Va’era 5775 – France Without Jews is not France

We are still in shock over the murders by Islamic terrorists a week and a half ago of Yoav Hattab, Yohan Cohen, Philippe Braham and François-Michel Saada as they were doing some last-minute shopping before Shabbat.  Those killings, along with the attacks at the offices of Charlie Hebdo have been a wake-up call.  Much soul-searching is taking place in France, and around the world.

It seems that some people outside of the Jewish community are finally recognizing that there is a connection between antisemitic attitudes and rhetoric and terrorism – that ignoring the former will invariably lead to the latter.

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared last week that “France without Jews is not France.”  To back up this sentiment, he announced on Monday that 10,000- military troops would be deployed to protect sensitive sites, and that 4,700 police officers would protect Jewish schools and synagogues.

At the rally in Paris last Sunday of a million and a half people, in addition to signs declaring “Je suis Charlie,” there were some that read “Je suis Juif.”  I am Jewish.

I imagine it must be at least somewhat reassuring to French Jews to have both the leaders of the country as well as some of its citizens taking their safety seriously and making commitments to protect them because they recognize that French Jews are citizens of the country who make up an important and integral part of the national fabric.

Not everyone is so hopeful.  On Sunday, Prime Minister Netanyahu, attending the rally in Paris, explicitly invited the Jews of France to move to Israel.  “Israel is your home,” he said.  This was not the first time that an Israeli leader urged French Jews to make aliyah.  In 2012, at a joint press conference with President Francois Hollande, Netanyahu said:  “In my role as Prime Minister of Israel, I always say to Jews, wherever they may be, I say to them: Come to Israel and make Israel your home.”

It has not only been Netanyahu.  At a ceremony in 2004 welcoming new immigrants from France, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon advised French Jews to “move immediately” to Israel to escape “the wildest antisemitism” in France.

The French were not pleased then either.

There is something of a rhetorical tug of war going on here between those who say that “France without Jews is not France,” and those who claim that there is no future for Judaism there.

This is not the first time the Jewish people have faced this question.  In this morning’s Torah portion, Va-era, there is also a tug of war over the future of the children of Israel.  At the opening of the parashah, they are enslaved in Egypt.  God has identified Moses as the prophet who will carry the message “Let my people go” to Pharaoh and lead the Israelites out of slavery and to the Promised Land.

Not everyone wants to see the Israelites leave, however.  Pharaoh and his court, certainly, do not want to see their enslaved workforce disappear.  The Israelites themselves are skeptical of Moses’ insistence that God is going to lead them away.  They prefer an enslaved life that they know to an uncertain life of freedom.

God knows, however, that there is no future for Israel in the land of Egypt.

God hears the groaning of the Israelites and remembers the commitment made to their ancestors generations before.  God promised Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that their offspring would be as numerous as the stars and would one day inherit the land of Israel.  They would be a blessing to the world.  This is a destiny that cannot be fulfilled by slaves in a foreign land.

God tells Moses:

Say… to the Israelite people…  I will free you from the labors of the Egyptians and deliver you from their bondage.  I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and through extraordinary chastisements.  And I will take you to be My people, and I will be your God.  (Exodus 6:6-7)

These four verbs – “I will free you, I will deliver you, I will redeem you, and I will take you” – are the four stages of redemption that our Passover Seder identifies as the basis of the four cups of wine.

In this redemption, freedom is only part of God’s promise.  God also means to build a covenantal relationship with the Jewish people.  Central to that covenant is the establishment of a Jewish society in the Promised Land.  Only then can the Jewish people become what God has intended for them to become.  Only then will they realize their potential and flourish.

This tug of war in the Torah between slavery and freedom, between Egypt and Israel, is black and white.  In the millennia since our ancestors first became free, the question of where the Jewish people can best flourish has been more complicated.  Maimonides, fleeing persecution in Spain and then Morocco, made his way to the land of Israel.  There, he found a backwards Jewish community in which he did not see a future.  So he kept going South and settled in the thriving Jewish community of Fustat, Egypt.

