not make you bad or unworthy or unclean. It means that you are caught in a terrible, painful situation and no one but God can judge your actions. This is not a social sin- you are not hurting me. You are not stealing from me or killing others or kidnapping anybody. This is something you do in the privacy of your home, and perhaps you act on your sexuality and perhaps you do not, but either way, it is not for me to judge, because I am a human and not God. And as a human, I shall treat you as I would treat any other human being, with dignity and respect and kindness. But that does not mean that I necessarily approve or agree or believe in your ideals, and neither is that something that I ought to have to do.

The extra material on the second disc demonstrates a very fair-minded approach in that the director did not shy away from including dissenting opinions, objections, or disappointments. The spokesman for JONAH ,for example, explained that he felt the film had been one-sided in that it had not addressed the topic of change (that homosexuals could become heterosexual.) He felt that the film had actually derided the concept of change and dismissed it as laughable because of its association, in the film, with "eating figs, snapping rubberbands, or electric shock therapy," none of which is helpful.

Rabbi Meir Fund is heard in a phone conversation where he explains that he feels misled- he thought the point of the film was to demonstrate the "pain and anguish" of Jewish homosexuals but instead sees that it had an agenda and has sparked a gay-rights movement within the Jewish community, which he personally believes will fail.

So they were very good about including opinions other than their own, extremely fair-minded, in fact.

The film's ultimate importance for the Orthodox Jewish community is best expressed in a statement by Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, who teaches sex education at Ramaz (or did at the time.)

"...and one of them is the whole issue of how we respond to people who are gay. And I think what I'd like to say to Sandi and Naomi and Steve and everybody else who had anything to do with this film is that, the next group that I have; I will have to speak differently. When the Torah speaks about abomination, it speaks about an act; it doesn't speak about a person."

Parallel Biblical and Midrashic Stories

This post is dedicated to my brothers, as I noticed most of these when learning with them.

1. Nimrod and Pharoah

From Legends of the Jews by Louis Ginzberg (pages 168-169)

Terah married Emtelai, the daughter of Karnabo, and the offspring of their union was Abraham. His birth had been read in the stars by Nimrod, for this impious king was a cunning astrologer, and it was manifest to him that a man would be born in his day who would rise up against him and triumphantly give the lie to his religion. In his terror at the fate foretold him in the stars, he sent for his princes and governors, and asked them to advise him in the matter. They answered, and said: "Our unanimous advice is that thou shouldst build a great house, station a guard at the entrance thereof, and make known in the whole of thy realm that all pregnant women shall repair thither together with their midwives, who are to remain with them when they are delivered. When the days of a woman to be delivered are fulfilled, and the child is born, it shall be the duty of the midwife to kill it, if it be a boy. But if the child be a girl, it shall be kept alive, and the mother shall receive gifts and costly garments, and a herald shall proclaim, 'Thus is done unto the woman who bears a daughter!' "

The king was pleased with this counsel, and he had a proclamation published throughout his whole kingdom, summoning all the architects to build a great house for him, sixty ells high and eighty wide. After it was completed, he issued a second proclamation, summoning all pregnant women thither, and there they were to remain until their confinement. Officers were appointed to take the women to the house, and guards were stationed in it and about it, to prevent the women from escaping thence. He furthermore sent midwives to the house, and commanded them to slay the men children at their mothers' breasts. But if a woman bore a girl, she was to be arrayed in byssus, silk, and embroidered garments, and led forth from the house of detention amid great honors. No less than seventy thousand children were slaughtered thus. Then the angels appeared before God, and spoke, "Seest Thou not what he doth, yon sinner and blasphemer, Nimrod son of Canaarl, who slays so many innocent babes that have done no harm?" God answered, and said: "Ye holy angels, I know it and I see it, for I neither slumber nor sleep. I behold and I know the secret things and the things that are revealed, and ye shall witness what I will do unto this sinner and blasphemer, for I will turn My hand against him to chastise him."

[...]

