fbpx

March 6, 2012

Haman’s fall: Diaspora dreams in the Biblical Book of Esther

Even if you’re a serious student of the Bible, you might not know what the Book of Esther is doing there, in the Bible. Don’t worry though, nobody else knows either. Although it tells of near-tragedy, it is written melodramatically, almost as a farce; and it is very hard to read with a straight face. It tells how the exiled Jewish people that had been living peacefully in the Persian Empire were saved by Queen Esther from a genocidal plot designed by an evil minister named Haman. The story and its style are altogether out of keeping with the other texts canonized as the Bible. In fact, God is not mentioned in the Book of Esther even once.

We want to suggest two ways of reading Esther that may help explain its awkwardness and make it more palatable. One focuses on its message, the other on its medium. Before tampering with the book’s message, it should be noted that it forms part of a section of the Scriptures known as the “five scrolls,” the other scrolls being the Books of Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes and Lamentations. There appears to be a common denominator to these books, aside from their being very short:  each of them has a special interest in Diaspora. Together they seem designed to raise questions about the appropriate response to living in the Diaspora.

Diasporas pose the dilemma of relating, at one and the same time, to an often hostile “host” society and to the collective memory of a homeland. The Five Scrolls—separately and together—are an invitation to consider that delicate balance. They offer four generic responses: Return, Remain, Revenge and Take-Over (or Rule).  We call them Diaspora Dreams. One is the desire to return to one’s homeland. A second is the wish to remain in the Diaspora. The third is a determination to take revenge on usurpers of the homeland, or oppressors abroad. The fourth is the ambition to take over, or rule, the place where one finds oneself.

Of the Five Scrolls, Esther fascinates most because it provides particular insight into diasporic Dreams. It contains three of the four dreams, Remain, Revenge, Take-over—completely leaving out the most obvious Diaspora dream: Return. Unquestionably, Remain is the predominant Dream in Esther, along with Revenge and Take-over. It is not hard to guess why stories of defamation, dire threat, and its reversal should appeal to Diaspora Jewish communities. It’s a fantasy of deliverance without—or maybe with—the assistance of a miracle.

Living under a King’s protection has been a pattern of the Jewish Diaspora for centuries and so the story fits all too well. Over the years, there is a long list of tyrants who qualify for the part of Haman. Not all of them begin with the letter H, and not all of them preside over Persia. Some do. But all are doomed to fall. More broadly, Esther’s message is that normalcy, even if abnormally achieved, is a worthy dream.

Yet as noted above, Esther’s narrative and style is anything but normal, at least by biblical standards. Unlike others of the canonic texts, it celebrates its heroes and its villains in carnavalesque style, and sets the mood for the fun and games and occasional debauchery which mark the Purim holiday.  Indeed, the Esther story has been continually performed as a play (purim spiel) in European Jewish history.

In this spirit, we noticed that the verb “to fall” appears in the text, both literally and metaphorically, with seemingly exaggerated frequency, as if to call attention to a hidden message. The preponderance of “Falling” and “bowing” prompted us to search for other gestural or postural verbs in the text, and thus we found numerous other verbs such as “to rise,” “to sit,” “to mount.” Along with “fall,” these other jerky movements—bowing, prostrating, standing, mounting (a horse)—activate the text, giving the Book a vaudevillesque quality. That, in turn, led us to consider another wild possibility, namely, that the Book was originally performed as a puppet play, in which jerky up-and-down movements on the vertical axis are the dominant pattern.

This possibly preposterous suggestion would explain why Esther is so different in its literary style from the other books of Bible—an observation posed on top—and so fitting to be performed as a Purim Spiel. For it was integrated into the bible as the script of puppet show or a play—not of the dreams of a prophet or the musings of a sage.

But extending the notion of Esther as puppet show may also explain a crucial component of the meaning of Diaspora and the nature of its dreams. God, we noted on top, is conspicuously absent from the book of Esther. But should the story of Esther indeed be the script of a puppet show, that absence would actually be an overwhelming behind-the-scene presence: God would be the puppeteer.

