Halkin fires his barbs at chosenness while studiously ignoring its only real foundation: prophecy. The only issues worth exploring are the two that underpin Jewish chosenness – the value of prophecy and the possibility for Israel to attain it again.
The modern ear winces at “For us You have chosen” in the kiddush, yet no one objects to the haftarah blessing: “Who has chosen good prophets and took pleasure in their words spoken in truth.” If the prophets uniquely spoke for God, then – by definition – they were chosen by Him. The only question worth asking is whether that claim is true and whether Israel can reclaim that role.
It is that claim alone that is worth analyzing: Do the prophets teach something sublime, divine? And, is it true, as they claim, that the Jewish people uniquely will one day reclaim the same ability?
Far from being a function of the exile, the notion of chosenness has always been about the future, about the possibility to reclaim the role of speaking for God. Chosenness is much bolder than the facile apologies of it being a burden, that it confers obligations, that it is about a mission and not an inborn superiority. Rather, it claims that historical contingencies have made this people uniquely capable of speaking God’s word, both in their glorious past – when an Isaiah, an Amos, a Malachi walked in their midst – and in their hoped-for glorious future, in which their “sons and daughters shall prophecy” (Joel 3:1).
Halkin is right that mealy-mouthed apologies for chosenness (“it’s really a burden!”) never convinced anyone. Actual prophecy, however, has always commanded attention. But Halkin refuses to state the only possible argument: either that the prophetic way should not impress anyone, or that it no longer is associated with a specific nation. By failing to make that his argument, he is guilty of the very sin of which he accuses others – making chosenness something independent of an underlying, verifiable reality.
The teachings of the Torah and the prophets are, in my opinion, utterly sublime and otherworldly, and we have only begun to plumb their depths (Interested readers: my Substack and archive here: https://shnayor.substack.com and here: https://linktr.ee/rabbishnayorburton). Prophecy lies behind us and before us too. And chosenness follows from that idea. For no sublime idea can float unembodied; it requires a concrete place, time, and persons to bear it in its fullest expression. Even if prophecy is theoretically universal – and I believe it is – in order for it to be meaningful, it must be concentrated in a particular people, land, and language, or it evaporates into sentiment.
Perhaps one should attempt to become a prophet and then reevaluate the notion of chosenness. I venture to say that it would be a manifestly obvious and necessary doctrine.
Halkin all but admits that his argument is not against Jewish chosenness as such but against Judaism itself; it would have been more honest and more edifying to say so outright.
Oh, and about David Ben Gurion – he was far from someone “who practiced no aspect of Judaism.” He studied Torah and developed the Land of Israel, arguably the two most central commandments of the whole Torah.
Halki, you appear to have studied the matter superficially, and nevertheless you imagine that you can understand a book which has been the guide of past and present generations, when you for a moment withdraw from your lusts and appetites, and glance over its contents as if you were reading a historical work or some poetical composition. Collect your thoughts and examine the matter carefully, for it is not to be understood as you at first sight think, but as you will find after due deliberation
Yes, I wonder in what sense “prophet” is meant in the description of the newsletter’s mission as being “dedicated to supporting modern-day, practical prophets to express their visions.”
Say, “So said Hashem,” and you’ll have my immediate attention!
Interesting take by, at least for an English reader, the best person to make it. Thank you Ariel for publishing it.
Hillel's failure to articulate any idea of what getting beyond Judaism would actually entail should however be read as the final nail in the coffin in the idea that such an outcome is possible.
Hillel alludes to but doesn't endorse the anti-Judaism strain of secular Zionism, embodied in the old Canaanist movement that I'm sure he knows better than I do. This is a tell.
The problem with that perspective was how close it hewed to Jew-hatred and the incoherence of a state whose deepest lived value is to be a refuge for Jews. What to do with all those refugee Jews who stubbornly cling to traditional Judaism? I'm confident Hillel does not need to be reminded of the evils of the experience of the children of Mizrachi refugees placed in anti-religious Stalinist kibbutzim.
Not that things have gone any better in the diaspora, where versions of Jewishness divorced from Judaism hold, as they do in Israel, to the last remnants of anti-democratic communal power they assumed in the mid-20th century while those Jews who care most about being Jewish become ever more focused on the longest-lived aspects of Jewish tradition.
The answer is not getting beyond Judaism. It is articulating and making real a new Judaism that engages seriously with the dramatic upheaval of the reestablishment of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel.