When her time approached, she left the city in great terror and wandered toward the desert, walking along the edge of a valley, until she happened across a cave. She entered this refuge, and on the next day she was seized with throes, and she gave birth to a son. The whole cave was filled with the light of the child's countenance as with the splendor of the sun, and the mother rejoiced exceedingly. The babe she bore was our father Abraham.

His mother lamented, and said to her son: "Alas that I bore thee at a time when Nimrod is king. For thy sake seventy thousand men children were slaughtered, and I am seized with terror on account of thee, that he hear of thy existence, and slay thee. Better thou shouldst perish here in this cave than my eye should behold thee dead at my breast." She took the garment in which she was clothed, and wrapped it about the boy. Then she abandoned him in the cave, saying, "May the Lord be with thee, may He not fail thee nor forsake thee." (For the full version, see here.)

I'm told to look at footnote 34 for the source regarding this Midrash; it's very long so I'll only cite the beginning. Apparently this story comes from "Ma'aseh Abraham, published by Jellinek in BHM, I, 25-34; this edition, which is rather inaccurate, is taken from Shebet Musar of Elijah ha-Kohen who used a Constantinople edition of this Midrash."

2. Elisha and Jonah

From Kings I 19:

ג וַיַּרְא, וַיָּקָם וַיֵּלֶךְ אֶל-נַפְשׁוֹ, וַיָּבֹא, בְּאֵר שֶׁבַע אֲשֶׁר לִיהוּדָה; וַיַּנַּח אֶת-נַעֲרוֹ, שָׁם.

3 And when he saw that, he arose, and went for his life, and came to Beer-sheba, which belongeth to Judah, and left his servant there.

ד וְהוּא-הָלַךְ בַּמִּדְבָּר, דֶּרֶךְ יוֹם, וַיָּבֹא, וַיֵּשֶׁב תַּחַת רֹתֶם אחת (אֶחָד); וַיִּשְׁאַל אֶת-נַפְשׁוֹ, לָמוּת, וַיֹּאמֶר רַב עַתָּה יְהוָה קַח נַפְשִׁי, כִּי-לֹא-טוֹב אָנֹכִי מֵאֲבֹתָי.

4 But he himself went a day's journey into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a broom-tree; and he requested for himself that he might die; and said: 'It is enough; now, O LORD, take away my life; for I am not better than my fathers.'

Compare to Jonah 4:

וַיְמַן יְהוָה-אֱלֹהִים קִיקָיוֹן וַיַּעַל מֵעַל לְיוֹנָה, לִהְיוֹת צֵל עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ, לְהַצִּיל לוֹ, מֵרָעָתוֹ; וַיִּשְׂמַח יוֹנָה עַל-הַקִּיקָיוֹן, שִׂמְחָה גְדוֹלָה.

6 And the LORD God prepared a gourd, and made it to come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his evil. So Jonah was exceeding glad because of the gourd.

ז וַיְמַן הָאֱלֹהִים תּוֹלַעַת, בַּעֲלוֹת הַשַּׁחַר לַמָּחֳרָת; וַתַּךְ אֶת-הַקִּיקָיוֹן, וַיִּיבָשׁ.

7 But God prepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the gourd, that it withered.

ח וַיְהִי כִּזְרֹחַ הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, וַיְמַן אֱלֹהִים רוּחַ קָדִים חֲרִישִׁית, וַתַּךְ הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ עַל-רֹאשׁ יוֹנָה, וַיִּתְעַלָּף; וַיִּשְׁאַל אֶת-נַפְשׁוֹ, לָמוּת, וַיֹּאמֶר, טוֹב מוֹתִי מֵחַיָּי.

8 And it came to pass, when the sun arose, that God prepared a vehement east wind; and the sun beat upon the head of Jonah, that he fainted, and requested for himself that he might die, and said: 'It is better for me to die than to live.'

3. Achav and Saul

From Kings I 20:

לא וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו, עֲבָדָיו, הִנֵּה-נָא שָׁמַעְנוּ, כִּי מַלְכֵי בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי-מַלְכֵי חֶסֶד הֵם; נָשִׂימָה נָּא שַׂקִּים בְּמָתְנֵינוּ וַחֲבָלִים בְּרֹאשֵׁנוּ, וְנֵצֵא אֶל-מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל--אוּלַי, יְחַיֶּה אֶת-נַפְשֶׁךָ.

