"The Fewest of All Peoples"

 

“The LORD did not set His love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people--for ye were the fewest of all peoples,” Devarim 7:7.

This verse, as the Torah cites, states that one of the reasons, if not the main one, as to why G-d elected Am Yisrael, gave them the Torah and declared them to be to be His “first born son,” which in Biblical times bore great significance, especially in matters of inheritance.  In a way, it is our smallness, so it seems, that has defined our essence.

In addition to providing the reason for choosing Am Yisrael, the verse is also a prediction, a form of prophecy. Judging by Jewish history, our tiny size is how it has always been and how, so it seems, it was always meant to be, and I doubt that there is a person who would not recognize the reality that Jews are indeed but a small sliver of humanity, a mere speck among the nations.

Before anyone jumps at me and claims that such “choseness” implies some kind of elitism, a religious or “racial superiority” (Mordechai M. Kaplan, Judaism as a Civilization), let me suggest that nothing could be further from the truth. Such an assertion would go against any of the highest ethical values and ideals prescribed by the Torah, which, according to tradition, is the word of G-d. Furthermore, lest some feel superior and conclude that since Yisrael was singled out, others were rejected, the prophet Amos, in an effort to curtail such arrogance, declared, “Concerning the whole family that I brought up from the land of Egypt: You alone have I singled out of all the families of the earth—That is why I will call you to account for all your inequities,” (Amos 3:2).

In my last article, I mentioned the Midrash which explains that G-d peddled the Torah among other nations that existed at that time. As the Midrash further states, they all refused. When He reached Am Yisrael, they responded unanimously, “we shall abide, and we shall listen,” (Shemot 24:3).

Israel Zangvill explains the matter of “choseness” most aptly. According to him, “It is not so much a matter of the chosen People as the choosing People.” This suggests a process of reciprocity. There are strings attached to the “choseness.”

The most important one is invariably linked to a telos, more precisely, a spiritual vocation.

According to Yehezkel Kaufmann, the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah perceived G-d’s choice of Am Yisrael as a means to a final end. The choice, which includes Torah, Shabbat, Mitzvot, sanctity of Life and service to G-d is for the purpose of teaching monotheism, removing idolatry, suppressing human arrogance, ending wars, violence, greed lust and building a better world for all humanity. This is clearly expressed in the directive mentioned in Vayikra (Leviticus) 19:2, “You shall be holy, for I the Lord, your G-d, am holy.” Prior to that, in Shemot 19:2, G-d instructs Moshe to speak to Am Yisrael and tell them: “you shall be to me a kingdom of priests.”

Our wise sages interpreted these two verses to mean, “You must consider yourselves part of the King’s retinue and emulate Him. Just as He is compassionate and merciful, so shall you be.” [Sifra (ed. Weiss), p. 86b]. This is the core of reciprocal holiness. Piety and becoming “G-d - like” requires the chosen to engage in imitatio dei.

Another reason for our minuteness being such an important factor in defining our Divine role rests in the message delivered by the annals of history.

Being so small in numbers, our Jewish People should have, according to laws of logic, history, and nature, disappeared either through persecution or assimilation. Our ongoing presence is a miracle. The fact that we have not only survived all the harsh onslaughts, past and present, but that we have also thrived, impacted, and contributed to world civilization is a living testimony to the existence of G-d and His Divine promise to Jews, in particular, and mankind, in general.

Shavua tov, Am Yisrael and a wonderful week to all.

The Ten Commandments

 

A bird’s eye view of the Torah will reveal to us that there are two sets of the Ten Commandments. One can be found in the Book of Shemot (Exodus), chapter 20, rendering the original version delivered by G-d to Moshe. The other, in the Book of Devarim (Deuteronomy), chapter 5, is where Moshe reviews the Torah and stresses its centrality and the centrality of the Ten Commandments in the life of Am Yisrael.

A closer look at the two texts will show some differences between their versions.

It is important to note that these differences are not merely semantical. Some have very practical implications. For instance, in the Book of Shemot, it states, “Remember the Shabbat.” In Devarim, however, we are required to keep, to observe the Shabbat and abstain from performing certain chores and tasks which may interfere with our rest, the main goal of Shabbat.

Likewise, the tenth commandment, in Shemot, instructs us not to “covet” that which is not ours and not engage in any act to obtain it. In Devarim, Moshe adds the word “desire,” which in addition forbids us from even, covertly, entertaining the thought.

Naturally, one may ask, if Moshe closely and accurately repeats the words of G-d, how did these differences emerge?

Some of them have specific explanations such as the well-known explanation of Chaza”l which states “remember and observe were required in one commandment.” (Babylonian Talmud, Shavuot Tractate, Leaf C, Page B). According to Chaza”l, at Mount Sinai, G-d said both words, miraculously, at once. Chaza”l further add that in documenting the Commandments in the Torah, one of each was selected each time.

Another explanation is given in the Midrash where it states that the two versions are in accordance with the two sets of the tablets that were given to Am Yisrael. The one appearing in Shemot is the one written on the original tablets which Moshe shattered after the sin of the Golden Calf, whereas the one in Devarim is the one carved on the second set given to Moshe when he went back to Mount Sinai to ask forgiveness for Am Yisrael.

Several years ago, I wrote an article where I suggested that the Torah and the Ten Commandments are a manual which is composed of two parts. One part is that which contains the Mitzvot for Am Yisrael only. The other is the moral code it preaches which is both for Am Yisrael and the world.

