Outline and Sources for Drasha, Yerushalayim, Parshat , 5768

I. This Shabbos has been designated by the Orthodox Union, and by a number of other

organizations, as Shabbat Yerushalayim. Because of the political activities currently

underway, which openly consider the division of Ir Hakodesh, our Holy City, it is important

that we educate ourselves about the place of Yerushalayim in our tradition, and respond

in any way we can to guarantee a united and safe .

A bit over 40 years ago, the Ribono Shel Olam gave us a gift. That gift was the city of

Jerusalem, in its entirety, under Jewish sovereignty but open to all religions and to all

mankind, a gift of which we were deprived nearly 2,000 years ago but have prayed for

intensely ever since. We often fail to appreciate G-d’s gifts, and the case of Yerushalayim

is no different. We take it for granted that we can approach the Kotel Ma’aravi, the

Western Wall, the single remnant of our Holy Temple, any time we wish, day or night,

Shabbat, Chag, or ordinary weekday. We take for granted the fact that Jewish homes

and major institutions of Jewish learning now exist within the walls of the city, in all

directions of the city, and throughout the extended contemporary municipality of

Jerusalem. We dare not be ungrateful for this astounding historic situation. We must be

thankful to G-d for allowing us to live in a time when free access to Yerushalayim and to

Jewish holy sites there is available to each and every Jew. Access to sites sacred to other

faiths is also protected by the sensitivity of the state of Israel to “the strangers in our

midst.”

If there is one emotion that should be the outcome of this specially designated Shabbat,

it is the emotion of gratitude, of hakarat hatov. We must be grateful to the Almighty that

we have this gift, and it should not be cheap in our eyes.

II. It is not difficult to find some trace of Yerushalayim in almost every parsha of the . In

this ’s parsha, Yerushalayim plays a central role and offers us the opportunity to

consider and to appreciate the role of Yerushalayim in our lives.

The opening image in this week’s parsha, surely one of the most well known images in the

entire Tanach, is of ’s dream of a ladder based firmly on earth but extending into

the heavens, with the Almighty Himself at its apex and mounting and descending

it. This image has been interpreted in many and diverse ways, but it is essentially

understood as a vision of a relationship between heaven and earth, between the Divine

and the Human.

It is startling to consider that just a few short ago we encountered another image

of a structure based on earth and extending heavenward. And that of course was the

Tower of Babel (Bavel). That symbolic connection between earth and heaven was

manmade and had as its motive the confrontation between the human race and the

Divine. Humans challenged the Divine, motivated by rebelliousness, fueled by hubris and

chutzpah. The result was not only the lack of connection between earth and heaven,

but an erosion of the connectedness between nations. In its ruins, the human race was

splintered into diverse cultures and into languages that could not communicate with one

another.

The comparison and contrast between the sulam (ladder) in Parshat Vayetze and the

migdal (tower) in Parshat was first brought to my attention by Professor Yehuda

Elizur in a book published by Bar Ilan University, entitled Yisrael V’hamikra , Israel and the

Scripture, in a chapter entitled “Migdal Bavel V’sulam Yaakov,” the Tower of Bavel and the Ladder of Jacob. I recommend this chapter to all of you and will restrict myself to

one insightful comparison between the two parshiot that Professor Elizur shares with us. He

analyzes the very word Bavel into its component parts, "bav” and “el.” Many of us know

enough Aramaic to comprehend that the meaning of the word “bav” is “gate,” as in

“Bava Kama” or “Bava Basra,” the first or the last gate. “El” obviously refers to G-d. “Bav-

El” therefore means “the gate to G-d.” Bavel in the story in Parshat Noach, and all of the

historic cultures that can be compared to Bavel in their search for power and dominion,

see as the gate to G-d. In our parsha, however, we learn that the place where

Jacob dreamed, according to our sages, was the Mount of Moriya, the site of the Holy

Temple, Jerusalem – that is the Gate to G-d: “Vizeh sha’ar hashomayim.”

III. The “makom” where the dream took place is Yerushalayim. on pasuk 11 perek 28,

on the words "vayifga bamakom,” identifies the makom as Har Hamoriya. Also, see

Rashi’s comments on pasuk 17 and the usage of the phrases “beit Elokim” and “sha’ar

hashamayim.”

