Skip to main content

The Battle Over Jewish Tradition (1)

Text file

 

            In Shai Agnon's story, "Pat Shelema," we hear of an interesting encounter:

 

            "As I hurried along against my will, an old man knocked on his window to get my attention.  I turned my head and saw Dr. Yekutiel Ne'eman standing in the window.  I ran to him and was joyous indeed, as he was a wise man and his words were pleasant.  As soon as I approached him, he disappeared.  I looked into his house, until he came and stood with me and greeted me.  I returned his greeting and waited to hear those great things which people were accustomed to hear from him.

            Dr. Ne'eman inquired after the health of my wife and children.  I sighed and told him, 'You remind me of my sorrow; they are yet in the Diaspora and desire to return to the land of Israel.' He said, 'If they desire to return, what deters them from returning?' I sighed and said, 'There is a delay here.'  He replied, 'Deceit is the cause of this delay.'

            His lips were slightly ajar, and it seemed as if a silent remonstrance were hanging upon them, and his great beard, streaked with gray, bent and became waves, like the raging ocean.  I was sorry to have raised his anger against me and caused him to discuss petty things with me.  I thought of an idea and began to speak of his book.

            This book was the center of much controversy.  Some of the sages claimed that everything written in it was from the mouth of Lord ....; Yekutiel Ne'eman wrote it and neither added nor subtracted a thing from his words.  And thus claimed Yekutiel Ne'eman.  And there were those who disagreed, claiming that Ne'eman had written it himself, and credited it to a lord whom no one had ever set eyes upon.

            This is not the appropriate place to expand about this book.  However, I must say that from the day of its publication the world has changed somewhat for the better, that some people have corrected their behavior and altered their natures somewhat, and that there are those who focus their energy on doing everything as this book proscribes.

            In order to please Dr. Ne'eman, I praised his book highly and said, 'Everyone admits that it is a great work with no peer.'  Yekutiel turned his face away from me and left me and went on his way.  I stood and tore my heart with sorrow and remorse over all that I had said.

            Dr. Ne'eman did not remain angry with me.  And when I was about to leave, he returned and gave me a package of letters to bring to the post office and send registered mail [Hebrew: be-achrayut, literally, to send with responsibility].  I placed the letters under my arm and placed my hand on my heart as a pledge that I would fulfill my mission faithfully."

 

 

            This story has inspired countless research papers and literary analyses.  We will leave the theories aside and try to interpret the story on its most basic level.  In fact, this is one of the most transparent sections of Agnon's writing.  Yekutiel Ne'eman clearly represents the figure of Moses, the loyal [Heb.: ne'eman] servant of God, to whom our Rabbis gave the name Yekutiel.  Dr. Ne'eman informs us that "what is written [in the book] is from the mouth of lord ...."  Four dots replace the three which are normally used to represent a missing word.  This is a hint at the Tetragrammaton, the four-lettered name of God.  Dr. Ne'eman has given us a book.  His book is none other than the Torah.  Opinions are divided about it.  We struggle with the heretics: "And there were those who disagreed, claiming that Ne'eman had written it himself, and credited it to a lord whom no one had ever set eyes upon."  Dr. Ne'eman is not interested in my assessment of the book: "[I] said,' Everyone admits that it is a great work with no peer.'"  Dr. Ne'eman is not interested in positive critical reviews.  His concern is truth.

 

            Dr. Ne'eman demands our commitment, and our first responsibility is to our family, our children - a responsibility which the modern desire for self-actualization often obscures.  He also gives us "a package of letters to bring to the post office and send registered mail [be-achrayut, literally, with responsibility]."  The correct term in modern Hebrew for registered mail would have been "mikhtav rashum;" however, the archaic Hebrew term "be-achrayut" will prove useful in our further interpretation of the story.  In any case, we who have studied the parable of the Indian king, are equipped to solve the riddle.  There, too, the king sends letters.  These letters, mailed with responsibility, clearly represent the Torah and the commandments.

 

Now for the central focus of the story:

            "A short time later I was standing before the post office ... as I was about to enter, a carriage passed and I saw a man sitting inside: I stood amazed, that now when there was not a horseshoe in the city, a man was traveling in a carriage with two horses.  And what was most surprising was that he was sporting with the passersby, by turning his horses into their path.  I raised my eyes and saw that it was Mr. Gersler.  This Mr. Gersler was the head of an agricultural school in the Diaspora; however, in the Diaspora he rode a horse and here he rode in a carriage … and he was an educated and well-bred man, and although he was overweight, his flesh was not noticeable on account of his learning.

