Purim 5779 - Haman's Ancient Motive

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Vizkopa Confessor - by Ryan Pancoast

Purim 5779 - Haman's Ancient Motive

The Question

Mordechai's refusal to bow down to Haman is one of the pivotal events of Megilas Esther. Were it not for Mordechai's decision and Haman's reaction, the fate of the Jews would have played out quite differently. Let's review the incident in the pesukim at the beginning of Chapter 3:

(1) After these things King Achashveirosh promoted Haman son of Hamedasa the Agagite and elevated him; he set his seat above all the officers who were with him. (2) All the king's servants at the king's gate would bow down and prostrate themselves before Haman, for so had the king commanded concerning him. But Mordechai would not bow and would not prostrate himself. (3) So the king's servants who were at the king's gate said to Mordechai, "Why do you disobey the king's command?" (4) Now it happened when they said this to him day after day and he did not heed them, they told Haman, to see whether Mordechai's words would prevail, for he had told them that he was a Jew. (5) When Haman, himself, saw that Mordechai did not bow down and prostrate himself before him, Haman was filled with wrath. (6) [However,] it was despicable in his eyes to send [his] hand against Mordechai alone, for they had told him the people of Mordechai. So Haman sought to destroy all the Jews, who were throughout the entire kingdom of Achashveirosh - the people of Mordechai.

I've always considered Haman's reaction to be rather extreme. Yes, Haman was egotistical, and Mordechai's flagrant disrespect would have undoubtedly dealt a blow to his ego, but was he really motivated to wipe out ALL Jews simply because this one Jew refused to bow down? This stretches credulity and makes Haman seem more like a Disney villain than an actual human being with real human motives.

That's the question I'd like to take up in this blog post: What was it about Mordechai's refusal to bow that motivated Haman to annihilate all Jews?

The answer begins way earlier than we might think ...

The Targum's Answer

Those who know me are aware that I tend to prioritize pshat over drash. It is for this reason that I love Targum Onkelos, the authoritative Aramaic translation of the Chumash, whom I consider to be the most "minimalistic" commentary. Unfortunately, there is no Targum Onkelos on Megilas Esther. Instead, we have a different Targum - one that freely weaves drash into the pshat. The authenticity of this Targum and its incorporated midrashim is vouched for by none other than Rav Hai Gaon, who wrote: "Here in Bavel there are several Targums of Esther which differ from one another. One has many additions and midrashim, and the other has none" (L. Ginzberg (ed.), Ginzei Schechter 86). All citations of the Targum in this blog post refer to the former. My love of Targum in general is what led me to explore this midrashic Targum, despite the differences from my usual preferred commentaries, and that exploration led me to a new answer to our question.

Before we take a look at the Targum's "translation" (quotation marks are necessary because his midrashic embellishment makes it more of a commentary than an actual translation), let's review the original pasuk which talks about Haman's reaction:

[However,] it was despicable in his eyes to send [his] hand against Mordechai alone, for they had told him the people of Mordechai. So Haman sought to destroy all the Jews, who were throughout the entire kingdom of Achashveirosh - the people of Mordechai.

Compare that to the Targum:

[However,] it was despicable before him to send his hand to kill Mordechai alone, because they informed him that Mordechai descended from Yaakov, who took the birthright and the blessing from Eisav - the ancestor (lit. "grandfather") of Haman -  and the Jews are the people of Mordechai, and Haman sought to destroy all of the Jews who were throughout the entire kingdom of Achashveirosh - the people of Mordechai. 

According to the Targum, Haman sought to avenge Eisav, his ancestor, by annihilating the descendants of Yaakov, who "stole" Eisav's birthright and blessing. That is why Haman wasn't content with sending forth his hand against Mordechai alone. To him, this wasn't about Mordechai. It was about all the descendants of Yaakov.

The Targum follows this theory consistently throughout his "translation" of the Megilah. For example, Chapter 4 recounts the dialogue between Mordechai and Esther, via Hasach (a.k.a. Daniel, according to the midrash, as accepted by the Targum). The pasuk reads:

(9) Hasach came and told Esther the words of Mordechai. (10) Then Esther told Hasach, and ordered him [to return] to Mordechai, [saying]: (11) "All the king's servants and the people of the king's provinces know that any man or woman who approaches the king in the inner court etc.

Check out how the Targum "translates" the seemingly content-free Esther 4:10:

(10) Esther told Hasach to go and speak to Mordechai, and commanded him regarding the matter of Mordechai [saying] that he should not incite the conflict with Haman regarding the grudge [Haman] held between Yaakov and Eisav.

Esther 5:1 tells of Esther's appearance before the king. The Targum inserts a lengthy prayer that Esther recited before she made her entrance. Her prayer concludes with the following request:

Have mercy on Your people, and do not give over the descendants of Yaakov into the hands of Haman son of Hamdasa son of Ada son of Biznai son of Aflitus son of Dyosos son of Peros son of Chamdan son of Talyon son of Asnisomus son of Charum son of Charsum son of Shegar son of Genar son of Parmashta son of Vayzasa son of Agag son of Sumkar son of Amalek son of Eliphaz son of the wicked Eisav.

According to the Targum, Esther viewed the entire conflict between Mordechai and Haman as a conflict between the descendants of Yaakov and the descendants of Eisav. The Targum even goes so far as to trace Haman's genealogy past Agag, where the megilah itself stops, all the way back to Eisav. (Parenthetically, this genealogy appears to be literal from Haman to Agag, but not from Agag to Amalek, since the latter two were separated by over 500 years.)

That, so far as I can tell, is all the material that the Targum gave us to work with. However, if we take the Targum's lead, I believe we can expand upon his theory, and in doing so, attain a deeper understanding of Haman's motives.

Support for the Targum's Claim

According to the Targum, Haman was enraged by the fact that Yaakov took the birthright and the blessing from his ancestor, Eisav. On the surface, this might sound like an outrageously unrealistic (and stereotypically midrashic) claim - but if we think about it, it's not as far-fetched as it initially appears. 