In the context of this sermon, we cannot study in detail Ramban’s attack on Rashi’s

approach, but it is sufficient to say that Ramban, too, agrees that the place of the sulam

is Yerushalayim. Ramban, toward the end of his commentary on pasuk 17, quotes the

beautiful medrash (Pirkei D’rebbi ): “Mikan ata lomed shekol hamitpalel

birushalayim ke’ilu mitpalel lifnei kisei hakavod, shesha’ar hashamayim hu patuach

lishmoa tefilatan shel yisrael shene’emar ‘vizeh sha’ar hashamayim.’” Translation: “From

here we learn that whoever prays in Jerusalem is likened to one who prays before G-d’s

Throne of Glory, because the gate of heaven is open to hear the prayers of Israel, as it is

written: ‘And this is the gateway to G-d.’” What a contrast between “Bav-El” and “sha’ar

hashamayim,” a contrast between Jerusalem; the Holy City; the city of peace; the city of “shechubra lah yachdav”, which brings unity; with the city whose very name stands for

chaos, disunity, and anarchy.

IV. There is another theme in this week’s parsha which relates to Yerushalayim and is

especially applicable to those of us who live “at the extremities of the West,” however

much our “hearts are in the East.” The homiletic gem which I am about to share with you

derives from a shiur on this week’s parsha from Rav Soloveitchek, zt”l. I originally saw this

thought in the old Yiddish newspaper, Morgen Journal , in the weekly column on the

parsha by Nissin Gordon, who would frequently quote the Rav.

The Rav insisted that there are two dreams in this week’s parsha, both experienced by

Yaakov. In the first, he dreams a dream of heavenly inspiration, of a ladder extending

from earth to heaven. Much later in the parsha, in perek 31 pesukim 10–13, Yaakov has

another dream. He says: “I lifted my eyes and I saw in a dream, and behold the he-goats

mating with the flock were streaked, speckled and mottled.”

What a “come-down” there is between Yaakov’s first dream and his second. His first

dream is supremely spiritual, sublime, a vision of a bond between man and G-d. In his

second dream, on the other hand, after many years spent in exile, Yaakov’s dream is

mundane and limited to the accumulation of material property: Goats which are

streaked and speckled. The Rav darshans the astounding contrast between the two

dreams but points out that in verse 11 and 12, the says to him: “Behold, note well

what you are dreaming about, and see what Lavan has been doing to you, es

Lavan oseh lach.” has contaminated your dreams. He has sullied your vision. He

has stripped you of your spiritual idealism and has replaced it with images of profit and

gain, of goats and sheep and cattle. And in verse 13, the angel says to him: “In the name of the G-d of Beis El – in the name of He who stood at the top of the ladder in the

first dream, leave this land and return to your birthplace.” Enough of the house of Laban

and its cheap dreams. It’s time to return to the and to far loftier thoughts

and objectives.

V. I call upon you to consider the two types of dreams that all of us have. The dreams which

preoccupy us all the time, of accumulation of property, of material success, of the here

and now “real world,” as well as dreams of something higher, nobler, and much more

exalted.

And consider, too, the fact that the mundane dreams are the product of the Diaspora

whereas the spiritual dream is a product not only of the land of Israel but of the place

called “the House of G-d” – Jerusalem.

VI. At this point, I urge you to engage in a consideration of the plight of Jerusalem today

and the importance of its remaining united in Jewish hands, if it is to continue to be the

spiritual center for the Jewish people. Sadly and typically, we have not yet utilized it

sufficiently as a spiritual center, but hope that if, with the aid of the Almighty, we are

privileged to continue to have a united Jerusalem under Jewish sovereignty, we will

appreciate the gift and strive all the more to make Yerushalayim our spiritual center.

Therefore we must do all we can through political advocacy, through letter writing, and

through all of the other techniques and tactics suggested on oujerusalem.org in order to

exert as much influence as possible toward the goal of a united Jerusalem, toward

defending Jerusalem.

When we attain this goal, we must not fritter away the opportunity of Jerusalem

becoming a sha’ar hashamayim, a gateway to heaven in our daily lives, and a source of

connecting humanity to the Divine.