            This Mr. Gersler was a particular acquaintance of mine.  How long have I known him?  Perhaps from the day that I first knew myself.  I will not exaggerate if I claim that our affection had remained constant since our first acquaintance.  And although he is beloved of the whole world, I can say that I am dearer to him than all others, since he made efforts with me and showed me all kinds of pleasures.  And when I tired of them, he amused me with words of wisdom.  Mr. Gersler had been granted great wisdom, which could uproot all the wisdom you had acquired elsewhere.  And never in his life did he ask for payment, but would give and be glad that his favors were accepted.  In the old days, I was but a lad and he was quick to amuse me until that night when my house was burned and all of my possessions went up in flames.

            The night when my house burned down, Mr. Gersler was sitting with my neighbor, playing cards.  This neighbor, Israel Mumar [lit. the heretic], was a cloth salesman.  He lived below among his merchandise and I lived above with my books.  Between rounds, my neighbor told him that his merchandise was not selling, since all of his cloth was made of paper, having been made during the war, and since the end of the war people had once again begun to weave cloth of wool and linen, and no one wants to make a garment from fake cloth which will stretch and tear while you wear it, when he can get real cloth.  Mr. Gersler asked him, 'Are you insured [Hebrew: are you promised responsibility - "achrayut"]?'  He answered, 'I am insured.'  As they spoke, Mr. Gersler lit himself a cigarette and said, 'Throw this match into this trash can and collect the insurance money.'  He went and set fire to his merchandise and the entire house burned down.  This Mumar, who was insured, received the money for his merchandise and I, who had not insured my possessions, was left frustrated and undone, and what was left me from the fire I spent on lawyers, since Mr. Gersler tempted me to sue the city for not saving my house, for they even added to the flames.  For on that night, the firefighters had made themselves a party and got drunk and filled their vessels with whiskey and brandy and when they came to put out the fire they added to it.

            For these reasons, I distanced myself afterwards from Mr. Gersler, and it seemed to me that I was rid of him forever, because I was angry at him, since because of him my house burned down, and because I had immersed myself in Yekutiel Ne'eman's book.  In those days, I prepared myself to move to the land of Israel and in my abandonment of worldly pleasures I abandoned Mr. Gersler.  When I moved to the land of Israel who did I come across first - Gersler, since he was traveling in the same boat as myself, except that I traveled in the lower compartment in the fashion of the poor, and he traveled in the upper compartment in the fashion of the rich."

 

            Mr. Gersler joins our cast of characters; beyond the shadow of a doubt, he represents Satan.  Ironically, our hopes to escape from his clutches through the redeeming arms of idealism are crushed when we find ourselves in his company even after our move to the land of Israel.  The Hebrew term "achrayut" reappears at this point.  Modern Hebrew would have offered the term "bituach," insurance, here.  Since the store was insured, it was burned, and thus our hero's garret was destroyed as well.  This "achrayut" refers to the moral system based upon the letters.  Our hero's lack of this "achrayut" becomes a responsibility of a different kind.  The fire was a biographical incident in Agnon's life; however, in my mind it symbolizes the destruction of European Jewry, while the firefighters, the nations, complacently look on, perhaps even adding to the flames.

 

            Gersler's personality is a fascinating study.  He appears in two different masks.  On the one hand, he is the one "who showed me all kinds of pleasures."  He promises us pleasures; yet, ultimately he will jeer and laugh at us.  Every adolescent is acquainted with the struggle against the evil inclination: "and although he is beloved of the whole world, I can say that I am dearer to him than all others."  Each of us is intimately acquainted with our own darker side.  However, Agnon has a more serious message for us.  The same enemy wears another mask as well: "and when I tired of them, he amused me with words of wisdom.  Mr. Gersler had been granted great wisdom, which could uproot the wisdom you had acquired elsewhere."  We must meet the challenge of false wisdom.  We will continually face questions and problems.  This experience is the other dimension of the great challenge of life.

 

The Essence of the Tale

 

            Rabbi Nachman of Breslav was perhaps the classic conveyer of this mode.  We know that one of the basic vehicles of expression in Chassidism was the story, or "tale."  In relating the tales told by or about a tzaddik, we discover the true meaning of our ultimate obligations.  Rabbi Nachman tells us that just as we tell tzaddik stories, others relate anti-tzaddik stories.  Today and forever, we will continue to face that someone who, consciously or unconsciously, tries to create a false option, with all the outer trappings of truth.  The true prince will always be challenged by a commoner who claims the throne.  We will always have to distinguish between truth and deception.  This is our primary task.  There are those who reach what is termed a relativistic conclusion from this state of affairs; they maintain that truth simply does not exist.  This approach constitutes an even greater danger, which we must fight at all costs.  Although  many may claim the crown, there is but one true prince!