Haman was the descendant of Agag. Though some take this non-literally, it would appear from the detailed genealogy cited above that the Targum took it at face value. He maintained that Agag, the king of Amalek, was the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather of Haman. We know what happened with Agag. Over 500 years prior to the events of Purim, Shaul the Benjaminite waged war with Agag the Amalekite, and even though Shaul erred by having pity on Agag himself, he did kill all of Agag's people (i.e. his extended tribal family). This episode most certainly bequeathed to Agag's descendants a legacy of anti-Jewish hatred - particularly, against the offspring of Binyamin.

And Agag, himself, was the bearer of a legacy of anti-Jewish animosity on account of the war between Bnei Yisrael and Amalek that occurred shortly after Yetzias Mitzrayim (the Exodus from Egypt), which took place several hundred years before the battle between Shaul and Agag. Bnei Yisrael were on their way to receive the Torah at Sinai when they were ambushed from behind by the nation of Amalek, who, undeterred by the display of Divine might in Egypt, nevertheless set its heart on the total annihilation of Israel. There, too, Amalek was decimated to the brink of extinction, and driven back into the hills from whence they came. 

And what motivated the nation of Amalek to attack Bnei Yisrael so soon after Yetzias Mitzrayim? According to a midrash in Yalkut Shimoni (Parashas Chukas), it was none other than the desire to avenge Eisav, their ancestor - the same yearning for vengeance that the Targum ascribes to Haman. The midrash expresses this in the form of a dialogue between Eisav and the nation of Amalek:

Eisav said to Amalek: "O how much I have toiled to kill Yaakov, and he has not been given over into my hands! Apply yourself to take revenge on my behalf!" Amalek said to Eisav: "How will I be able to vanquish him?" He replied: "Let this mesorah (oral tradition) be in your hand: when you see [Yaakov's descendants] stumble [in sin,] pounce upon them!"

The midrash then goes on to enumerate several instances in which Amalek utilized this strategy. But we see from here that there was a living mesorah, passed down from Eisav to Amalek, charging the latter with the mission of taking revenge for the "theft" of the birthright and the blessing. Indeed, the Ralbag (end of Beshalach) explains that this is the reason why Amalek chose to strike Bnei Yisrael at this point in time:

The Amalekites were the descendants of Eisav, and knew about the matter of the blessings - that Yitzchak blessed Yaakov, thereby making the descendants of Eisav servants to the descendants of Yaakov. 

It was also known [to Amalek] what Yitzchak said to Eisav in his blessing to him, that "[he] will live by [his] sword," and that when the circumstances were such that [Eisav] had the upper hand, it would be possible for him to cast off the yoke of the descendants of Yaakov from upon his neck. 

Thus, Amalek strategically went to war with Israel at a time when they were naturally poised to defeat Israel, for the descendants of Eisav were successful in matters of the sword and warfare, as Yitzchak blessed them, and Bnei Yisrael had a lowly psychological disposition at that time, and were not trained in warfare, and - based on [Amalek's] knowledge - they were in the wilderness without bread and food, and were tired and weary. For this reason, [Amalek] hastened to do this to them (i.e. to ambush them) before Israel reached its success, which would result in the descendants of Eisav becoming servants to them.

According to the Ralbag - who, generally speaking, tries to avoid midrashim and sticks to the pshat - the mesorah of Yitzchak's blessings to Yaakov and Eisv was alive and well in the nation of Amalek. They may not have been God-fearing, but they certainly believed in God, and in the reality of the blessings. It is for this reason that they sought to take advantage of this rare moment when they had the upper hand against the descendants of Yaakov. If they could manage to wipe out Bnei Yisrael now, before they got the Torah and established themselves as a sovereign nation in Israel, then they would be able to permanently free themselves from the yoke of servitude to the Bnei Yaakov. Thus, in a sense, they would have restored the blessing and the birthright to Eisav, their ancestor and (in their eyes) the rightful heir.

It is reasonable to assume that this mesorah of vengeance was passed from Eisav to Amalek, from Amalek to Agag, and from Agag to Haman. I was delighted to find this theory corroborated in the 19th century Megilas Esther commentary of Rav Y.S. Reggio, who explains how the history of Amalek's conflicts with Bnei Yisrael fueled Haman's hatred of Mordechai and his people: 

First you need to know and understand that the cause of Haman's hatred against the Jews was not only on account of Mordechai's refusal to bow before him, but aside from this, and even before this, great enmity had taken root in [Haman's] heart, which he inherited from his ancestors, the Agagites, who were offspring of Amalek. 

It was known how Amalek tormented the nation that left Egypt and struck the weaklings from behind. The pasuk testifies about the wickedness of Amalek, saying: "[Amalek] did not fear God" (Devarim 25:18). It is also possible that word had reached [Haman's] ears of God's statement: "a war of Hashem against Amalek from generation to generation" (Shemos 17:16), and Israel's commandment to "wipe out the memory of Amalek" (Devarim 25:19), just as [Haman] remembered without a doubt the harsh war between Shaul and [Haman's] ancestors, and the execution of Agag at the hands of Shmuel. All of this strengthened Haman's hatred and [the hatred of] the members of his household against the Jews.  

And now the author of the megilah explains this to us in the statement: "[However,] it was despicable in his eyes to send [his] hand against Mordechai alone, for they had told him the people of Mordechai etc." Behold - if Mordechai were from another nation, it would have been enough [for Haman] to take revenge against that man alone, but once he heard that this was a Jew, this preexisting hatred against the entire people was awakened, and he thought that it would be beneath his dignity to send forth his hand against that lone member of this abominable offspring. Therefore, he sought to annihilate them all.

Some might wonder why Haman didn't take action against the Jews at an earlier point in time. Why did Mordechai's refusal to bow set into motion the revenge-plot against the Bnei Yaakov?

I have a theory based on the content of blessings. Let's look at the wording of the blessing that Yaakov was given by Yitzchak, which he "stole" from Eisav (Bereishis 27:28-29):

May God give you of the dew of the heavens and of the fatness of the earth, and abundant grain and wine. Peoples will serve you, and regimes will prostrate themselves to you; be a lord to your brethren, and your mother's sons will prostrate themselves to you; cursed be those who curse you, and blessed be those who bless you.