31 And his servants said unto him: 'Behold now, we have heard that the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings; let us, we pray thee, put sackcloth on our loins, and ropes upon our heads, and go out to the king of Israel; peradventure he will save thy life.'

לב וַיַּחְגְּרוּ שַׂקִּים בְּמָתְנֵיהֶם וַחֲבָלִים בְּרָאשֵׁיהֶם, וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל-מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיֹּאמְרוּ, עַבְדְּךָ בֶן-הֲדַד אָמַר תְּחִי-נָא נַפְשִׁי; וַיֹּאמֶר הַעוֹדֶנּוּ חַי, אָחִי הוּא.

32 So they girded sackcloth on their loins, and put ropes on their heads, and came to the king of Israel, and said: 'Thy servant Ben-hadad saith: I pray thee, let me live.' And he said: 'Is he yet alive? he is my brother.'

לג וְהָאֲנָשִׁים יְנַחֲשׁוּ וַיְמַהֲרוּ וַיַּחְלְטוּ הֲמִמֶּנּוּ, וַיֹּאמְרוּ אָחִיךָ בֶן-הֲדַד, וַיֹּאמֶר, בֹּאוּ קָחֻהוּ; וַיֵּצֵא אֵלָיו בֶּן-הֲדַד, וַיַּעֲלֵהוּ עַל-הַמֶּרְכָּבָה.

33 Now the men took it for a sign, and hastened to catch it from him; and they said: 'Thy brother Ben-hadad.' Then he said: 'Go ye, bring him.' Then Ben-hadad came forth to him; and he caused him to come up into his chariot.

[...]

מב וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה, יַעַן שִׁלַּחְתָּ אֶת-אִישׁ-חֶרְמִי, מִיָּד--וְהָיְתָה נַפְשְׁךָ תַּחַת נַפְשׁוֹ, וְעַמְּךָ תַּחַת עַמּוֹ.

42 And he said unto him: 'Thus saith the LORD: Because thou hast let go out of thy hand the man whom I had devoted to destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people.'

Compare to the classic story of Saul and Agag in Samuel I 15: 8-35.

4. Nathan and The Unnamed Prophet

From Kings I 2o: 38-42.

לח וַיֵּלֶךְ, הַנָּבִיא, וַיַּעֲמֹד לַמֶּלֶךְ, עַל-הַדָּרֶךְ; וַיִּתְחַפֵּשׂ בָּאֲפֵר, עַל-עֵינָיו.

38 So the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way, and disguised himself with his headband over his eyes.

לט וַיְהִי הַמֶּלֶךְ עֹבֵר, וְהוּא צָעַק אֶל-הַמֶּלֶךְ; וַיֹּאמֶר עַבְדְּךָ יָצָא בְקֶרֶב-הַמִּלְחָמָה, וְהִנֵּה-אִישׁ סָר וַיָּבֵא אֵלַי אִישׁ וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמֹר אֶת-הָאִישׁ הַזֶּה--אִם-הִפָּקֵד יִפָּקֵד, וְהָיְתָה נַפְשְׁךָ תַּחַת נַפְשׁוֹ אוֹ כִכַּר-כֶּסֶף תִּשְׁקוֹל.

39 And as the king passed by, he cried unto the king; and he said: 'Thy servant went out into the midst of the battle; and, behold, a man turned aside, and brought a man unto me, and said: Keep this man; if by any means he be missing, then shall thy life be for his life, or else thou shalt pay a talent of silver.

מ וַיְהִי עַבְדְּךָ, עֹשֵׂה הֵנָּה וָהֵנָּה--וְהוּא אֵינֶנּוּ; וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו מֶלֶךְ-יִשְׂרָאֵל כֵּן מִשְׁפָּטֶךָ, אַתָּה חָרָצְתָּ.

40 And as thy servant was busy here and there, he was gone.' And the king of Israel said unto him: 'So shall thy judgment be; thyself hast decided it.'