In biblical thought, God dwells in his city, in his temple. With the exile of his people from that Temple and city, God too, in kabalistic thought, goes into exile. Once the Jews are in Diaspora, God is no longer present in the material world, and the “shchina” goes into exile (“gallut ha-shchina”). The deity of the Diaspora is the puppeteer pulling the strings, but never visible. The Diaspora dream of Remain is expecting God to bring redemption from behind, or rather above, the lively scene.

Haman’s fall: Diaspora dreams in the Biblical Book of Esther Read More »

Israelis perceive few bluffs in Netanyahu’s Iran speech at AIPAC

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s uncompromising AIPAC speech in Washington has persuaded the public back home that war with Iran is increasingly possible.

Netanyahu evoked the horrors of the Holocaust, quoting a 1944 letter where the United States rejected a request by Jewish leaders to bomb the Nazi death camp, Auschwitz. His message was clear: Israel cannot rely on others to defend its people.

“As prime minister of Israel, I will never let my people live in the shadow of annihilation,” he told the influential pro-Israel lobby AIPAC on Monday after meeting President Barack Obama. “We have waited for diplomacy to work, we have waited for sanctions to work. We cannot afford to wait much longer.”

The words resonated in Israel, with analysts, commentators and former military officers seeing a distinct sharpening of tone towards Tehran, which itself has called for the destruction of the state of Israel.

“The pistol isn’t only loaded, but the safety catch has been released,” Uzi Dayan, a former general and national security adviser, told Israel Radio.

Israel is adamant it will not let Iran build an atomic bomb and has been pushing Washington to pile pressure on Tehran to force it to abandon its nuclear program. The Jewish state is believed to be the only nuclear power in the region.

Iran says its program is for civilian purposes, but few in the West believe this, with the European Union and United States applying increasingly severe economic sanctions to force Tehran to halt its uranium enrichment drive and return to talks.

Israeli experts, including Dayan, say sanctions will only work if there is a credible military threat behind them. This has led skeptics to believe that the accompanying rhetoric is just for show, but the language has reached such a peak that Netanyahu will lose all credibility at home if it proves to be hot air. “Netanyahu sounds like a man whose mind is made up,” columnist David Horovitz wrote on his TimesOfIsrael website.

DIFFERENT LANGUAGE

President Obama has appealed for sanctions to be given more time and although Washington agrees with Israel that it is unacceptable for Iran to get a nuclear weapon, the terminology used by Obama and Netanyahu this week was different.

While Obama talked of preventing Iran from “obtaining” a bomb, Netanyahu spoke about preventing it from “developing” one.

Officials say this means Israel wants to see Iran deprived of the various jigsaw pieces needed when manufacturing a bomb. Washington, by contrast, would only move if it saw Tehran actively trying to put the pieces together.

“We want Iran to be stripped of the capability, to drop the military nuclear program altogether,” said one Israeli security official, who declined to be named.

The Israeli position flows from the so-called “Begin Doctrine,” enshrined by former prime minister Menachem Begin in 1981 after his air force destroyed an Iraqi reactor that Israel believed would produce plutonium for warheads.

The raid, he said at the time, was proof his country would “under no circumstances allow the enemy to develop weapons of mass-destruction against our people.

Monday’s speech represented Netanyahu’s clearest endorsement of this doctrine since taking office in 2009, but critics said he still had to convince a skeptical public of the need for war.

“Today’s Israel does not subscribe to this,” said Uri Dromi, a spokesman for former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, adding that the war of words from both Israel and Iran reminded him of the build up to World War One, when Europe stumbled into mayhem.

“He is preparing us for war, but I am not sure we are ready for it. It is not a smart game. It is a gamble,” he said.

An opinion poll published last week said just 19 percent of Israelis thought their nation should attack Iran, even if they did not first get the support of Washington.

Many Israelis fret the country is not prepared for conflict, with analysts predicting it could be hit with a barrage of missiles from Iran and its allies, such as Hizbollah in Lebanon.

Curiously, just hours after Netanyahu spoke, Israel’s Civil Defense Minister Matan Vilnai issued a message via SMS.