Hillel Halkin’s book “Letters to an American Jewish Friend” was one of the most influential books I ever read. After reading it twice in English, I reread it in its Hebrew translation (in part to improve my Hebrew) on a flight to Israel where it inspired me to live for four years in the 80s. But turning to Halkin’s current piece. Living now only in the winters in Israel, and most of the year in Toronto, in my “traditional egalitarian” Jewish community, I experience a very different kind of “Judaism” (not to speak of a different kind of “Jewishness”). In shorthand, a “Hartman Institute Judaism”. One of the small but significant changes we have made to our Friday night kiddush, (which we and our children and grandchildren DO sing every Friday night, welcoming the Shabbat, a chosen day set apart and sanctified) is to modify the line “Ki vanu vaḥarta v’otanu kidashta MIKOL ha-amim” to “Ki vanu vaḥarta v’otanu kidashta EEM Kol ha-amim”. “We are chosen and sanctified WITH all the other nations”. It doesn’t have to be a binary all-or-nothing approach - either obscurantist fundamentalist ultra-Orthodoxy or complete secularism.
I too share a deep appreciation for Hillel, and the same modification of the prayer. When working on Hillel on the piece I asked him about this - why is it that moving Beyond isn't exactly what you mentioned -- learning that the binary is a construction that doesn't speak to the soul of the Jewish People, that was constructed in the past by those wanting power. What I understood from his answer - and his decision to write the piece as he did - is that he doesn't believe that is enough. That perhaps we need to go further to redefine the spiritual/philosophical basis of our people.
I love all of my children the most in the world, each of them I love uniquely. So too, I would assume, our Creator. And to be fair, the Sages do say that explicitly and repeatedly.
I hear you, but take the story of Jacob and Esav as a metaphor: both were chosen, and even when the blessing was switched each were chosen for their own path. There are dozens of other examples in Gmara where there are stories of the Eternal expressing his choice of some nations for somethings, others for others.
I actually think the paradox of “Ki vanu vaḥarta v’otanu kidashta EEM Kol ha-amim” (“We are chosen and sanctified WITH all the other nations”) is not a bug but a feature. There is a built-in tension in Judaism between Universalism (one God, Creator of one Universe, in whose image ALL humans are created, etc.) and Particularism (the Jewish people, the Land of Israel, the revelation of the Hebrew Torah, etc.) The two central concepts of the Shabbat kiddush are: (1) Creation of the Universe in 6 days, and resting on the seventh (very Universal), and (2) Yitziat Mitzrayim, which was the national "creation" of Am Yisrael (quite Particularist). “Ki vanu vaḥarta v’otanu kidashta EEM Kol ha-amim”, with the change of only one word to the original formula, seems to me to encapsulate that paradox poetically. So that is why we have adopted it.
Can you name a time in history where the Jewish people had more friends and supporters than they do today?
Can you name a time in our nations history where there were less casualties due to antisemitism than there are today?
Can you name a time in the modern state of Israel’s history where the economy was as robust as it is today? Where the quality of life was so high? Where there was such a small degree of homelessness? Where we were as powerful?
Small point, Israel consistently ranks, until today, as a top 5 happiest county in the world (and the other 4 are SSRI junkies), and has the highest fertility rate of among western countries.
Zev, in the fine de siecle, European society loved Jews. There was a Jewish Prime Minister of Prussia, Finance and Foreign ministers of Germany. Same with Golden Age Spain.
Let's consider the central figure at the beginning of nationhood: Abraham. In him is no smug assertion of superiority or apartness except in this one duty of a mission: he would be a vessel of blessing to all the nations, and they would acknowledge that God commissioned him and his progeny. This assignment reminds us of eight qualities of meek blessedness beginning with the words, "Blessed are the poor (utterly dependent) in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Let's consider the central figure at the beginning of nationhood: Abraham. In him is no smug assertion of superiority or apartness except in this one duty of a mission: he would be a vessel of blessing to all the nations, and they would acknowledge that God commissioned him and his progeny. This assignment reminds us of eight qualities of meek blessedness beginning with the words, "Blessed are the poor (utterly dependent) in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Halkin has raised some very important issues.The survival of Judaism does not depend on the Haredim who retreat from the world, but on those who seek out and practice what are considered Jewish values. My eight grandchildren, all but one had a bar/t mitzvah are now dealing with a link to an Israel headed by Netanyahu. I am reformed but not religious - whatever that means. But my schiksa wife lights candles on Friday night, and I chant the traditional blessings. The contrast between the Christian New Year and Yom Kippur perhaps symbolizes the difference between our approach to life. Inter marriage is a threat to the survival of Judaism in America. We need to clarify what sets us apart but not different. I will read more of Halkin's writings and try to pass them on.
Halkin fires his barbs at chosenness while studiously ignoring its only real foundation: prophecy. The only issues worth exploring are the two that underpin Jewish chosenness – the value of prophecy and the possibility for Israel to attain it again.