We are a people that is both rooted in our Promised Land, and capable of bringing our faith and identity with us wherever we go.  We have been successful at it, developing tight-knit communities whose members support one another and are a force for good in their surrounding environments.

Part of the importance of the State of Israel today is that it truly functions as the homeland of the Jewish people.  Robert Frost said “Home is the place where, if you have to go there, they have to take you in.”  Israel is that home for Jews, wherever we happen to be living right now.

Since the establishment of Israel in 1948, it has opened its doors to refugees from the Holocaust, masses of Jews fleeing pogroms in North Africa and the Middle East, Jews of the Former Soviet Union and Ethiopia.  “Welcome home,” Israel said.

So what of the Jews of France today?

The Jewish community in France is significant.  There are an estimated 500,000 Jews living in France.  The is the largest community in Europe and the third largest in the world.  It is a diverse, cosmopolitan community, comprised of Jews across the religious spectrum – from secular to ultra-Orthodox, and everything in between.

The last few years have seen a rise in acts of antisemitism.  This has led to increasing numbers of French Jews deciding to move to Israel.  Last year, nearly 7,000 French Jews made aliyah, more than double the previous year.  With continued anti-Jewish violence, that number is expected to be even higher this year, perhaps as many as 10,000.

When we consider the long history of Judaism in France, it is particularly sad that the community finds itself facing so much pressure now, because France has really come a long way.

The first Jews probably arrived about 2,000 years ago.  Attracted by economic opportunities, they did well in the early middle ages.  Charlemagne embraced the Jews, seeing them as a blessing to his kingdom.

The Crusades brought new attitudes across Europe.  Rulers stoked antisemitism, and peasants took out their frustrations on their vulnerable Jewish neighbors.

The persecutions began around the year 1000 CE.  Jewish communities were often confronted with the choice of conversion to Christianity, death, or exile.  Several waves of expulsions took place in 1182, 1306, and 1394.  Jews often had property and assets seized, or debt owed to them cancelled.  Blood libel accusations were frequent.

Don’t think, however, that it was all bad – that the middle ages were centuries upon centuries of pure suffering.  Also during this time, there were Jewish communities that thrived, enjoying prosperity and cultural flowering.  Some of the most important Jewish leaders and thinkers in history came from France.

Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzchak, more commonly known as Rashi, is the most important commentator of the Torah and Talmud in Jewish history.  He lived and taught in Troyes, in Northern France in the eleventh century and gave rise to a school of innovative Jewish thinkers that flourished for several generations.

As the years passed, the Jews of France, as they were everywhere else in the world, were seen as other, and treated as second-class citizens, at best.

By the 1780’s there were approximately 40-50,000 Jews living in France.  They had legal status to be there, but with extremely limited rights.  They were basically restricted to the money-lending business.  Things were changing in Europe, however, especially in France.  The Enlightenment had taken hold, and there were finally some Christian voices that were calling for tolerance and acceptance of minorities.

The French Revolution of 1789, with its ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity, introduced the notion that all residents of a nation could be considered citizens, regardless of their religious affiliation.

The change was sporadic and haphazard, as the chaos of the revolution proceeded and the Reign of Terror took hold, but the Jews of France recognized that something new was happening, and they were excited about the possibilities.  Jewish communities helped fund the revolution, and Jewish soldiers joined the Army of the Republic in its battles against other European countries.  Many Jews patriotically gave their lives for the sake of their French homeland.

When Napoleon came to power, he wanted to finally resolve the Jewish question.  In 1806, he convened the Assembly of Jewish Notables, naming it the Grand Sanhedrin.  Twelve questions were posed to it members, the answers to which would determine the future status of the Jews of France.  Those questions included:

• May a Jewess marry a Christian, or [May] a Jew [marry] a Christian woman? or does Jewish law order that the Jews should only intermarry among themselves?

• In the eyes of Jews, are Frenchmen not of the Jewish religion considered as brethren or strangers?

• Do the Jews born in France, and treated by the law as French citizens, acknowledge France as their country? Are they bound to defend it? Are they bound to obey the laws and follow the directions of the civil code?