“Israel has the operational capability of intercepting missiles coming at it from any place on earth… Today every citizen knows the requirement to be prepared for any emergency situation in the best possible way.”

Additional reporting by Dan Williams and Allyn Fisher-Ilan; editing by Janet McBride

Israelis perceive few bluffs in Netanyahu’s Iran speech at AIPAC Read More »

Obama: ‘Premature’ strike on Iran would have consequences for U.S.

A premature Israeli strike on Iran would have consequences for the United States, President Barack Obama said.

“Israel is a sovereign nation that has to make its own decisions about how best to preserve its security,” Obama said Tuesday in a press conference.

But, he added: “This is not just an issue of Israeli interests, it is an issue of American interests. It is not just an issue of consequences for Israel if action is taken prematurely, there are consequences for the United States as well.”

He cited economic repercussions, as well as the potential cost to the lives of U.S. troops in the region.

Obama was responding to a reporter’s question at a press conference that was schedueld to discuss housing policy.

Obama’s remarks came a day after a long meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that sought to coordinate Iran policy. At Tuesday’s press conference, Obama said that he had given “unvarnished advice” to Netanyahu during their meeting.

Obama said at the press conference that the idea that a decision to strike Iran must be made within two months “is not borne out by the facts,” explaining that there was still a window of opportunity to stem Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program through diplomacy.

Reports have said that Israel may be contemplating a strike as early as the spring, and Israeli leaders have said that the country has until the autumn to launch a strike that could cripple Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program.

Obama has stressed that all options are on the table for dealing with Iran. On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta offered an explicit warning of possible military action.

“Military action is the last alternative when all else fails,” Panetta said, addressing the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “But make no mistake, if all else fails, we will act.”

Obama: ‘Premature’ strike on Iran would have consequences for U.S. Read More »

GOP candidates target Obama at AIPAC

Republican candidates addressing AIPAC’s policy conference focused their addresses on what they said were the Obama administration’s failures to head off a nuclear Iran.

Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, Rick Santorum the former Pennsylvania senator and Newt Gingrich, the former U.S. House of Representatives speaker, each spoke Tuesday morning to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee annual conference.

They depicted Obama as reluctant to use sanctions and as naïve in his dealings with the Islamic Republic.

“I will bring the current policy of procrastination to an end,” said Romney, who said Obama opposed congressional sanctions approved last year.

The White House backed and helped shape the sanctions, but, like its predecessors, sought presidential waivers as a means of preserving executive branch prerogatives.

Santorum said differences between the U.S. and Israel over what should trigger a strike on Iran was emboldening that regime.

“There is a clear and unfortunate and tragic disconnect between how the leaders of Israel and of the United States view the exigency of this situation,” he said.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who opened Tuesday’s proceedings with the traditional endorsement of a senator of AIPAC’s legislative package, said such attacks on Obama undermined Israel’s cause.

“We do a disservice to the security of our nation and of Israel if we sit calm to those who would use Israel to divide us for partisan gain,” he said.

Obama, at a press conference later, accused the candidates of treating the prospect of war with “casualness.“

“Those folks don’t have a lot of responsibilities, they’re not commander in chief,” he said. “When I see the casuallness with which some of these folks talk about war, I’m reminded of the costs.”

Romney and Gingrich, who were campaigning in the “Super Tuesday” primaries across 10 states, addressed the conference via satellite. Santorum came in person, a fact he noted at the start of his address. AIPAC did not invited Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who has advocated against U.S. aid to Israel.

GOP candidates target Obama at AIPAC Read More »

Panetta: U.S. will act on Iran if all else fails

The United States will act against Iran if all efforts to end its suspected nuclear weapons program fail, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said.

“Military action is the last alternative when all else fails,” he said Tuesday, the last day of the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “But make no mistake, if all else fails, we will act.”

Panetta’s pledge was the most explicit by an Obama administration official warning of military action.

Panetta spoke after he and President Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a bid to coordinate strategy on Iran.

The talks ended with disagreements still in place over how soon Iran’s reported advances would merit a strike.