The modern ear winces at “For us You have chosen” in the kiddush, yet no one objects to the haftarah blessing: “Who has chosen good prophets and took pleasure in their words spoken in truth.” If the prophets uniquely spoke for God, then – by definition – they were chosen by Him. The only question worth asking is whether that claim is true and whether Israel can reclaim that role.
It is that claim alone that is worth analyzing: Do the prophets teach something sublime, divine? And, is it true, as they claim, that the Jewish people uniquely will one day reclaim the same ability?
Far from being a function of the exile, the notion of chosenness has always been about the future, about the possibility to reclaim the role of speaking for God. Chosenness is much bolder than the facile apologies of it being a burden, that it confers obligations, that it is about a mission and not an inborn superiority. Rather, it claims that historical contingencies have made this people uniquely capable of speaking God’s word, both in their glorious past – when an Isaiah, an Amos, a Malachi walked in their midst – and in their hoped-for glorious future, in which their “sons and daughters shall prophecy” (Joel 3:1).
Halkin is right that mealy-mouthed apologies for chosenness (“it’s really a burden!”) never convinced anyone. Actual prophecy, however, has always commanded attention. But Halkin refuses to state the only possible argument: either that the prophetic way should not impress anyone, or that it no longer is associated with a specific nation. By failing to make that his argument, he is guilty of the very sin of which he accuses others – making chosenness something independent of an underlying, verifiable reality.
The teachings of the Torah and the prophets are, in my opinion, utterly sublime and otherworldly, and we have only begun to plumb their depths (Interested readers: my Substack and archive here: https://shnayor.substack.com and here: https://linktr.ee/rabbishnayorburton). Prophecy lies behind us and before us too. And chosenness follows from that idea. For no sublime idea can float unembodied; it requires a concrete place, time, and persons to bear it in its fullest expression. Even if prophecy is theoretically universal – and I believe it is – in order for it to be meaningful, it must be concentrated in a particular people, land, and language, or it evaporates into sentiment.
Perhaps one should attempt to become a prophet and then reevaluate the notion of chosenness. I venture to say that it would be a manifestly obvious and necessary doctrine.
Halkin all but admits that his argument is not against Jewish chosenness as such but against Judaism itself; it would have been more honest and more edifying to say so outright.
Oh, and about David Ben Gurion – he was far from someone “who practiced no aspect of Judaism.” He studied Torah and developed the Land of Israel, arguably the two most central commandments of the whole Torah.
Halki, you appear to have studied the matter superficially, and nevertheless you imagine that you can understand a book which has been the guide of past and present generations, when you for a moment withdraw from your lusts and appetites, and glance over its contents as if you were reading a historical work or some poetical composition. Collect your thoughts and examine the matter carefully, for it is not to be understood as you at first sight think, but as you will find after due deliberation
You would think with a newsletter title like that...
Yes, I wonder in what sense “prophet” is meant in the description of the newsletter’s mission as being “dedicated to supporting modern-day, practical prophets to express their visions.”
Say, “So said Hashem,” and you’ll have my immediate attention!
For prophesying?
So said H a great title for your newsletter!!
uh but then I might be חייב מיתה…
Wow! Thank you!
Interesting take by, at least for an English reader, the best person to make it. Thank you Ariel for publishing it.
Hillel's failure to articulate any idea of what getting beyond Judaism would actually entail should however be read as the final nail in the coffin in the idea that such an outcome is possible.
Hillel alludes to but doesn't endorse the anti-Judaism strain of secular Zionism, embodied in the old Canaanist movement that I'm sure he knows better than I do. This is a tell.
The problem with that perspective was how close it hewed to Jew-hatred and the incoherence of a state whose deepest lived value is to be a refuge for Jews. What to do with all those refugee Jews who stubbornly cling to traditional Judaism? I'm confident Hillel does not need to be reminded of the evils of the experience of the children of Mizrachi refugees placed in anti-religious Stalinist kibbutzim.
Not that things have gone any better in the diaspora, where versions of Jewishness divorced from Judaism hold, as they do in Israel, to the last remnants of anti-democratic communal power they assumed in the mid-20th century while those Jews who care most about being Jewish become ever more focused on the longest-lived aspects of Jewish tradition.
The answer is not getting beyond Judaism. It is articulating and making real a new Judaism that engages seriously with the dramatic upheaval of the reestablishment of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel.
Thank you - well questioned, and I agree with your call to action.