VII. Supplementary note:

There is a vast and varied literature about Yerushalayim. I would like to draw your

attention to sacred works and to political works which can be of great assistance helping

one better appreciate the Holy City. I refer to:

1) Aryeh Kaplan’s Jerusalem, the Eye of the Universe

2) The essay on “Yerushalayim” by Rav Mordechai Breuer, z”l, in his work Pirkei

Moados (Appended)

3) Dore Gold’s excellent book called The Fight for Jerusalem

4) A recent article by Norman Pothoretz in the July-August, 2007 addition of

commentary, entitled “Jerusalem: The Scandal of Particularity” (Appended)

Jerusalem: The Scandal of Particularity Norman Podhoretz

At a ceremony in Jerusalem on May 24, Norman vided,” his government was quietly tolerating Podhoretz received the Guardian of Award Palestinian political activity in East Jerusalem. Fur- from the Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem thermore, much of the world was already treating Studies at Israel’s Bar-Ilan University. Following is the PLO’s offices in Orient House, in which this the text of his lecture: activity was taking place, as ministries of the future Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. eing here on the 40th anniversary of the re- Then there was Bill Clinton, the then President B unification of Jerusalem reminds me that I of the United States. Clinton might be happy to was also here in 1995 for the 3,000th anniversary state unequivocally that “I recognize Jerusalem as of this city as the capital of King ’s unified an undivided city and the eternal capital of Israel.” Kingdom of Israel. During the opening cere- Nevertheless, his ambassador to Israel, Martin monies, which I attended with my Israeli daughter Indyk, had just joined with all the European ambas- Ruthie Blum, one speaker after another arose to sadors in refusing to attend the opening ceremonies proclaim that Jerusalem would never again be di- of Jerusalem 3000. This was the same Martin Indyk vided, and that it would forever remain the capital who, as the head of a think tank in Washington, had of Israel. But instead of being reassured, I found written a paper advocating that the American em- myself growing more and more uneasy. After hear- bassy be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Now, ing the third or fourth such confident proclama- however, Indyk was lobbying against precisely this tion, I turned to Ruthie and muttered, “Uh-oh, same move. Thanks to the perversities engendered there goes Jerusalem.” by the Oslo peace process, he even enjoyed the tacit My remark may have been flip, but—even apart approval of the Israeli government in doing so. from the cynicism that the vows of politicians so So far, blessedly, my apprehensions of 1995 over often and so rightly inspire—behind it there were the future status of Jerusalem have not been real- serious grounds for being apprehensive. For even ized. In one respect, nothing at all has changed while the then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was since then: as with the celebrations of 1995, neither declaring that “There is no state of Israel without the American ambassador nor the representatives Jerusalem and no peace without Jerusalem undi- of the European Union attended the opening cere- Norman Podhoretz, editor-at-large of Commen- mony for the 40th anniversary of the city’s reunifi- tary, is the author most recently of World War IV: The cation. In another respect, there has even been an Long Struggle Against Islamofacism, which will be re- improvement: Orient House has been shut down, leased by Doubleday on September 11. and the Palestinian Authority has in the past few