The berachah, which was passed down in Amalek's mesorah, specifically mentions bowing! According to the berachah, the indicator of who is ascendant - Yaakov or Eisav - is who bows to whom. With that in mind, let us attempt to paint a new picture of what Haman saw when he encountered Mordechai, which I will indent for dramatic effect:

As far as Haman is concerned, the blessing to Eisav has reached its fulfillment in him. Bnei Yisrael are defeated and exiled from their homeland and from their destroyed Temple, subjugated to a foreign king, with no hope of ever returning. He is the de facto ruler. Haman is second in command to the king of the largest empire the world has seen. The king has given Haman so much power that he is literally able to make his own laws, as he sees fit. Moreover, the king has commanded everyone to bow down to Haman in a demonstration of absolute subservience. What's more, if he plays his cards right, then he might actually succeed in maneuvering his way into the kingship itself.

Then Haman sees Mordechai - the Jew, the Benjaminite, the descendant of Yaakov - refusing to bow.

To Haman, this is not merely a personal affront. It is a beckoning call from his ancestors, charging him with the mission they could not complete: revenge. Agag faced the Benjaminite descendant of Yaakov, and was vanquished. Amalek faced the nation of Bnei Yisrael, and was vanquished. Eisav faced Yaakov himself, and was vanquished.

And here stands Haman, at the end of his bloodline, in a position of power unparalleled by any of his forebears, with only one person standing in his way: Mordechai, the Benjaminite descendant of Yaakov. Haman has the ability to succeed where his ancestors failed. He has the opportunity to reclaim for his grandfather Eisav the blessing and the birthright which are rightfully his. And there is only one way to do it: kill all of the Bnei Yaakov, just as Amalek attempted to do prior to Bnei Yisrael receiving the Torah.

"... and Haman sought to destroy all of the Jews who were throughout the entire kingdom of Achashveirosh - the people of Mordechai."

Icing on the Cake

I hope that I have made a convincing case for the Targum's explanation of Haman's motive. Having said all of that, there is one more point I would like to mention. I do not want to call it "evidence" because I do not believe it to be on par with the evidence I have just presented. Instead, consider it to be "icing on the cake." And if you find this icing to be too cloying, just scrape it off and focus on the cake.

It has become fashionable in certain Jewish academic circles to seek out literary allusions in the text of Tanach. Although I am sometimes skeptical of making too much out of such findings, there are some that just seem too spot-on to be coincidental. Let's take another look at how the Megilah describes Haman's reaction upon considering Mordechai's actions:

[However,] it was despicable in his eyes (va'yeebez b'einav) to send [his] hand against Mordechai alone etc.

Curiously enough, this form of the word "despised" (va'yeebez) occurs in exactly one other place in all of Tanach: Eisav's reaction upon considering the birthright that he sold to Yaakov (Bereishis 25:34):

Yaakov gave Eisav bread and lentil stew, and he ate and drank, got up and left, and Eisav despised (va'yeebez) the birthright.

Upon noticing this linguistic parallel, I wondered: Is this a sign that the Targum's theory is correct, or am I reading too much into the pesukim? I then consulted the midrashim on this pasuk in Esther Rabbah. Lo and behold, Chazal make the same observation in Esther Rabbah 7:10:

"and it was despicable in his eyes to send [his] hand against Mordechai alone" - [Haman] was a despicable person who was a descendant of a despicable person (bazui ben bazui). Elsewhere it is written: "and Eisav despised (va'yeebez) the birthright," and here it is written: "and it was despicable (va'yeebez) in his eyes ... and Haman sought to destroy all of the Jews."

There you have it: Chazal explicitly link Haman's genocidal decree with Eisav's feelings about selling his birthright - just as the Targum explained. It would appear that this literary allusion was, indeed, intentional.

Concluding Thoughts

What is the take-away from all of this? The Targum's explanation certainly changes our reading of the Megilah, but what of it?

I believe the answer lies in understanding what Amalek and Haman were attempting to do. According to the Targum - and Ralbag and Rav Reggio - Amalek wasn't an antisemite in the way that many people think of antisemites today. Amalek didn't simply hate the Jews, nor did Amalek deny that the Jews are "the chosen people." To the contrary - Amalek acknowledged our "chosenness," as determined by Yitzchak's bestowal of the superior blessing on Yaakov instead of Eisav.

What was Amalek's evil? Amalek's evil consisted in the fact that they acknowledged the reality of hashgachas Hashem (Divine providence), and nevertheless sought to undermine it for the sake of dominance and power. When Amalek attacked Bnei Yisrael on their way out of Egypt, they knew that Hashem had redeemed them "with a strong hand and an outstretched arm" and they knew He was leading them through the Wilderness en route to claim their inheritance in the Land of Israel, as He promised to the Avos (forefathers) on numerous occasions. And yet, Amalek saw that it had the upper hand, and sought to annihilate Bnei Yisrael in order to reclaim and establish their dominion, contrary to God's plan.

I do not mean to downplay the evil of the Nazis, the white supremacists, certain factions of Americans and Europeans, and many other antisemitic groups. The evil and antisemitism of these wicked people and groups is very real and very dangerous. However, it is of a fundamentally different nature than that of Amalek. The antisemitism of these groups stems from bigotry, nationalism, xenophobia, and a host of other psychological causes. In contrast, the antisemitism of Amalek stems from a genuine recognition of the truth and reality of Hashem and His plan, and a conscious effort to overturn it to satisfy their own lust for greatness.

That, I believe, is what makes Amalek so dangerous. A fool who is blinded to reality by his own emotions still has hope: if you can enable him to see reality, there's a chance that he might change his mind. But a rasha (evil person) who recognizes reality and nevertheless chooses to go against it? There is no hope for such a rasha, nor is there a limit to what that rasha will do in his efforts to achieve his megalomaniacal vision.

This is the difference between Haman and Mordechai. Haman recognized the truth and reality of Hashem and His plan for the Jews and humanity, but nevertheless sought to thwart His will in a misguided effort to achieve god-like supremacy. In contrast, Mordechai maintained his allegiance to the truth and reality of Hashem and His will, even when this meant putting himself and his people at the risk of retaliation by the enemies of Israel. The story of the megilah is the story of which approach is destined to fail, and which will succeed.

Yitzchak's blessing to Yaakov ends with the words: "cursed be those who curse you, and blessed be those who bless you." Today, on Purim, we emphasize the theme: "Accursed is Haman!" "Blessed is Mordechai!"