מא וַיְמַהֵר--וַיָּסַר אֶת-הָאֲפֵר, מעל (מֵעֲלֵי) עֵינָיו; וַיַּכֵּר אֹתוֹ מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל, כִּי מֵהַנְּבִיאִים הוּא.

41 And he hastened, and took the headband away from his eyes; and the king of Israel discerned him that he was of the prophets.

מב וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה, יַעַן שִׁלַּחְתָּ אֶת-אִישׁ-חֶרְמִי, מִיָּד--וְהָיְתָה נַפְשְׁךָ תַּחַת נַפְשׁוֹ, וְעַמְּךָ תַּחַת עַמּוֹ.

42 And he said unto him: 'Thus saith the LORD: Because thou hast let go out of thy hand the man whom I had devoted to destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people.'

Compare to Samuel II 12, Nasan's mashal/ parable to David, where David also pronounces judgement upon himself unknowingly.

~

The beauty of parallel biblical stories lies in their symmetry, but more importantly, they are invaluable when it comes to characterization. I the reader note two characters within the same situation, see how they react to the same stimulus, and can make judgements about their character traits accordingly. I can also note the differences in language/ technique by each story and wonder whence the difference: the character of the king? The time period? And so on.

The clearest example is that in regard to David and Achav, the recipients of rebuke in a situation where they unwittingly pronounced judgement upon themselves.

Note these two things.

A) The Prophet's Language
B) The King's Response

The Prophet's Language

Nathan the Prophet:

Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel: I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hands of Saul; and I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that were too little, then would I add unto thee so much more. Wherefore hast thou despised the word of the LORD, to do that which is evil in My sight? Uriah the Hittite thou hast smitten with the sword, and his wife thou hast taken to be thy wife, and him thou hast slain with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from thy house; because thou hast despised Me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the LORD: Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

The Unnamed Prophet:

Thus saith the LORD: Because thou hast let go out of thy hand the man whom I had devoted to destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people.

The King's Response

King David:

I have sinned against the LORD

King Achav:

And the king of Israel went to his house sullen and displeased, and came to Samaria.

~

What a difference between the two prophets/ kings, eh? And I didn't even get into the actual way the parables are presented- note that Nasan states that "a man" took the one little ewe, while The Unnamed Prophet states that he personally was responsible for guarding a prisoner of war, following the tradition of Joab's Wise Woman of Tekoa.

Nasan's response to David is lengthy and detailed. Why is that? First, one can suggest that Nasan has a personal relationship to or with the king from before, and hence he is able to speak freely. More importantly, because David is described as being angry on behalf of the poor fellow whose ewe was robbed, it is obvious that his sin was not intentional; he is able to emotionally connect to the plight of the person. For this reason, Nasan's remonstrations will be helpful. Compare this to Achav's very cold response to the man who is understandably hoping for a legal loophole so that he does not have to die. The verse does not ascribe any such emotion to him; he is not sad on behalf of the man; he pronounces judgement with hardly a second glance, "'So shall thy judgment be; thyself hast decided it." Achav has just sentenced this man to death! But he shows no emotion, very unlike David. The prophet removes his disguise and Achav knows him; the prophet decides that only one sentence is necessary because this is all that Achav will have the patience to hear. Achav is doomed. Most important, of course is the response of the kings themselves. David is penitent and confesses that he has sinned. Achav, on the other hand, returns to Shomron angry and unhappy (ah, now he feels emotion- when it is too late! There's something ironic there...), his peace of mind destroyed. He is silent, terse, brooding.

I find the key to both scenarios to be that of empathy. David's nature is such that he is able to feel highly empathetic toward all, even to "a man," not the man who stands in front of him, not Nathan, but a man whom he does not even know, any man, "a" man. David commiserates with him, feels his plight, and feels anger on his behalf. Very much to the other extreme, Achav is cold even when he is faced by a person pleading for his life. Achav feels no sadness, no emotion.