[34] Jerusalem: The Scandal of Particularity years been prevented by various means from con- York and other American cities of which the same ducting organized political business within East thing could be said, but that did not mean that they Jerusalem. should not remain parts of the United States.) Nevertheless, the stark and simple truth is that A third, and perhaps the most telling rationale of today there is more reason, much more reason, to all, is demographic. Because the Palestinian resi- worry about Jerusalem than there was in 1995. In dents of Jerusalem have a much higher birthrate 1995, in spite of the ominous signs of trouble ahead than the living here, and because so many that seemed all too obvious to some of us, very few Jews have been leaving the city, the Jewish majori- outside the fringes of the far Left were will- ty has steadily dwindled. Furthermore, according ing to contemplate a redivision of Jerusalem. In to another poll, no fewer than 78 percent of Jewish those days, this was still the reddest of red lines, and Israelis do not wish to live in Jerusalem. In addition not even the promise of a peace treaty could induce to being off by the scarcity of jobs, some feel the vast majority of Israelis to cross it. Not so today. that there are already too many Palestinians here, In fact, according to a recent poll, 57 percent of Jew- and some, if truth be told, feel that there are too ish Israelis “are willing to make some concession in many Jews—haredi Jews, that is. There is thus a the city as part of a peace deal with the Palestinians.” distinct possibility that Jews will in any case wind up as a minority within their own capital city. ne rationale for this willingness has been Which is why a hawk like Professor Schuef- O supplied by my old friend, the historian Wal- tan of Haifa University can join with a Peace Now ter Laqueur. In a recent book entitled Dying for activist like the novelist Oz in advocating a Jerusalem, Laqueur informs us that “the city is al- redivision of the city. Yet Schueftan—who calls Is- ready divided,” and he goes on to invoke the au- rael “the eighth wonder of the world”—believes in thority of the to justify taking a re- achieving as much separation as possible between laxed attitude toward this situation: Isaiah, he Jews and Arabs, while Oz—who dwells obsessively writes, on Israel’s putative sins against the Palestinians— dreams of an Israeli ambassador to Palestine and a said many wonderful things about Jerusalem— Palestinian ambassador to Israel strolling frequent- that for Zion’s sake he will not keep silent, and ly to each other’s offices in the two parts of that out of Zion will go forth the law. But he Jerusalem for coffee and a friendly chat. Needless did not say that his right hand will forget her to say, no such vision of the lying down with cunning unless the Ministry of Tourism and the lamb presents itself to Schueftan’s eyes. He fa- the Ministry of Health are located in this city. vors a redivision only because, as he put it not long And Laqueur adds that nowhere in the Hebrew ago, “Israel without the parts of East Jerusalem Bible is it laid down that “sovereignty on part of heavily populated by Arabs . . . is stronger than Is- the city cannot be shared with others.” rael that includes 300,000 [more] Arabs.” Hillel Halkin, a prominent Israeli intellectual Now, even though I know that demographic and another old friend, agrees. He points out that projections often turn out to be wrong, and even the great majority of Jerusalem’s Arab inhabitants though I believe that strength cannot be measured live in areas of the city that were by demography alone, I certainly do not deny that the numbers give serious cause for concern. I also never traditionally thought to be part of freely admit that no comparison can be drawn be- Jerusalem at all. When one speaks, therefore, tween Jerusalem and New York, or indeed between of “repartitioning” Jerusalem, this is not quite the frightful specter that it might appear at Jerusalem and any other city on the face of the first glance. earth. In fact, I think that Mayor Uri Lupolianski is exactly right when he declares that “Jerusalem is There is also a variant of this rationale that was not only an inseparable part of the Jewish nation, given to me privately by another prominent intel- it is the basis of the existence of the Jewish nation.” lectual who once occupied a high position in the Is- Conversely, Walter Laqueur is in my judgment ex- raeli government. Since, he said, the city was al- actly wrong when he cites Isaiah, of all , in ready de facto divided to the point where neither he making his case for a certain nonchalance toward nor anyone he knew ever dared to venture into its the possibility that Jerusalem might be redivided in eastern part after dark, why continue resisting a de- some future negotiation. jure acknowledgment of that reality? (To this I To understand how egregiously off the mark replied that there were neighborhoods in New Laqueur is, we need to recall a little history.