May we all merit to know the difference between the blessedness of Mordechai, and the accursedness of Haman, and thereby merit the ultimate redemption. 

The Harmful Notion of the "Jewish Soul"

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

The Harmful Notion of the "Jewish Soul"

Disclaimer and Context

This is more of a "rant" than a strictly "lishmah" post. I have consciously chosen to write this post as more polemical than dialectical. For this reason, do not expect this to be a comprehensive treatment of the topic at hand, in which both sides of the issue are examined from a detached, analytical, non-judgmental perspective. Unlike most of the posts on this blog, which I strive to write from a neutral standpoint, this post has an agenda: to articulate why I object to the notion of "Jewish souls."

I think it would help to provide some context for how I came to write this post. Last week I was invited to join a new (secret) Facebook support group for gerim (converts). Hearing so many personal stories of discrimination and insensitivity towards gerim has caused me to revisit some of the ger-related topics which I hadn't thought about for a while.

In Friday's dvar Torah (Which Souls Were at Sinai?) I mentioned a pet peeve of mine: when born-Jews learn that I'm a ger (convert) and exclaim, "Oh, but you're such a good Jew! You CLEARLY must have been born with a Jewish soul!" or "You CLEARLY have a spark of Yiddishkeit in your soul!" or "You MUST have had a Jewish ancestor, and now your Yiddishe neshamah (Jewish soul) is just finding its way back home!" 

I am irked by comments like these for three reasons: (1) they are racist, in the sense of being "anti-goyim," (2) they minimize my journey to Judaism and my conversion, and (3) according to my understanding, the notion of a "Jewish soul" is false. 

We will now discuss each of these three reasons. 

Reason #1: Racism / Anti-Gentilism

I know that in most cases, born-Jews don't mean anything bad or malicious by such statements, but that doesn't change the anti-goyim undertones of their words. The underlying message I hear in their words is: "It simply cannot BE that you were once a GOY! Goyim can't POSSIBLY be part of the Jewish people! Therefore, you MUST have been a Jew SOMEHOW! Heaven FORFEND that a dirty goyishe neshamah could have found its way into our holy ranks!"

Now, before any of the born-Jews start "Jewsplaining" to me how I'm reading too much into statements like these, let's see if we can agree to the following four points: (1) there are born-Jews who say these things WITHOUT these intentions, even on an unconscious level; (2) there are born-Jews people who say these things who DO harbor such intentions, even though they aren't aware of them or don't mean anything bad by them; (3) there are geirim who are NOT bothered by such comments, and might even find them to be welcoming and affirming of their Jewish identity; (4) you, as a born-Jew, have never been on the receiving end of comments like these, and therefore, you have a different perspective than I do; you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you cannot tell me how I feel. 

I've even had students who love my classes and have learned from me for years, but will nevertheless speak in my presence about "the disgusting goyim" and how "goyim don't have souls" or how "goyim were made to be our slaves." Whenever I hear such comments I usually respond, "You know, I used to be a 'disgusting goy.' Are you saying that I didn't have a soul? Was I born to be your slave" to which they respond, "No, Rabbi ______, I wasn't talking about YOU! Obviously YOU are different!" These kids are too young to realize the weaknesses of "the friend argument" (i.e. "I'm not racist! I have friends who are black!"), but that is essentially the argument they're trying to make.

It's no secret that Jewish tribalism and elitism has always "been a thing" in our nation, and has been reinforced by millennia of Antisemitism. This is understandable, and even excusable insofar as it is a natural defense mechanism which is (arguably) necessary for Jewish survival. But the historical reality of Antisemitism certainly does not validate anti-goyim beliefs or sentiments, nor does it justify making anti-goyim remarks in the presence of those of us who used to be goyim.

Reason #2: Minimization of Geirus (Conversion)

When you tell a ger (whether explicitly or implicitly) that he or she "was destined to be Jewish," be aware that you might be perceived by the ger to be minimizing the significance and/or hardship of his or her journey and conversion process. 

There are so many different types of paths that people take to Judaism, some of which are harder than others. I have heard horror stories from gerim that you wouldn't believe, filled with instances abuse, discrimination, and despicable behavior from Jewish laypeople and rabbis alike. Think about what it means to tell a person who has been through such a difficult journey, "Oh, that? Yeah. That wasn't your free will decision, and had nothing to do with your perseverance, or your love for Hashem and His Torah, or your sacrifices you made, or your trust in the truth of your convictions, or your courage. It was in your spiritual DNA. You were basically programmed to follow this path. It had to happen." 

Would you ever say something like this to a veteran who survived a war, or to someone who went through therapy, or to a person who is in recovery from an addiction? These may sound like "negative" comparisons to geirus, but they are apt analogies for those whose path to Judaism was fraught with challenges and hardships. 

Without knowing the full story of the ger to whom you are speaking, making statements such as these can easily stray into the territory of onaas ha'ger (abusing a convert).

Every day, those who are born Jewish make the berachah of "she'lo asani goy" ("Blessed are You, Hashem, King of the universe, Who did not make me a gentile"). I, as a ger, do not make that berachah because Hashem did make me a goy. [1] Let me say that again: Hashem made me a goy, and I chose to become a ger. Don't minimize my life and my decisions by telling me that my soul was already Jewish. 

Reason #3: Falsehood

Since the topic of "the soul" is extremely broad and deep, I will confine my remarks here to a general summary of my reasons for rejecting the notion of a "Jewish soul," and point the way to resources for further reading.

As far as I know, based on my own research and the research of academic scholars I have read on this matter, the idea of a "Jewish soul" is an entirely "Kabbalistic" [2] and/or Chasidic concept. The distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish souls cannot be found anywhere in the Written Torah, the Oral Torah, or in any of the non-"Kabbalistic" works of the Kadmonim [3]. Sure, it can be read into these sources - but if you learn through these classical sources on their own terms, without the influence of "Kabbalah" or Chasidus, you would not encounter any distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish souls. 