• What kind of police jurisdiction do the rabbis exercise over the Jews? What judicial power do they exercise over them?

The answers the Assembly gave essentially declared Jews to be French citizens first, and Jews second.  Intermarriages would be considered binding.  French Jews would consider non-Jews to be their brethren.  Jews would consider France to be their fatherland, and would defend it when called upon, etc.

When asked if they wanted to be citizens, with all that it would entail, the Jews of France answered with a resounding “oui.”

In 1807, Napoleon added Judaism as an official religion of France.  As his armies moved across Europe, Napoleon liberated Jewish communities of other lands from the ghettos to which they had been restricted.

Emancipation was not yet complete, however.  In 1846, the Jews of France became fully equal when the French Supreme Court found the More Judaico, the Jewish oath, rooted in medieval antisemitism, to be unconstitutional.  Legally, the Jews of France were now fully French, with rights equal to Catholics and Protestants.

The social reality, however, was quite different.  Despite tremendous efforts by Jews to assimilate into French society, antisemitism was still widespread.  At the end of the nineteenth century, a traditionalist faction of army officers concocted a plot to frame a young Jewish Captain named Alfred Dreyfus for treason.  The subsequent trials were a major political scandal in France that lasted from 1894 – 1906 and that divided the country between the anticlerical, pro-republic Dreyfusards and the pro-army, mostly Catholic anti-Dreyfusards.

Theodore Herzl was a secular Jewish journalist who had grown up in antisemitic Austro-Hungary and moved to France due to what he perceived as its progressive, humanist values.  He was a strong proponent of Jewish assimilation into European culture as the solution to the Jewish problem, which had become “an obsession for him.”  (Dictionary of the Dreyfus affair, Nichol, p. 505.)  Herzl’s coverage of the Dreyfus Affair in 1895, however, led him to conclude that Jews would never be accepted by the non-Jewish world.  As much as Jews had given up to become citizens, they would never be seen as equals.

In his book, Der Judenstaat, Herzl writes:

If France – bastion of emancipation, progress and universal socialism – [can] get caught up in a maelstrom of antisemitism and let the Parisian crowd chant ‘Kill the Jews!’ Where can they be safe once again – if not in their own country? Assimilation does not solve the problem because the Gentile world will not allow it as the Dreyfus affair has so clearly demonstrated.

Herzl subsequently founded the First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897, creating Zionism as a political movement and laying the foundation for the reestablishment of a Jewish homeland in the land of Israel.  If the Gentile world is incapable of accepting Jews as equals, Jews will have to establish a land of their own where they constitute a majority and are free to determine their own fate.

At the beginning of World War Two, there were 350,000 Jews living in France, a number of them having fled Germany in the 1930’s.  During the Holocaust, one fifth of France’s Jewish population were murdered by the Nazis, often with the collaboration of French officials and citizens.  There were also many enlightened French who saved Jews.  France has the third highest number of people honored as Righteous Among the Nations among any country.

Between 1948 and 1967, France was a strong supporter of Israel, with close military ties.  The Israeli nuclear reactor in Dimona was built with significant assistance from the French government in the 1950’s and 1960’s.  Israeli Air Force pilots flew French fighter jets in the Six Day War in 1967.

By the end of the twentieth century, France’s population had among the most favorable attitudes towards Jews of any country in Europe.

The resurgence of anti-Semitism over the last fifteen years has come from a non-traditional  source.  While there are still antisemitic attitudes from those on the far right and the far left, the rise in anti-Jewish activity has been attributed mainly to increasing violence by people in the French Muslim community.  Flare-ups have tended to occur especially when there is political tension in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In addition to the terrorist attack on the Hypercacher grocery store, there have been other murders, acts of vandalism, attacks against synagogues and Jewish-owned businesses, anti-Jewish demonstrations and chants, and more.

That is why French Jews are increasingly nervous, why French emigration is up, and why real estate prices in Israel are soaring.

I am not French, but I doubt that we are going to see a mass Exodus of the entire Jewish community of France to Israel.  I hope and pray that there is a thriving future for the Jews of France.