[35] Commentary July-August 2007

fter the death of David’s son , the ficing and no celebration of the festivals anywhere A united kingdom forged by David was broken except in Jerusalem. Jerusalem thus became not apart into two separate kingdoms—Israel in the only the capital of but also, so to speak, the north with its eventual capital in Samaria, and Judah capital of . in the south with its capital in Jerusalem. But in 722 b.c.e., after some two centuries of stormy existence, n wondering about this singling-out of one the northern kingdom of Israel was conquered by I city from among all the cities in the Land of Is- the Assyrians and its people were scattered to the rael, I find myself ineluctably led into its larger and winds to become the . About twenty even more mysterious context, which is the sin- years later, in 701 b.c.e., Assyria, now ruled by Sen- gling-out of one people from among all the nations nacherib, was on the point of meting out the same of the world. And in puzzling over this belief that fate to Judah, of which was now the king. the children of Israel, and their descendants who Having already overrun much of Judah, Sen- would in later centuries be called Jews, were the nacherib was laying siege to Jerusalem. At this chosen people of God, I find myself relying for juncture, what did Isaiah do? Did he propose that help on an intriguing Christian concept: the one Hezekiah negotiate a deal under which Judah’s that Christian theologians call the scandal of par- Ministries of Tourism and Health would be moved ticularity. elsewhere and sovereignty over the city would be There are many elaborate definitions of this shared with Assyria? No, what he did was to assure concept. But in my opinion, it was most strikingly Hezekiah that if he held out against Sennacherib, elucidated not in any theological disquisition but in no harm would come to Jerusalem because God a little jingle often wrongly attributed to the British would not permit it. writer Hilaire Belloc. Actually, it was written in the This belief in the inviolability of Jerusalem went 1920’s by a British journalist named William Nor- very deep. Just how deep it went, we know from man Ewer, and it goes like this: “How odd/of what would happen more than a century later to God/To choose/the Jews.” the prophet Jeremiah. Because he was warning that Given the sly touch of anti-Semitic malice con- Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, would lay waste cealed beneath the whimsy of this jingle, it was in- to Jerusalem if a rebellion were mounted against evitable that there should have been responses in him, Jeremiah was accused of contradicting the kind. One of them, of uncertain authorship, runs: promise of God to the people of Israel, and his po- “But not so odd/as those who choose/A Jewish litical opponents advocated that he be put to death God/but spurn the Jews.” Another, also of uncer- for the crime of blasphemy. tain authorship, is more succinct: “Not odd/of It was also in Jeremiah’s time, under the reign of God./Goyim/annoy’m.” Josiah as king of Judah, that the book which would Ewer, incidentally, was not only an anti-Semite; later be known as Deuteronomy was found in the he was also, it has emerged from recently declassi- Temple of Solomon when repairs were being carried fied files of MI-5, a Soviet agent. Make of that what out there. Both the king and the people of Judah you will, a strange fact remains: in composing his were already familiar with much of what was con- jingle, this Soviet agent could have been speaking as tained in that book; but there was also something a believing Christian who had no choice but to ac- new and startling. It was a prohibition, stated in the cept what the Bible told him; and the Bible told him strongest possible terms, against offering sacrifices that God had indeed chosen the Jews. Ewer on any but the one in the . thought this an oddity. But to weightier and more The reason this was so startling was that, from solemn Christian minds it was more than odd, it the time of on down, a variety of was nothing short of scandalous, that the one true had been built and dedicated to the God of Israel God, the universal God, the God of all, should have in a variety of places, and nowhere in the laws of singled out any one people on whom to bestow His the Torah as they were known at the time, or in any special favor. And as if this were not scandal of the oracles and sermons of the prophets who enough, the particular people he had singled out had come earlier, had there been the remotest hint was the Jews: a scraggly tribe only just freed from that there was anything wrong with offering sacri- slavery and now wandering in the desert. fices on them. Yet now God was commanding the True, the often bitter fruits of this special privi- destruction of all these altars and shrines wherever lege would in the distant future sometimes lead the they might be located and however ancient they descendants of those scraggly wanderers in the might be. From now on, there was to be no sacri- desert to pray: “Dear God, please choose someone

[36] Jerusalem: The Scandal of Particularity else for a change.” But that in itself could have call the Incarnation. Yet neither do many Jews sub- been taken—at least by the humorless—as an up- scribe even to the first half, in which the election dated version of their incessant complaining of Israel is openly acknowledged. And it is not only against God, so richly documented by the Book of because they wish that God had chosen someone Exodus, along with their readiness at every mo- else for a change that they reject the whole idea of ment to rebel against the Law revealed to them at a chosen people. Sinai—the very Law that, through the instrumen- To Jews such as these, the idea of a chosen peo- tality of God’s choice of them, would at the end of ple is just another ridiculous myth that no enlight- days be accepted by all mankind. ened person could possibly accept. Nor is its puta- Of course, Jewish complaints against God have tive irrationality the worst thing about it. In their also come from those who adhere strictly to His reading, it was precisely through this idea that the law, and who are at a loss to understand why they evil of racism came into the world—the very evil have been punished instead of rewarded for it. We which ultimately mutated into the claim of the find such complaints magnificently expressed in Nazis that they were a master race, and of which, the Book of , and in the prophets Jeremiah and by a tremendously tragic irony, the Jews themselves Habakkuk, both of whom actually summon God to would become the major victim. what would in later centuries be called a din Torah, Most Jews who feel this way simply do not be- a lawsuit before a rabbinical court, to answer pre- lieve in God. But there are also Jews who in some cisely such charges. Nor did this end with the sense or other do believe in God and who never- prophets. Perhaps the most deliciously poignant theless regard the idea of chosenness as a primitive latter-day example we have is the 18th-century Yid- tribal superstition to be outgrown. An especially dish folk song called the “kaddish” of Reb juicy example of the lengths to which such Jews can Yitzhok of Berditchev, or A Din Toyreh mit Got. It go in dealing with the doctrine of chosenness goes in part like this: comes from the Reconstructionist movement, one of the branches of American Judaism. Here is what Good morning to You, Master of the Universe. I, Levi Yitzhok, son of of Berditchev, the movement recommends be told to young peo- Have come to swear out a complaint ple who are disturbed by the partiality that God Against you on behalf of Your people Israel. shows to the : What do You have against Your people Israel? The Bible describes a time when the Israelite Why are You always setting Yourself upon Your religion was becoming different from the reli- people Israel? gions of the neighboring peoples. Part of the “sales pitch” was the idea that the Israelite reli- e shall see in a few moments the answer gion was all good, and that the other religions W that the likes of Reb Levi Yitzhok have usu- were all bad. . . . Sometimes that sounds very ally settled on. Meanwhile, to return to the Chris- unfair to our modern ear, but it is really just an tians, they were ultimately able to reconcile them- ancient “hard-sell” campaign. selves to the scandal of particularity as applied to Needless to say, to Jews like this, Deuteronomy’s the Jews for a different reason: they discovered restriction of all ritual practices to a single city, how useful a concept it was when applied to the Jerusalem, only deepens the scandal of particularity. very cornerstone of their own religion. Here, for In their eyes, it was bad enough for the earlier books instance, is how a British divine, preaching in Sal- of the Torah to maintain that the one true God, the isbury Cathedral, has put it: God of all, had revealed Himself to one people It’s scandalous that, in some way, God . . . cares alone from among all the nations of the earth. But for the Jews more than anyone else. . . . This is then came Deuteronomy to make it worse by par- known as the scandal of particularity—that it ticularizing Judaism even more narrowly. was through a particular nation that God espe- The British clergyman I quoted a minute ago cially made Himself known. But then it was comes up with a good riposte to this objection: also at a particular time, in a particular place, and in a particular person, that God fully re- We sometimes hear people say, usually as an vealed His purposes and presence. excuse for not coming to church, that God is everywhere all of the time, and so we can wor- Obviously, Jews could not and cannot subscribe ship him everywhere—but the fact of the mat- to the second half of this expanded definition of ter is that, even though there may be some the scandal of particularity: that is, what Christians truth in that statement, we don’t experience