Does this lack of sources mean that this belief is false? Not necessarily. "Ee efshar l'beis midrash b'lo chidush - it is impossible to have a study hall without innovation" (Chagigah 3a). Nevertheless, whenever I see a concept which only appears in "Kabbalistic"/Chasidic sources with no basis in the Written Torah, the Oral Torah, or the writings of the non-"Kabbalistic" Kadmonim, then I am suspicious - especially if the concept in question is purported to be a fundamental of Judaism. If there is no evidence that Chazal and the Kadmonim were aware of a particular concept, then at the very least, this means that it is not an essential part of Judaism. At worst, this means that it is not part of Judaism at all. 

According to my understanding of the Written Torah, the Oral Torah, and the writings of the non-"Kabbalistic" Kadmonim, people only have one kind of soul: a human soul. This is the soul that the Torah refers to when it says: "And God said, 'Let us make man in our form (b'tzalmeinu), like our likeness (ki'dmuseinu)'" (Bereishis 1:26) and "God created man in His tzelem (form); in tzelem Elokim He created him; male and female He created them" (ibid. 1:27) and "Hashem-God formed the man of dust from the ground, and He blew into his nostrils nishmas chayim (the soul/breath) of life, and man became a nefesh chaya (living/speaking soul)" (ibid. 2:7).

According to all of the Kadmonim, the tzelem Elokim refers to the human intellect: man's capacity to apprehend and seek conceptual knowledge and understanding. There is no inherent difference between the tzelem Elokim of a Jew and that of a non-Jew. Frankly, I don't even know what it would mean to differentiate between a "Jewish intellect" and a "non-Jewish intellect." [4] 

The distinction between Jew and non-Jew is a legal one - not metaphysical one. In other words, "Jew" and "non-Jew" are halachic labels, indicating the particular system of Divine law by which one is legally bound. A Jew is someone who has entered into the covenant of Torah - whether by birth or by conversion - and is legally obligated to keep the system of Taryag mitzvos (613 Commandments). Non-Jews, on the other hand, are only obligated to keep the Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach (Seven Noahide Commandments), which have been binding on all humans since the time of Noach, and which were "renewed" with the giving of Torah at Sinai. [5] 

Maybe someday I'll write a post in which I compile sources from the Kadmonim which state these points explicitly, alongside a list of the "Kabbalistic"/Chasidic sources which assert a metaphysical distinction between the souls of Jews and non-Jews. However, as I pointed out in my disclaimer, this is a polemical post - not a dialectical one. Suffice it to say, the burden of proof is on the "Kabbalists"/Chasidim to show that their belief has its source in the Mesorah (or to show that their belief is valid despite not having a source in the Mesorah). 

[Incidentally, if you would like to peruse a fairly comprehensive list of sources from both sides, check out The Soul of a Jew and the Soul of a Non-Jew, by Hanan Balk, published in Hakirah. This article also does a great job of illustrating why I consider the belief in "Jewish souls" to be harmful, dangerous, and repugnant.]

There is only one of the Kadmonim who, at first glance, might seem to hold that Jews and non-Jews have different souls: R' Yehuda ha'Levi. In his famous work, "the Kuzari," R' Yehuda ha'Levi [6] writes that only Jews possess the "Inyan ha'Elohi" ("divine quality") - a metaphysical quality which allows Jews to become prophets. Non-Jews do not have the Inyan ha'Elohi. Not only that, but even gerim lack the Inyan ha'Elohi; our conversion doesn't endow our souls with this special quality that only born-Jews possess.

Much has been written about R' Yehuda ha'Levi's view on this matter, but for the purposes of this post we are only interested in one thing: Does this view of Inyan ha'Elohi imply that the souls of Jews and non-Jews are inherently different? The answer is: no. R' Yehuda ha'Levi clearly held that Jews are born with a special quality which non-Jews lack, but their souls are fundamentally the same. Professor Menachem Kellner expressed this eloquently in his book, Maimonides' Confrontation with Mysticism:

It is important to emphasize: Halevi does not affirm that Jews differ biologically from non-Jews, that Jews have special souls, or that Jews are a species apart. He does not hold that non-Jews are any less created in the image of God than are Jews. He maintains that Jews have a special property (the potential to become prophets) lacking in non-Jews. This property is in some fashion (never explained by Halevi) transmitted through lineage. 

[For a detailed exposition and clarification of R' Yehuda ha'Levi's view, I recommend Professor Norman Strickman's article Misrepresenting Rabbi Judah Ha-Levi.]

The bottom line: I will continue to maintain that the Kadmonim did not recognize any difference between the soul of a Jew and that of a non-Jew, until someone shows me that I am incorrect. The only difference between a Jew and a non-Jew is obligation in mitzvos. Our souls are inherently the same. [7]

Jews and Non-Jews: A Common Soul, and a Common Path

I'd like to end this post on a more positive note.

Because Jews and non-Jews have the same human soul, we share a common path. As we said before, the Torah that Hashem gave through Moshe Rabbeinu was intended for Jews and non-Jews alike; the only difference is which system of mitzvos we are legally obligated to keep. According to Judaism, a righteous non-Jew has a portion in the World to Come. [8] Not only that, but a non-Jew is capable of reaching the same spiritual heights as a Jew. Adam ha'Rishon, Shem, Eiver, Chanoch, Noach, and Avraham Avinu were all non-Jews - yet, all of them were able to achieve high levels of closeness to God. The Gemara says (Sanhedrin 59a):

R' Meir says: How do we know that even a non-Jew who involves himself in the study of Torah is equal to a Kohen Gadol (High Priest)? As it is stated, "[You shall observe My decrees and My laws,] which man shall carry out and by which he shall live" (Vayikra 18:5) - it does not say, "Kohanim, Levites, and Israelites" but man. From here we learn that even a non-Jew who involves himself in the study of Torah is equal a Kohen Gadol.

The Rambam [9] codifies this principle at the end of his discussion about the special role of Shevet Levi (the Tribe of Levi). He writes:

Why didn’t the Tribe of Levi merit in the inheritance of the Land of Israel and its spoils along with their brethren? Because they are set aside to serve Hashem and to minister to Him and to teach His upright ways and righteous laws to the masses, as it is stated, “They shall teach Your laws to Yaakov and Your teachings to Israel” (Devarim 33:10). 