Panetta pleaded for close cooperation with Israel.

“The United States must always have the unshakeable trust of our ally Israel,” he said. “We are stronger when we act as one.”

He underscored the U.S. commitment to keeping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

“No greater threat exists to the security of Israel, to the entire region, and indeed to the United States than a nuclear-armed Iran,” he said.

Panetta: U.S. will act on Iran if all else fails Read More »

Wonderland

This past November, the world chose the new Seven Wonders of the World. The Dead Sea, located in Israel, was a leading nominee throughout the voting period, but eventually came 14th place.  Israel is well known for its geographic location, and thus for its military and political actions. Sometimes I think this is the only reason people know of our existence. Honestly, this is a shame, for Israel is the one of the most unique places on earth, and a very small percentage of the world population is aware of it. Israel is mostly perceived as this teeny-tiny piece of land that for some odd reason people are fighting for.  I heard of a research that was held a couple of years ago. Those who were behind it gathered a group of people of many nationalities and opinions, and asked them to describe an Israeli home.  “The man of the house opens the door. The wife and kids are not allowed to leave the house, because it is dangerous outside,” they said. To the question: what color is most common in this environment? The common answer was: grey. The house and its environment are made of concrete. There are only cities. Barely forests. The society was described as very old fashioned and non-modern and the landscape was described as boring.  When I heard about this research, the only word that came to mind was: really?!

Israel is the most fascinating place on earth! Where else can you find such a small piece of land with so many different landscapes?  Within only 22,072 square kilometers (about 1/7 of Geogria’s territory) one can find various kinds of landscapes that cannot be found all together in any other country in the world. We have deserts, and one snowy mountain. We have three very different types of settlements (City, Moshav and Kibbutz). There are beaches and craters. There are mountains and valleys, archaeological findings and nightclubs.  Where else can you find simply everything? So many sceneries, so many unique views.  We have the most unique combination between the holy and the secular. Between silence and voices. Between old and new.

The world may see Israel as a grey, boring place. Where blood is spilled in vain and where it is not safe to leave the house.  Many people choose not to visit Israel because of that.
I go outside every day. Once a month I go on a trip, mostly up north. A one hour drives for some green, city-free air. This monthly trip is my way of relaxation. One or two days where I take a break from everything, but still a phone call and an hour drive away from home. When I feel like getting a tan, I pick up my friends, and we drive for 20 minutes to the closest beach.  When I feel like shopping ‘till I drop, I drive to Eilat for the weekend. A six hour drive for shopping without having to pay taxes. When I feel like connecting to my religion, I drive for 45 minutes to Jerusalem.
When It’s too cold outside- I drive to Yehuda desert. When it’s too hot outside- I drive to the snowy Mount. Hermon.

But sometimes I don’t feel like going anywhere. I sit at home, reading an article about the new Seven Wonders of the World, and think to myself: There’s no place like home…   

Wonderland Read More »

Jewish Education – Teaching Emotional Intelligence

For centuries there has been an ongoing debate as to where ethics are grounded as universal attributes in the human condition. The philosopher Immanuel Kant grounded ethics in reason, whereas David Hume looked toward emotions such as sympathy, empathy, and compassion. Today, neuroimaging may offer a new way to resolve this issue.

Brain scans reveal that when participants are engaged in moral reasoning, there is significant activation in areas crucial to emotional processing (a circuit running from the frontal lobes to the limbic system). This supports the argument of researcher Martin Hoffman that the roots of morality are located in empathy. Thus, people learn to follow certain moral principles when they can put themselves in another’s place. These findings also bolster the ideas of educational reformer John Dewey, who taught that lessons are best learned by students when taught not via abstract lessons, but through real life events where emotional literacy is acquired.

If we know that emotional development is a key part of moral development, then why is Jewish education so cognitive-based? We teach for text mastery, intellectual reasoning skills, and memorization (all of which are important), but too often leave aside the cultivation of empathy, understanding of shame, actualization of mercy, and control of anger.