The placement of this scenario with regard to Achav is brilliant, as the very next chapter addresses the results of such a lack of empathy- the story of Navos and the Vineyard. Even though Achav may not have been technically aware of Jezebel's machinations on his behalf, the fact that he coldly "rose up to go down to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, to take possession of it" upon hearing of Navos' death shows that he has learned nothing from his encounter with The Unnamed Prophet. Not a twinge of guilt, a shadow of compassion or sadness upon hearing of the death of a fellow human being, he goes to take possession of the property.

It is only after hearing Elijah's lengthy list of curses (notice the length and detail- similar to Nathan's approach, which is ultimately more successful) that Achav "rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted, and lay in sackcloth, and went softy." One wonders what would have occurred had it been Elijah rather than The Unnamed Prophet who met Achav the first time.

Yeshiva University Event Coverage

It occurred to me that it would be much easier for everyone to read my (usually unofficial) notes from events and lectures at Yeshiva University if everything were organized under one post. I could then update this post whenever I posted new material. I'll also place it in my sidebar for easy access.

So here you go.

LIFE AFTER YU

Hasidic Worlds in Fiction (Judy Brown [Eishes Chayil], Anouk Markovits, 10/15/12)

YUTC

Being Gay in the Orthodox World: A Discussion with Members of the YU Community (Mordechai Levovitz, Avi Kopstick, Jonathan, Joshua, 12/22/09)

REVEL

Introduction to Bible: The Order, Chapters, Text & Vocalization of the Bible (The Adept, 1/21/10)

History of the Jews' Creative Torah-Derived Literature (Elazar Hurvitz, 1/20/10)

The Ultimate Biblical Hebrew Cheatsheet (Semester 1) (Dr. Richard Steiner, Yair Shahak, 1/11/10)

Ibn Ezra & Biblical Criticism: The Secret of the Twelve (The Adept, list of sources in Gottesman here, 11/05/09)

A Brief Introduction To Biblical Criticism & Orthodox Thought (The Adept, 10/28/09)

Teshuva vs. Kappara: Repentance and Atonement In Jewish Intellectual History/ Why Do We Read Jonah On Yom Kippur? (The Adept, 09/24/09)

Biblical Hebrew (Class 1) (08/26/09)

Biblical Narrative: Book of Samuel (Class 1) (08/26/09)

First Day of Revel! (Adele Berlin's 'On The Use of Traditional Jewish Exegesis) (o8/26/09)

Queen of the Revel Castle (Rabbi Mordechai Cohen's Samuel Syllabus) (08/24/09)

GUIDE

My Guide to Stern College for Women (05/24/07)

YU TANAKH

Tanach Yom Iyun 2009, "Exile and Redemption in Tanach and Jewish History," featuring a multitude of speakers. The ones I actually attended were Rabbi Jacob J. Schacter, Dr. Josh Karlip, Dr. Aaron Koller, Dr. Shawn Zelig Aster and Rabbi Yaakov Elman (04/ 26/09)

Tanakh Yom Iyun 2008, "Controversial Figures in Tanakh" featuring a multitude of speakers- the ones I actually attended were Dr. David Pelcovitz, Mrs. Nechama Price, Dr. Shawn Zelig Aster, Rabbi Menachem Leibtag, and Rabbi Shalom Carmy (11/ 02/ 08)

Tanakh Yom Iyun 2008 featuring a multitude of speakers- the ones I actually attended were Rabbi Allen Schwartz, Rabbi Jeremy Wieder, Dr. Lawrence Schiffman, Dr. Mordechai Cohen and Rabbi Menachem Leibtag (o3/ 23/ 08)

TEIQU

Maharat Sara Hurwitz: Can Women Be Rabbis? by Maharat Sara Hurwitz (11/02/09)

Midrash Before Hazal: Why It's Important For Orthodox Jews by Dr. James Kugel (12/11/08)

The Kosher Quandary: Ethics and Kashrut by Rabbi Avi Shafran, Rabbi Menachem Genack, Rabbi Basil Herring and R' Shmuly Yanklowitz (12/09/08)


YU MEDICAL ETHICS SOCIETY
The Human Blueprint: Jewish Perspectives on Modern Genetics (09/18/09) by Dr. Adrienne Asch, Dr. Gil Atzmon, Dr. Edward Burns, Rabbi Kenneth Brander, Madeline Delone, Esq., Shelley Klein, Esq., Matthew Kaplan, Dr. Susan Lobel, Dr. John Loike, Syd Mandelbaum, Dr. Harry Ostrer, Dr. Wayne Rosenkrans, Dr. Berish Rubin, Rabbi Herschel Schachter, Rochelle Shoretz, Esq., Rabbi Dr. Moshe D. Tendler, Rabbi Dr. Richard Weiss and Rabbi Mordechai Willig.