Therefore, they are separated from the ways of the world. They do not go to war like the rest of Israel, nor do they receive an inheritance, nor do they acquire for themselves with their bodily power, but rather, they are the legion of Hashem, as it is stated: “Bless, O Hashem, His legion” (ibid. 33:11), and He, Blessed is He, provides for them, as it is stated: “I Am your Portion and your Inheritance” (Bamidbar 18:20).  

Not only the Tribe of Levi, but each and every member of humanity whose spirit generously moves him and whose understanding of his knowledge [of all existing things causes him] to separate himself to stand before Hashem to minister unto Him and to serve Him in order to know Hashem, and to walk with uprightness as God made him, removing from his neck the yoke of the many calculations which people seek – he becomes sanctified as holy of holies. God will be His portion and heritage forever and ever, and He will provide what is sufficient for him in this world like He provides for the Kohanim and the Levites. And thus David declared: “Hashem is the lot of my portion; You are my cup; You support my lot” (Tehilim 16:5). 

This halacha is predicated upon the fact that Jews and non-Jews possess the same tzelem Elokim, and are drawn to the truth in the same way, as the Rambam [10] writes in Hilchos Teshuvah:

He instilled within them the capacity to learn and to understand - for this tendency is present in every man, that the more he is drawn after the ways of chochmah (wisdom) and tzedek (righteousness), the more he desires them and pursues them. 

Yes, it is true that our nation has a special status among the nations of the world. Nevertheless, our national identity as "the Chosen People" does not indicate any inherent superiority on our part, nor does it imply that Jews have different souls. Rather, it is a reference to our role in humanity: to be "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Shemos 19:6), to teach mankind to fear and love Hashem. 

It is for this reason that the prophets promise that one day, all of humanity will be united by our pursuit of knowledge of Hashem, which stems from the tzelem Elokim within each and every human being. "For the earth will be filled with knowledge of Hashem, as water covers the sea bed" (Yeshayahu 11:9). "On that day, Hashem will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

[1] To my knowledge there is no non-"Kabbalistic" halachic view which maintains that a ger should make the berachah of she'lo asani goy. If anyone knows of such a view, please let me know.

[2] I have chosen to write the word "Kabbalistic" in quotation marks so as not to enter into the dicey analysis of which so-called "kabbalistic sources" are authentic, which are innovations, and which are fabrications. All I mean by "Kabbalistic" (with quotation marks) is that the proponents of these works consider them to be Kabbalistic. 

[3] By "Kadmonim" I am referring to the Geonim, Rishonim, and early Achronim. These Kadmonim include, but are not limited to: Rambam, R' Avraham ben ha'Rambam, Rav Hai Gaon, Saadia Gaon, Ramban, Ibn Ezra, Ralbag, Rabbeinu Bachya ibn Paquda, Rif, Sforno, Rashba, Rashi, Baalei Tosafos, Ritva, Radak, Rashbam, R' Yosef Albo, R' Yehudah ha'Levi, Meiri, Avudarham, Raavad, Ran, Rabbeinu Yonah, Sefer Ha'Chinuch, Abravanel, Chazkuni, Rabbeinu Bachye ben Asher, Rosh, Tur, and more. See my post Neglecting the Thinkers of the Past for more details on this group.
[4] It can be argued that there are "Jewish types of thinking" (e.g. Talmudic analysis, Scriptural analysis in accordance with the principles of Torah she'baal Peh), and one can even try to argue that there are quantitative differences between the intellects of Jews and non-Jews (though I personally don't buy this), but these are a far cry from claiming that there is a qualitative difference between a Jewish intellect and a non-Jewish one.
[5] Taryag is a regimen designed to bring those who practice it properly to true human perfection, whereas the system of Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach is designed to keep mankind from descending to the level of animals, thereby granting them the opportunity to pursue human perfection on their own, or with the aid of the Torah regimen.

[6] Rabbeinu Yehuda ha'Levi, Kuzari 1:95

[7] There is also an ideological definition of Jew, as defined by the first mishnah in the 10th chapter of Sanhedrin, whose meaning and implications are heavily debated by the meforshim (commentators). This definition of Jew is even narrower than the halachic definition. In other words, there are a significant number of people who are halachic Jews (i.e. they are obligated to keep Taryag), but are not considered a part of the Jewish people (i.e. they do not hold by the foundational ideas that define the people "Israel"). This is a separate topic, but I thought it would be worthwhile to mention in passing.

[8] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Mishneh Torah: Sefer Shoftim, Hilchos Melachim 8:11

[9] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Mishneh Torah: Sefer Zeraim, Hilchos Shemitah v'Yovel 13:12-13

[10] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Mishneh Torah: Sefer ha'Mada, Hilchos Teshuvah 6:4

Parashas Pinchas: Two Types of Anti-Israel Enemies

I wish I could write this dvar Torah without it being relevant to a real-world parallel. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The events of the past two weeks have led me to expand this dvar Torah in order to address the current situation in Israel. I believe that exceeding the usual 1,400 word length is justified in this instance. As always, I am eager to hear your thoughts. Have a good Shabbos.

Artwork: Sword of War and Peace, by Chris Rahn

Parashas Pinchas: Two Types of Anti-Israel Enemies

Imagine the following scenario:

You are a gentile resident of a land that you have called "home" for as long as you can remember. You have raised your own family here, and have lived in tranquility.

One day you are informed by your leaders that you, your family, and your entire people are in grave danger. Israel, a young and powerful nation, is on the march, and it is only a matter of time before it reaches your borders. 

Israel has already established itself as an indomitable military power, despite of its short history. It has conquered several of the surrounding nations which were once thought to be invincible. If Israel were to lay siege to your homeland, its victory would be swift and certain. 

Your leaders call for action, demanding complete allegiance to their strategic vision. They mobilize their people for battle, and are prepared to use every tool at their disposal to put a stop to Israel's rapid ascent. 

And you support them.  

You have committed yourself to do whatever it takes to vanquish the enemy and protect your people. You will even go so far as to sacrifice your own children, if doing so will achieve a tactical advantage for your people. 

In short, you will stop at nothing until Israel has been wiped off of the face of the earth. 

Did you guess who I'm talking about? That's right: the nations of Moab and Midian, at the turn of the 13th century BCE. In this dvar Torah we will examine the question: What does the Torah have to say about the type of anti-Israel mentality depicted above? We will seek insight on this question from this week's parashah. We will conclude by applying our findings to the current state of affairs in Israel. 