Hillel Halkin’s book “Letters to an American Jewish Friend” was one of the most influential books I ever read. After reading it twice in English, I reread it in its Hebrew translation (in part to improve my Hebrew) on a flight to Israel where it inspired me to live for four years in the 80s. But turning to Halkin’s current piece. Living now only in the winters in Israel, and most of the year in Toronto, in my “traditional egalitarian” Jewish community, I experience a very different kind of “Judaism” (not to speak of a different kind of “Jewishness”). In shorthand, a “Hartman Institute Judaism”. One of the small but significant changes we have made to our Friday night kiddush, (which we and our children and grandchildren DO sing every Friday night, welcoming the Shabbat, a chosen day set apart and sanctified) is to modify the line “Ki vanu vaḥarta v’otanu kidashta MIKOL ha-amim” to “Ki vanu vaḥarta v’otanu kidashta EEM Kol ha-amim”. “We are chosen and sanctified WITH all the other nations”. It doesn’t have to be a binary all-or-nothing approach - either obscurantist fundamentalist ultra-Orthodoxy or complete secularism.
I too share a deep appreciation for Hillel, and the same modification of the prayer. When working on Hillel on the piece I asked him about this - why is it that moving Beyond isn't exactly what you mentioned -- learning that the binary is a construction that doesn't speak to the soul of the Jewish People, that was constructed in the past by those wanting power. What I understood from his answer - and his decision to write the piece as he did - is that he doesn't believe that is enough. That perhaps we need to go further to redefine the spiritual/philosophical basis of our people.
How do you understand "chosen with all the other nations"? Doesn't chosenness imply something specific to that which was chosen?
I love all of my children the most in the world, each of them I love uniquely. So too, I would assume, our Creator. And to be fair, the Sages do say that explicitly and repeatedly.
I think you're addressing "love," but my question was about "choosing," which by definition implies selection/election.
I hear you, but take the story of Jacob and Esav as a metaphor: both were chosen, and even when the blessing was switched each were chosen for their own path. There are dozens of other examples in Gmara where there are stories of the Eternal expressing his choice of some nations for somethings, others for others.
I actually think the paradox of “Ki vanu vaḥarta v’otanu kidashta EEM Kol ha-amim” (“We are chosen and sanctified WITH all the other nations”) is not a bug but a feature. There is a built-in tension in Judaism between Universalism (one God, Creator of one Universe, in whose image ALL humans are created, etc.) and Particularism (the Jewish people, the Land of Israel, the revelation of the Hebrew Torah, etc.) The two central concepts of the Shabbat kiddush are: (1) Creation of the Universe in 6 days, and resting on the seventh (very Universal), and (2) Yitziat Mitzrayim, which was the national "creation" of Am Yisrael (quite Particularist). “Ki vanu vaḥarta v’otanu kidashta EEM Kol ha-amim”, with the change of only one word to the original formula, seems to me to encapsulate that paradox poetically. So that is why we have adopted it.
Can you name a time in history where the Jewish people had more friends and supporters than they do today?
Can you name a time in our nations history where there were less casualties due to antisemitism than there are today?
Can you name a time in the modern state of Israel’s history where the economy was as robust as it is today? Where the quality of life was so high? Where there was such a small degree of homelessness? Where we were as powerful?
Small point, Israel consistently ranks, until today, as a top 5 happiest county in the world (and the other 4 are SSRI junkies), and has the highest fertility rate of among western countries.
Zev, in the fine de siecle, European society loved Jews. There was a Jewish Prime Minister of Prussia, Finance and Foreign ministers of Germany. Same with Golden Age Spain.
Firstly, I am referring to the percentage of the global population, not specific places in specific times (A more powerful and relevent claim).
But even in your terms, there are more Jewish Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers, and global influencers today, than in any period in the past.
Let's consider the central figure at the beginning of nationhood: Abraham. In him is no smug assertion of superiority or apartness except in this one duty of a mission: he would be a vessel of blessing to all the nations, and they would acknowledge that God commissioned him and his progeny. This assignment reminds us of eight qualities of meek blessedness beginning with the words, "Blessed are the poor (utterly dependent) in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Let's consider the central figure at the beginning of nationhood: Abraham. In him is no smug assertion of superiority or apartness except in this one duty of a mission: he would be a vessel of blessing to all the nations, and they would acknowledge that God commissioned him and his progeny. This assignment reminds us of eight qualities of meek blessedness beginning with the words, "Blessed are the poor (utterly dependent) in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Halkin has raised some very important issues.The survival of Judaism does not depend on the Haredim who retreat from the world, but on those who seek out and practice what are considered Jewish values. My eight grandchildren, all but one had a bar/t mitzvah are now dealing with a link to an Israel headed by Netanyahu. I am reformed but not religious - whatever that means. But my schiksa wife lights candles on Friday night, and I chant the traditional blessings. The contrast between the Christian New Year and Yom Kippur perhaps symbolizes the difference between our approach to life. Inter marriage is a threat to the survival of Judaism in America. We need to clarify what sets us apart but not different. I will read more of Halkin's writings and try to pass them on.
George Baum