Teaching prayer, Torah study, and ritual performance should all embrace a pedagogical approach that is sure to lead to cognitive and emotional development. But even more, it is through volunteerism that the necessary altruistic virtues are cultivated. More than just leaving our students and children in a two-hour chesed project to fulfil menial tasks, we must be sure that the right emotional experience is cultivated. Since most of our emotional lives exist beneath the surface of the conscious mind, we must engage in deliberate processing conversations to make sense of our feelings before, during, and after crucial activities. We must ensure that service-learning projects aren’t merely about task completion but also that they further the cultivation of compassion and empathy among other emotional virtues.

Rav Kook made the case for how intellect is deficient without emotion and the dangers of neglecting emotional cultivation: “Man cannot live with intellect alone, nor with emotion alone; intellect and emotion must forever be joined together. If he wishes to burst beyond his own level, he will lose his ability to feel, and his flaws and deficiencies will be myriad despite the strength of his intellect. And needless to say, if he sinks into unmitigated emotion, he will fall to the depths of foolishness, which leads to all weakness and sin. Only the quality of equilibrium, which balances intellect with emotion, can deliver him completely” (Scholem, Devarim be-Go, 326-327). Rav Kook emphatically stressed the importance of emotions in education.

As Ecclesiastes teaches, there is “a time to weep and a time to laugh. A time to wail and a time to dance” (3:2-8). To live fully, we must embrace it all. In A Theory of Emotions. Rabbi Soloveitchik made the case for the importance of the totality of emotional experience in religious life: “Judaism has insisted upon the integrity and wholeness of the table of emotions, leading like a spectrum from joy, sympathy, and humility (the conjunctive feelings) to anger, sadness and anguish (the disjunctive emotions). Absolutization of one feeling at the expense of others, or the granting of unconditioned centrality to certain emotions while denoting others to a peripheral status, may have damaging complications for the religious development of the personality.”

While all emotions must be tended to in moral development, the emotional choices we make are crucial. In a lecture on “Morals and Education,” Donald Winnicott shows how many religious systems of morality actually harm development. His primary example is the overemphasis on sin and shame over love and trust. Education of the emotions must not only be deliberate, but also carefully measured.

When we properly cultivate compassion, we promote good citizenship. When we give space to reflect upon anger, we teach self-control. When we start conversations about fear and shame, we foster humility and self-awareness. When we talk about personal suffering and loss, we inculcate empathy and care. When students are asked to cultivate moral imagination, the most complex emotions can be actualized.

Modern neuroscience teaches us that many moral decisions we make bypass the prefrontal cortex (the rational brain), creating instinctive patterns of behaviour. It is crucial that parents and teachers educate children holistically to produce an ethical personality. These are not mere thought experiments. The Greeks used drama to teach emotions, the Jews used real-life experience. We must expose our children to life, “the real world” of poverty, suffering, and struggle, and foster the necessary concomitant emotions of sympathy, empathy, compassion, and love. Through this we can actualize our full service in this world: “b’chol levavecha” to man and G-d.


Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz is the Founder & President of Uri L’Tzedek, the Senior Jewish Educator at UCLA Hillel and a 5th year PhD candidate at Columbia University in Moral Psychology & Epistemology. Rav Shmuly’s book “Jewish Ethics & Social Justice: A Guide for the 21st Century” is now available for pre-order on Amazon.

Jewish Education – Teaching Emotional Intelligence Read More »

Bill would raise marriage age in Israel

A bill raising the legal age for marriage in Israel from 17 to 18 passed the Knesset plenum in a preliminary vote.

The vote Tuesday was 38-8, with one abstention. Knesset member Yariv Levin of the Likud Party introduced the bill, which still must pass three readings in the Knesset.

Bedouin and haredi Orthodox women marry at young ages, and often do not finish high school or continue on to higher education.

“This is a historical step that will fix an injustice done to minors, mostly females, who marry young,” Ynet quoted Levin as saying. “Should the bill pass, it will save thousands of young women from being forced into marriage, poverty and domestic violence, and give them an equal opportunity to start their lives as they wish.”

Bill would raise marriage age in Israel Read More »