Artwork: Ghitu Encampment, by John Avon

In order to understand the Torah's view on this matter, we will need to recap the events leading up to this week's parashah, which began in last week's parashah. Parashas Balak is told from the perspective of Moab and Midian, who heard about Israel's conquest of its enemies: 

Balak son of Tzipor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorite. Moab became very frightened of the people, because it was numerous, and Moab was disgusted in the face of the Children of Israel. Moab said to the elders of Midian, "Now the congregation will lick up our entire surroundings, as an ox licks up the greenery of the field." Balak son of Tzipor was king of Moab at that time. He sent messengers to Bilam son of Beor ... saying, "Behold! a people has come out of Egypt, behold! it has covered the surface of the earth and it sits opposite me. So now - please come and curse this people for me, for it is too powerful for me; perhaps I will be able to strike it and drive it away from the land." (Bamidbar 22:2-6)

Consider, for a moment, the terror that the average Moabite and Midianite experienced. Israel, a nation of slaves descended from shepherds, somehow managed to miraculously break free from captivity and reduce the Egyptian kingdom - the greatest superpower the world had seen - to rubble. It then proceeded to take down nation after nation, and king after king: first was the the Canaanite king of Arad, followed by Sichon, the king of the Amorite, followed by Og, the king of Bashan. And now they approach the plains of Moab, showing no signs of stopping or slowing down.

After Bilaam's repeated failures to curse Israel, he finally came up with a plan that worked. Bilam knew that the divine protection enjoyed by the Israelites was predicated on their adherence to the laws of the Torah. He realized that if he could somehow entice them to deviate from those laws, they would be subject to the wrath of God. They would then be vulnerable enough for Moab and Midian to swoop in and finish the job. 

Bilaam persuaded the Moabites and Midianites to "whore out" their own daughters to the Israelite nation in hopes of baiting them to violate the severe transgressions of sexual promiscuity and avodah zarah (idolatry). Bilam's scheme played out exactly as he anticipated: the Israelite men were seduced by the Moabite and Midianite women, and eventually become attached to Baal-Peor - a Moabite deity. "Operation: Seduce and Destroy" reached its pinnacle when a Midianite princess and a Jewish prince copulated publicly in front of Moshe Rabbeinu and the rest of the nation, displaying a brazen disregard for the Torah and its prophet. Bilaam's plan was a success. "The wrath of Hashem flared up against Israel ... those who died in the plague were twenty-four thousand" (ibid. 25:3,9). Were it not for Pinchas's act of zealotry, which ended the plague, Israel would have continued to fall before Moab and Midian. 

Parashas Pinchas commences with the aftermath of the seduction campaign. Now that the immediate cause of divine wrath had ceased, the question remained: How would Hashem command Israel to deal with the Moabites and Midianites, in light of the evil they had perpetrated? Not only did they aim to destroy the Chosen Nation of God, but they engaged in the illicit practices of avodah zarah and sexual promiscuity, going so far as to make their daughters into harlots in order to take advantage of their enemy's vulnerability. 

Did Hashem decree vengeance on Moab and Midian? Surprisingly, He did not:

Hashem spoke to Moshe, saying: “Torment the Midianites and smite them, for they tormented you through their conspiracy that they conspired against you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, daughter of a leader of Midian, their sister, who was slain on the day of the plague, in the matter of Peor” (ibid. 25:16-18)

Hashem commands Moshe and Israel to take vengeance upon the Midianites alone, but not the Moabites - even though both nations were equally involved in their efforts to seduce and destroy Israel through immoral means. The question is: Why didn't the Moabites deserve the same retribution as the Midianites? Weren't their actions the same? Wasn't their decision to sacrifice their daughters equally disgraceful in the eyes of Hashem? 

The Ralbag [1] addresses this question. He begins by explaining Hashem's commandment to smite Midian:

Hashem (may He be exalted) commanded Israel to hate the Midianites and to smite them, for their evil mentality caused them to hate Israel; they strove to cause Israel to stumble with their daughters and with avodah zarah until Hashem annihilated them; and this was [instigated] by the advice of Bilaam, to the point where all were drawn after him, including the kings who promiscuously abandoned their daughters to act as a stumbling block, as is clear from the matter of Cozbi. Now their hatred had increased because Cozbi – who was the daughter of a Midianite king – had been killed. For this reason it was clear that if [the Israelites] didn't hasten to smite Midian, then the Midianites would strive to harm them from every angle possible.

The Ralbag [2] goes on to derive a practical lesson from this:

[We learn from here] that once it has been established that someone is trying to destroy you, it is correct for you to preempt him and to destroy him in order to save yourself. For this reason you will find that Hashem commanded [the Israelites] to destroy the Midianites, since it was well-known that they hated the Israelites and sought to harm them, in addition to the fact their hatred was increased due to the killing of Cozbi bas Tzur.

In other words, Israel was commanded to destroy Midian because of its "evil mentality" toward Israel - a mentality which fueled the Midianites' hatred and made them a threat, even after Bilam's plot was thwarted. It was clear that Midian would seek vengeance until Israel was entirely destroyed. As such, the commandment to smite Midian was a preemptive act of self-defense. 

However, the Moabites were different, as the Ralbag [3] explains:

[We learn from here that] if one person is afraid of another, then there is nothing contemptible in him searching for any means by which to save himself. For this reason we find that the Moabites were not punished for enticing the Jews to sin, since the reason for their actions was their fear that the Jews would destroy them, for they were already afraid of Israel, as it is stated, “Moab became very frightened of the people, because it was numerous” (Bamidbar 22:3). For this reason, the Moabites' enticement of Israel to sin was but one of their weapons. The Midianites, however, were not as afraid, and their intention in following the advice of Bilam was to rebel against Hashem; for this reason, Hashem desired that the Jews take vengeance against them.