 

            This is not merely an intellectual problem; it is a deeply existential difficulty as well.  I will try to describe our situation through an example which many of us witnessed.  Not long ago, through the media or in actual presence, we followed the trial of a Ukrainian murderer, one of the angels of destruction who tortured our parents and brothers in the valley of death called the Holocaust.  The traumatic experience and the resultant trial in Jerusalem conducted by judges who represented the victims' children, was obscured in a legal discussion replete with irrelevant technical details, and in the constant battle surrounding them.  We also witnessed the attempt made within the framework of the trial to create an alternative truth, to the extent that at many moments doubts arose even in the minds of those convinced of the integrity of the witnesses, and the correct identification of the accused.  The public exposure of the trial brought us face to face with the full power of the legal system, but also with its limitations.

 

            Let me take this example one step further.  Let us imagine a different situation.  A person who is very dear to us, a person who we know well, is on trial for a serious offense.  We know with absolute certainly that he is innocent.  We feel it, we are convinced of it, and all of our acquaintance with him bears witness to it.  Let us assume that this time the prosecution, not the defense, attempts to convict the person dear to us.  The prosecution invites "experts" who "stretch" the evidence in their possession, while others "innocently" point out various suspicions, which slowly raise the probability of guilt.  The defense attorney must construct a defense strategy.  He may wish to present proofs in favor of the accused.  However, some of the proofs may not be legally binding.  For example, my  certainty of the integrity and innocence of my friend will not be accepted in court.  For the sad reality is that we are often faced not with clarification of the truth, but with clarification of the truth according to particular rules.

 

            Now for the interpretation of the parable.  Something very precious to us is on trail - the authenticity of the Scriptures, the basic truth of the Bible and our tradition.  In a lengthy trial such as this we have been dealing for years with what is known as biblical criticism.  Our trial has gone through many and varied stages.  The defense has presented excellent alternatives to the thesis of the plaintiff.  However, before we deal with the issues themselves, we must remember that they are discussed in the framework of a trial with its own set of rules.  The quest is not for truth, but for truth that has been proven in a manner which is acceptable to a particular discipline of science.

 

            When will the trial end?  Our first responsibility is not to wait for the verdict, and not to be influenced by the populists who flippantly discuss things which are sub judice to scientists and religious people.  However, we are not afraid of the verdict of the scientists either.  We must approach the conflict from the perspective of faith, with the belief that within these processes as well, the historical truth will come to light.  We must always remember that there is an elemental difference between confidence in someone, and proving his innocence in court.  This means that we are faced with a struggle in which an objective verdict will not easily be achieved.  From the cornerstone of our faith we reach out to the chain of generations which Rihal describes.  We also believe in the prophetic origin of the chain, as described in the Scriptures.  The Scriptures teach us that the birth of the Jewish nation constituted a break into the laws of nature and of history, and that the Torah contains a revelation of the divine.  We cannot correctly and precisely express the details.  The final history of this period has not yet been written.  Yet, even in our day, we view history as the outgrowth of faith and inner conviction.  This truth does not spring solely from historical evidence.  It is based on the very existence of the document which demonstrates the relationship; it is based on the letter which we have received from God.  We are willing to discuss the interpretation of the document.  However, just as with a letter from a loved one, we are willing to discuss its meaning but not its authorship.  His fingerprints are evident to us in every word.

 

            It seems that we are trapped in a certain sense, and will remain so.  One of the criteria historians employ to disqualify or accept historical evidence is the issue of miracles.  If the Scriptures describe a miraculous event, many people will automatically define the text as false.  The miraculous quality of the event is, for many people, the greatest proof of its lack of historical authenticity.  This is a serious problem indeed, which will only be resolved when we discover parallel documentation; even in that case, the problem will not wholly disappear.  We must realize that no absolute proofs exist which can help us establish our position.  A leap of faith must precede all our logical proofs.

 

Truth and Faith

 

            Rabbi Nachman of Breslav compared the exodus from Egypt to a flash of lightning in the dark of night, which gives us a glimpse of the world as it is.  However, after the lightning we return to darkness.  The difference between the state of light, when we see reality, and the state of groping our way in the darkness, is the difference between truth and faith.  Truth is the vision of an indisputable reality.   This was the experience of the revelation at Mt. Sinai. Our generation must respond to the challenge of faith.

 

            We cannot achieve a full comprehension of reality; however, we can reach out to the link in the chain which preceded us, reaching backward in time, until we reach the lightning itself.  The establishment of this link is truly an act of free will.  Joining hands with the chain of generations is an act of freedom, of decision.  This, in Rihal's view, is our mission.  My hand is not held by force; I must give it.  I must overcome my doubts and make a decision of faith.  In the very acceptance of the tradition, there is an act of faith, a victory over the temptations of Mr. Gersler, a triumph of the letters of Dr. Yekutiel Ne'eman.  This is the path described by Rabbi Nachman in his parable "The Wise Man and the Simple Man."  In order to understand it we must return to the parable of the king of India.  We will discuss this in next week's lecture.

 

(This lecture was translated by Gila Weinberg.)

 

Copyright (c)1997 Prof. Shalom Rosenberg, Yeshivat Har Etzion.  All rights reserved.

 

This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!