[37] Commentary July-August 2007

God everywhere all of the time—the scandal of But there are two other modern Jewish move- particularity is that we experience Him at par- ments, both of which arose, at least in part, out of ticular times and in particular places. embarrassment over the doctrine of chosenness. This, by the way, is a very remarkable statement. The first of these, Reform Judaism, was born in To appreciate just how remarkable, we have to re- in the 19th century. The Reformers did mind ourselves of a central argument of Christian hold on, if somewhat tenuously, to the belief in apologists throughout the ages in dealing with the chosenness. But they agreed with the then prevail- relation of their religion to Judaism. While ac- ing Christian view in drawing a sharply invidious knowledging—as how could they not?—that Chris- line between the particular and the universal. The tianity was born out of Judaism, they have claimed next step was to denigrate the ritual side of the Law that it represents a higher stage in the evolution of as the expression in action of the primitively par- religious understanding—from, precisely, particu- ticularist idea of chosenness, and to elevate instead larism to universalism. Yet here, in the words of a the moral or ethical commandments that were held Christian divine, we have an explicit recognition to be universal and therefore more advanced and that matters are not quite so simple as all that. Here enlightened. we have an explicit recognition that the particular If the Jewish people were chosen, the Reformers and the universal are not opposites at war with each said, it was in the sense that they had a “mission” other. Here we have an explicit recognition that the to uphold these moral values. Hence their favorite universal is rooted in the particular and can only be parts of the Bible were a few verses selectively reached through the particular. culled from some of the Latter Prophets, especial- Now if this British divine is representative, it ly Amos, Isaiah, and Micah—who, I once unkind- would seem that Christian thinkers have come to ly quipped, often seemed to be regarded by the Re- understand that what they used to regard and still form movement in the United States as very high- characterize as a scandal is not a scandal at all, but class fund-raisers for the liberal wing of the Demo- rather a paradoxical truth. But what about the Jews? cratic party. The second of the two modern Jewish move- ell, it goes without saying that, among ments, this one born in America in the 20th century, W those who in some sense or other believe in was Reconstructionism. From what I quoted in al- God, the Orthodox accept the idea of chosenness luding to it a few minutes ago, it was obviously more literally and without qualification or equivocation. audacious than Reform. In fact, it even went so far First God appeared to Abraham and made a as to purge from the liturgy any and all references to with him and with the line of his descen- the doctrine of chosenness, including even the dants running through his son and his grand- phrase asher bahar banu mikol ha-amim (“Who has son Jacob. Then He revealed Himself again in a chosen us from among all the nations”) in the bless- burning bush to in , and to the children ing one recites upon being called up to the Torah. of Israel as a whole at Sinai, where He promised that Am I then saying that a belief in the Jews as the if they kept His covenant, they would become “a pe- chosen people can be seriously held only by obser- culiar treasure to Me above all people.” vant Jews and believing Christians? My answer is no. To the extent that Orthodox believers bother to For one thing, I strongly agree that the univer- justify all this in the eyes of anyone who considers sal can only be reached through the particular— it an unseemly or even a sinful species of pride, and not just in religion alone, but also in art and they tend to emphasize that being chosen is as science which, in the words of the English poet much a burden as a privilege—the burden of bear- , “cannot exist but in minutely orga- ing the yoke of the commandments. Or, to cite the nized particulars.” True, I still find it hard to make answer that was given by the prophet Amos and theological or even just plain logical sense out of that the likes of Reb Levi Yitzhok had to accept: the election of Israel—so hard, that I cannot alto- “You only have I known of all the families of earth: gether dismiss the old view of it as an oddity to therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” Reason and a scandal to Theology. At the same Like the Orthodox, those observant Jews who time, however, I also find myself, if a little mis- belong to the Conservative branch of Judaism in chievously, beginning to think that if the idea of America find nothing scandalous about the partic- the Jews as the chosen people is taken not as a mat- ularity of chosenness. If they are less literal than ter of faith that can never be proved, but as a hy- the Orthodox in their understanding of the doc- pothesis subject to empirical verification, it actual- trine, they still seem relatively comfortable with it. ly seems to make scientific sense.