According to the Ralbag, the Torah differentiates between an enemy whose anti-Israel operations are founded on an anti-Israel ideology, and an enemy whose anti-Israel operations are driven by fear and self-defense. The former, represented by Midian, are worthy of condemnation even if their actions are partially motivated by fear and self-defense. The latter, represented by Moab, are not "contemptible" in the eyes of the Torah, even when their actions involve what is otherwise immoral behavior, such as giving up their own daughters to be sexually violated by the enemy. As the Ralbag said, "Moab's enticement of Israel to sin was merely one of their weapons." Even though they targeted Israel in the same way as the Midianites, Hashem did not command Israel to take vengeance, since the Moabites were only acting in self-defense, and were no longer a threat.

Parenthetically, I feel it is necessary at this point to take a brief pause from the flow of this dvar Torah to underscore the fact that the Torah does condemn the type of sex-trafficking practiced by Moab and Midian. This becomes clear if we turn the tables and consider what the Torah would say if Jews engaged in this practice with our own daughters.

Few transgressions are considered by the Torah to be in the same ballpark as murder. One of those transgressions is sexual immorality. The Torah explicitly states this when speaking about a case where a man rapes a betrothed girl: "But you shall do nothing to the girl, for the girl has committed no capital sin, for like a man who rises up against his fellow and murders him, so is this thing" (Devarim 22:26).

Based on this pasuk, the halacha [] states that there is no difference between giving over a fellow Jew to our enemies to be killed and giving over a fellow Jew to our enemies to be sexually violated. In both cases, we must forfeit our own lives rather than turn over the lives of another Jew. This is true for any Jew, and would certainly be true in the case of our own wives and daughters. 

From this standpoint, the actions of Midian and Moab are truly abominable in the eyes of the Torah. Had they been Jews, they would have been guilty of committing a capital crime. And yet, the Ralbag defends the actions of Moab, insofar as they were motivated by fear and self-defense. This is not a contradiction. The Ralbag's point is that from the standpoint of anti-Israel warfare, Moab's use of its daughters is excusable; from the standpoint of morality, it is disgraceful. 

This brings us to the current state of events. We, the Jewish people, are under attack. Our enemy is Hamas - an organization hellbent on the obliteration of Israel and its Jewish inhabitants. The Hamas charter proclaims:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."

As we know, Hamas advocates the morally reprehensible practice of using women and children as human shields. Hamas is aware of the extreme measures taken by the IDF to avoid civilian casualties, and takes full advantage of the IDF's adherence to a code of morality. Jews would never engage in such behavior - not with our own children, and not even with our enemy's children. 

Let me be absolute clear on this next point: I am against moral relativism in the realm of ethics as much as I am against subjectivism in the realm of metaphysics. Those who attempt to reduce the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a mere difference of opinion without any basis in objective reality are either ignorant or biased.

At the same time, I am also against Jewish racism. Perhaps I have a different perspective because I am a ger (convert), and didn't grow up hearing tales and warnings about anti-Semitism. Still, I would like to think that out of all people, Jews would be the least prone to racism, seeing as how we've been the victims of it throughout our 3,000 year history. 

At times like these, when our people and our homeland are under attack, the Jewish racists come out of the woodwork. Although they are a minority, their voices resound and cause a chilul ha'Shem (desecration of God's Name). Sadly, I have witnessed a number of examples of this behavior on the Internet: Jews who denounce all Muslims as inherently evil, Jews who condemn all Arabs as anti-Israel, and worst of all, Jews whose hatred moves them to indiscriminately call for terrible violence and vengeance against all Palestinians. It is these misguided Jews who are most in need of the ideas elucidated by the Ralbag.

Midian and Moab were both anti-Israel. Both nations went to war against us. Both nations utilized the unethical practice of whoring out their daughters as a means of defeating their enemy. Nevertheless, Hashem differentiated between the two nations. Moab, who acted out of fear and self-defense, was spared from the decree of extermination, once they no longer posed a threat to Israel. Midian, on the other hand, sought to destroy Israel as a part of their evil ideology, and would continue to seek the destruction of Israel; for this reason, we were commanded to annihilate them.

Hamas is the modern-day equivalent of Midian. Their anti-Israel sentiment stems from the core of their evil ideology. The same is true of Fatah, Islamic Jihad, and a number of other organizations and movements in the Middle East. Like Midian, they deserve no mercy, and we must utterly decimate them.

At the same time, we must recognize that interspersed throughout the Palestinian people are the modern-day equivalents of Moab - residents of Arab descent whose anti-Israel activity stems not from an evil ideology, but from fear and self-defense. They may be quiet and they may be relatively powerless, but they exist.

Have these individuals been influenced by their evil counterparts? Most likely, yes. Might they implement the same depraved practices, such as using civilians as human shields and endorsing the use of suicidal acts of terror and martyrdom? In many cases, yes. Do they pose a threat to the safety of our people and our homeland? Definitely. But are they to be viewed as equal to their anti-Israel ideology-driven brethren? No. There is one important factor which differentiates these individuals from their extremist brethren: whereas the "Moabite" Palestinians would stop fighting if they no longer perceived Israel as a threat, the "Midianite" Palestinians will stop at nothing until Israel and the Jewish people are completely eradicated.

I am not making any claims about the relative proportions of these two categories of our enemies, nor am I suggesting any differences in how the State of Israel ought to handle these factions in the present conflict. It is clear that both types of enemies, at the moment, pose a threat which must be quelled by any means necessary. I am not even making the oft-heard point that "Not all Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians are bad!" I am making a subdivision within that argument, namely, that not all bad Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians are the same type of bad. Even enemies ought to be critically assessed, and we must do everything in our power to perceive them as they actually are - not as dictated by propaganda, prejudice, or lazy thinking.

So next time you see or hear reports of Palestinians forming human shields out of innocent women and children, remember that their actions, while evil, are not to be judged as equally so. To the average Israelite, Midian and Moab would have been seen as one in the same. In Hashem's eyes, they were not.

May we merit to perceive the reality of ourselves and our enemies as realistically as possible, may our enemies receive exactly what they deserve, and may Hashem bring us complete salvation from all calamity and iniquity, thereby ushering in an era of peace and knowledge for all of mankind.

[1] Rabbeinu Levi ben Gershon (Ralbag / Gersonides), Commentary on Sefer Bamidbar 25:17-18

[2] ibid. 27:17-18, Toeles #2

[3] ibid. 22:2-6, Toeles #1[4] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Mishneh Torah: Sefer ha'Mada, Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 5:5