There is a Midrash that supports my assertion. That Midrash tells us that prior to Mount Sinai, G-d offered the Torah to all nations, and they rejected it, until He reached Am Yisrael who embraced it. On that basis, one may surmise that the original account of the Ten Commandments, in the Book of Shemot, was created for non-Jewish recipients, the nations to whom G-d proposed the Torah first, while the Devarim version was meant for Am Yisrael and Jews only.

This might explain why in Shemot, the commandment regarding Shabbat is to “remember” the Shabbat and in Deuteronomy, the requirement is to “observe” it. Additionally, in the Book of Shemot, the reason given for the requirement to remember the Shabbat is the creation of the world in six days whereas in Devarim, comes, instead, the story of the Exodus from Egypt which is pertinent to Am Yisrael only.

Another reason for the difference, I believe, lies with the fact that forty years have passed between the two versions. During that time, Am Yisrael which started its desert journey as former slaves, has matured, and possibly also become riper and readier to internalize G-d’s message and lesson. Moshe, the great teacher must have grasped it. He probably recognized that the lesson taught on Mount Sinai needed to be processed, and certain parts of it, perhaps, needed stressing, more than other ones, and, thus, edited some of the commandments in order to help facilitate the implementation and execution of the Mitzvot.

Whatever the reason for the differences between the two mentioned versions, one fact remains clear. Moshe understood that any lesson, especially one as important as that of the Torah, needs to be repeated and reinstructed or else no learning will be accomplished.

Shabbat Shalom to you, fellow Jews and Am Yisrael and a meaningful weekend to all

 

Usurpation

 

Dear friends,

While writing this article, I was debating with myself, wondering how, in a world overflowing with Political Correctness, it might be perceived. I felt, however, that my message needed to be shared.
I turned to my dear friend, Roger Froikin, who not only backed me on that but also helped by providing some historical perspective to the issue along with some facts in support of my argument.
Thank you Roger!

Those of you who know me are probably already aware of two principles or fundamentals that are the pillars of fire which guide me along my life’s path. The first, an axiom as far as I am concerned, the undeniable and innate right of Freedom of Choice be it religious, idealistic, economic, sexual or any other forasmuch as it does not encroach or infringe on that of others.

The second one, one I have voiced, on more than one occasion, is my stance against appropriation or usurpation (and thank you, Linda Olmert, for teaching me this term) of that which is unique and dear to one group or another such as flags or other distinctive emblems. I have expressed my displeasure with those who usurp symbols that define us as Jews and are ours only. I have quoted my dear friend Mohammad Kabiya, a Yisraeli Arab who expresses similar views when pro-Palestinian westerner activists, who have no personal or familial connections to the Arab world, wear a Kafiyah, a unique symbol to the Arabic culture, while advocating their cause.

Today, these two principles solidified when I realized that the LGTB flag not only uses the colours of the rainbow, but they also appear on it in the same order. I grasped it while looking at some baby outfits that had this image printed on them. While I saw the LGTB flag in that image, others perceived it as the impression of a rainbow.

On the one hand, as I stated above, under Freedom of Choice the LTGB movement has, just like any other group or faction, a right to define itself and practice its preferences. Like any other group, it has the right to select symbols or colours that it believes delineate its beliefs and are unique to it.

On the other hand, though, just as words have meaning that is best kept clear so we can better understand one another today and across generations, symbols – flags, religious items, or objects to which we have assigned meaning, need to convey that meaning clearly, to communicate their original intent for today and across time as well.

And herein is where my dilemma rests.

The Rainbow of colours, universally, across cultures and across time, has stood for hope, new beginnings, and promise. Already in the Torah, in the story of Noah, the rainbow was selected to signify a fresh start, a new era, and an optimistic outlook for a better future for humanity.

In the USA, at one point, Jesse Jackson adopted the rainbow symbol for his organization. His purpose was to indicate and convey hope in a nation of peoples of all colours and backgrounds as sort of an expression of the American “E Pluribus Unum” (one from many), the motto proposed by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, for the Great American Seal of the United States by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson in 1776, suggesting that everyone was equal and part of one new nation.

More recently, I feel, the image of the rainbow has been usurped, yet again, not to be that symbol of hope for all, nor that symbol of diversity in union that Jesse Jackson promoted. It has become a politicized symbol of one group’s agenda,  a tool for political propaganda to which dissent is disallowed.  

I do not mind that the LGTB movement selected the same hues as those of the rainbow. They are bright, beautiful, and cheerful.  The rainbow is a widespread symbol which belongs to each member of humanity.  It should not, in my view, be exclusively associated as the symbol of one specific group or another, and surely not used as a political statement on a child's clothing.  This, I feel, is a usurpation at its purest forms.

Unfortunately, these days, we are witnessing similar trends and efforts to wipe away history and replace it with ideology. Words are changed in meaning. Symbols are discarded or reassigned for political purposes, all in the name of dogma and creed.  Communication is hampered, not facilitated, across generations.  Lenin spoke of doing this in the interests of socialism.  Mao went further saying that the past is gone.  The Taliban blew up statues they claimed were offensive, destroying ancient artifacts, and banning history and literature and even education for girls.  

The rainbow, a universal, and Biblical symbol of hope that belongs to every one of us should not be allowed to be reduced to a political game.

What next, then?  Can or should we expect that the next fashionable movement which comes along to play on the emotions of people will, likewise, use the rainbow, a motif that is, undeniably, affiliated with and belongs to us all, for its own purposes?