[38] Jerusalem: The Scandal of Particularity

or consider. All of the great powers and prin- more, they built it on the land from which they had F cipalities of antiquity—the Assyrians and the originally been driven into an exile so lengthy that Babylonians, the Greeks and the Romans—all the it became for a them a general touchstone of virtu- powers that at one time or another conquered the al eternity (azoi lang vi di golles, “as long as the Land of Israel and then outlawed the religious prac- exile,” they would say in Yiddish of anything that tices of its Jewish inhabitants, or executed some and seemed endless). banished others—all of these powers, each and And there is even more to the story than this. every one, have crumbled to dust. For in addition to the new state of Israel, there was Having outlasted all of these mighty empires by also America, to which over a century ago Jews creating ways of surviving statelessness, the Jews began fleeing by the millions from two great mod- then remained alive as an identifiable people for ern principalities that have likewise disappeared: another 2,000 years: in spite of persecution by the Austro-Hungarian empire of the Hapsburgs Christians and Muslims; in spite of forced conver- and the Russian empire of the Romanovs. These sions on pain of death; in spite of the murderous Jewish immigrants called America di goldene rampages that periodically broke out against them; medineh, “the golden land,” and they were right. Of and in spite of wholesale expulsions from countries course, there was no gold in the streets, as some of like and France and England in which they them had imagined, which meant that they had to had temporarily been granted refuge. struggle, and struggle hard. But there was another In another of these European countries, and in kind of gold in America, a more precious kind than our very own time, there even arose a tyrant who the gold of coins. There was freedom and there set out to achieve a “final solution” of “the Jewish was opportunity. Blessed with these conditions, and problem.” His technique was much more direct hampered by much less virulent forms of anti- than any that had been employed before. He sim- Semitism and discrimination than Jews had previ- ply murdered as many individual embodiments of ously grown accustomed to contending with, the that “problem” as his forces could reach, which children and grandchildren and great-grandchil- turned out to be a full third of the 18 million of dren of these immigrants flourished to an extent them who were still around by the early decades of unprecedented in the experience of their people. the 20th century. Thus it was that even before the remnant of one Meanwhile, in yet another country, yet another segment of the Jewish people had returned to its tyrant was doing his best to make it impossible for ancestral home, another portion had found anoth- the more than 3 million Jews still residing in his er home in a new place and in a new world such as domains to practice their religion or maintain any they had never discovered in all their forced wan- other ties to their ancient traditions. And we know derings throughout the centuries over the face of that only his death in 1953 prevented him from the earth. adopting even more extreme measures to push the still “unsolved” Jewish problem closer to its final or have the Jews simply survived in the ma- solution. N terial sense. Listen to Mark Twain writing in Yet all this, too, failed—and the Jews, though 1899, long before America had truly become a new much diminished in numbers and grievously home for the Jews and even longer before they had wounded in spirit, were once more still here as an built a state of their own in the Land of Israel. As identifiable people, while Hitler and Stalin and the it happens, while living in Vienna Mark Twain had empires they had built crumbled into the same ig- gotten to know Theodor Herzl, and though he did nominious dust as had the long line of their prede- not altogether oppose Herzl’s plan “to gather the cessors. And so, I make bold to predict, will it be Jews of the world together in Palestine, with a gov- with the Persians of today and their Arab allies who, ernment of their own,” he did think that it would even while denying that there was a Holocaust dur- be “politic” to stop such a “concentration of the ing World War II, threaten to enact another one by cunningest brains in the world,” because “it will wiping Israel off the map during our present war, not be well to let the race find out its strength.” the one I insist on calling World War IV. Considering that he began by characterizing the Israel: the state the Jews succeeded in building Jew as “a money-getter” from the time of in after nearly two full millennia during which they Egypt and up to the present day, Mark Twain had lived or died, been tolerated or persecuted, on might have been expected, like the pagan prophet the sufferance and at the whim of the regimes in the Bible, to , or at least disparage, under whose rule they found themselves. What is the Jews. But instead, and again like Balaam, he