Catching Cancer Before It Catches You: Medical and Halachic Implications of BRCA Gene Testing by Rav Mordechai Willig, Dr. Stanley Waintraub, MD, FACP, Aliza Sara Ricklis (Genetic Counselor), Ann Frisch

The Sanctity of Life: A Jewish Approach to End of Life Challenges by Rabbi Dr. Edward Reichman, Dr. Beth Popp, Dr. Tia Powell, Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler, Rabbi Kenneth Brander, Dr. Alexander Okun, Rabbi Simcha Scholar, Rabbi Mordechai Willig and a host of breakout session speakers (09/14/08)

Split Decision: Separation of Conjoined Twins in Halakha by Dr. Gerard Weinberg, Mr. David Wasserman and Rabbi Daniel Feldman (03/ 18/ 08)

How To Be an Orthodox Jewish Physician in a Secular World by Rabbi Dr. Abraham S. Abraham (12/ 26/ 07)

The Halachik Hero: How Far Must One Go To Save Another's Life? by Rabbi Dr. Edward Reichman and Mr. Jay Feinberg (11/27/07)

Partners in Creation: Fertility, Modern Medicine and Jewish Law by Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks, Rabbi Dr. Edward Reichman, Dr. Richard Grazi, Rabbi Kenneth Brander, Dr. Susan Lobel, Rav Menachem Burshtein, Rav Herschel Schachter & 9 other speakers (10/14/07)

Are you My Mother? Surrogate Motherhood in Jewish Law by Dr. Adrienne Asch and Rabbi Kenneth Brander (04/ 25/ 07)

Nose Job or No Job? Plastic and Cosmetic Surgery in Halacha by Dr. Gary Berger and Rabbi Dr. Richard Weiss (3/ 28/ 07)

Genetic Screening by Rabbi Mordechai Willig (1/ 29/ 07)

Creating in God's Image? Cloning in Jewish Law by Dr. John Loike and Rabbi Moshe Tendler (1/ 24/ 07)

Organ Donation: A Matter of Life and Death by Rabbi Edward Reichman, Adina Raskas, Dr. Stuart Greenstein, Rabbi Mordechai Willig, Rabbi Kenneth Brander, R' Avraham Steinberg, Edward Burns, Dr. Fred Rosner (09/ 11/ 06)


ISRAEL

YU Israel Club: Yom Hazikaron/ Yom Ha'atzmaut Tekes (04/ 23/ 07)

YU Israel Club: Yom Hazikaron (Presentation of "A Hero in Heaven" about Michael Levin, z"l and speech by Phil Blumenfeld about Amichai Merchavia z"l) (04/ 22/ 07)

V'Shavu Banim Speech: Speech from Family of Udi Goldwasser, Kidnapped Israeli Soldier (09/ 19/ 06)

HONORS PROGRAM

History, Truth and Religious Commitment by Rabbi Jacob J. Schacter (3/ 22/ 07)

Texts and Contexts in Terms of Jewish Texts: What's in it for You? by Rabbi Ephraim Kanarfogel (11/ 20/ 06)

MISCELLANEOUS

The Norman Lamm Prize 2010: Presented to Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks (3/16/09) by Chancellor Norman Lamm, Ari Lamm, President Joel & Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks

YU and NCSY Dinner & Discussion (11/19/07) by Rabbi Solomont, Rabbi Burg, President Joel and Rabbi JJ Schacter

The Rav's Vision: The Lonely Man of Faith, a Documentary (2/ 05/ 07)

The Heresy of Intelligent Design by Rabbi Natan Slifkin (08/ 28/ 06)