[39] Commentary July-August 2007 ended up by showering on their heads. pirical evidence alone, and without necessarily re- Here is what he said: lying on the evidence of things unseen that is pro- vided by religious faith, we instead say Yes, then we The Jews constitute but one-quarter of one are driven to join with those of our fellow Jews percent of the human race. It suggests a nebu- who, like Mayor Lupolianski, contend that lous, dim puff of stardust lost in the blaze of “Jerusalem is not only an inseparable part of the the Milky Way. Properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of; but he is heard of, has always Jewish nation, it is the basis of the existence of the been heard of. He is as prominent on the plan- Jewish nation.” And if we agree about the centrali- et as any other people, and his importance is ty of Jerusalem, we are driven still further: into a extravagantly out of proportion to the small- spirited rejection of the reprehensible post-Zionist ness of his bulk. His contributions to the and anti-Zionist ideologues who are only too eager world’s list of great names in literature, science, to see Jerusalem divided yet again, or else trans- art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse formed into the capital of a bi-national state that learning are very out of proportion to the would eliminate the Jewish particularism of Israel, weakness of his numbers. He has made a mar- to be replaced not even by the fantasy of a univer- velous fight in this world in all ages; and has salist utopia but rather by an all too real Arab/Mus- done it with his hands tied behind him. . . . lim particularism. And we are also driven into a re- The Jew . . . is now what he always was, ex- jection, though a much gentler one, of the position hibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, taken by certain Zionists who, however regretful- no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his ly, are ready to accept such a division as the price energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive of peace with the Palestinians. mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all Alas, the hopes of peace today and in the foresee- other forces pass, but he remains. What is the able future are as illusory as they were in the day of secret of his immortality? the prophet Jeremiah when he denounced all those false prophets and corrupt priests who soothed the Only recently, an attempt to unravel one particu- hurt of the people with cries of peace, peace, when lar aspect of this secret was made by another Amer- there was no peace. Fortunately, however, the same ican Gentile, the brilliant social scientist Charles poll that shows 57 percent of Israelis willing to pay Murray. But after examining various theories pur- in the coin of a divided Jerusalem for peace with the porting to account for what he calls “Jewish ge- Palestinians also shows that a whopping 84 percent nius”—that is, the extraordinary and wildly dispro- are not taken in by the promises of peace issuing portionate intellectual and cultural achievements of from the mouths of the false prophets of today. the Jews—Murray rejected them all as unsatisfacto- A moment ago I made bold to predict that the ry and finally threw up his hands. “At this point,” Persians of our own time and their Arab allies will he wrote in Commentary, “I take sanctuary in my fail in their evil efforts to wipe Israel off the map. remaining hypothesis. . . . The Jews are God’s cho- Now I will conclude with another and even bolder sen people.” prediction: that their regimes, like the long line of their anti-Jewish predecessors who in generation f this is the conclusion, however playful it may after generation rose up against us to destroy us, I be, that a self-described Scots-Irish secular will be the ones to bite the dust, while the Jewish Gentile from Iowa finds himself forced into on the state, which is indeed the eighth wonder of the basis of the empirical evidence, who are we Jews to world, lives on—with, yes, Jerusalem as its undi- say him Nay? And if, on the basis of the same em- vided capital.

[40]