Like you, I am extremely concerned for our Jewish brothers and sisters who had to cancel Shabbat services at some synagogues last week and who require police and military presence at all of their institutions.  I hope that this wake-up call to the French people will lead to action, will help them realize that the Jewish people are the proverbial canary in the coal mine, because the Prime Minister is correct when he says “France without Jews is not France.”

Why BDS is completely misguided

In the past year, the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement, otherwise known as BDS, has really heated up.

The BDS movement tries to apply economic and political pressure on Israel to acheive its three goals, which are, in its words:

1.  the end of Israeli occupation and colonization of Arab land

2.  full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel

3.  respect for the right of return for Palestinian refugees

They use three main tactics.  The first tactic is a boycott of Israeli products and companies which they claim profit from violating Palestinian rights.  There is also a cultural boycott: convincing artists and musicians to refuse to perform in Israel.  And finally. there are academic boycotts, whereby Israeli professors and academic institutions are not permitted to participate in partnerships, conferences, and academic collaborations.

The second tactic is divestment, which means convincing those who control pension funds or universities with large endowments to not hold in their portfolios any stocks of corporations which they claim are complicit in violating Palestinian rights.

The third tactic is sanctions, which means keeping Israel out of various diplomatic and economic forums.

More generally, the BDS movement tries to negatively influence public opinion about Israel.

There have been a number of prominent people who have joined in on the boycott.  Stephen Hawking boycotted the Israeli Presidential Conference last year.  Also last year, the Association for Asian American Studies announced a boycott of Israeli universities and academic institutions.  Roger Waters, former front man for Pink Floyd, has been quite vocal in his participation in the BDS movement.

You may have heard the flap around the SodaStream commercial during the Superbowl this year.   SodaStream is an Israeli company based in Ashkelon that has a factory in the West Bank.  So, it has been included in the boycott.  The actor Scarlett Johanson, in addition to being the star of the commercial, had also been an official ambassador for Oxfam for eight years.  Oxfam supports BDS.

When all of this went public, Scarlett Johanson resigned her position with Oxfam (which is a big score for the Jewish people).

The ironic thing is that the SodaStream factory is a model for economic cooperation.  It employs Israeli Jews and Arabs along with Palestinians.  The Palestinians are paid way above market rates and recieve great benefits.  They are given a lot of workplace employee protections.  The CEO of SodaStream built the factory explicitly to promote economic cooperation and further the cause of peace.

But the BDS folks went crazy over Scarlett Johanson sticking to her principles and resigning from Oxfam.

There have also been numerous attempts on universtity campuses to pass student resolutions calling for endowments to divest from Israeli corporations.  I will speak more about that later.

What is wrong with BDS?  On its surface, the idea of nonviolent protest for a political cause seems reasonable.  It’s better than suicide bombings.  But the BDS movement is deeply flawed for a number of reasons.

First of all, while the BDS movement is not explicitly anti-semitic, many of those who are involved in it are, and the rhetoric often turns nasty and personal.

The BDS movement does not actually target Israeli policies.  Rather, it aims to undermine the very legitimacy of Israel.

The idea that Israel, more than any other nation in the world, is deserving of a boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign is fundamentally ridiculous.  Israel is far from perfect.  There are many injustices in Israeli society, including in its treatment of Arab citizens in Israel and Palestinians in the territories.  The government has made a number of mistakes which have harmed the peace process.

That said, I don’t need to remind you that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.  It is one of the most progressive countries in the world with regard to gay rights and women’s rights.  It is the only country in the Middle East with a free press.  Arab Israelis vote, serve in government, and bring cases to the Israeli Supreme Court where they are heard by Jewish and Arab justices sitting next to each other.

The BDS movement singles out Israel for denying citizenship to Palestinians.  Let us remember that Palestinians are not Israelis.  They, in fact, vote in Palestinian elections.  Compare their enfranchisement to the rights of the vast numbers of Palestinians living in refugee camps in other Arab countries like Lebanon, Syria, and Kuwait, where they have been denied citizenship for generations and live in horrible conditions.  Why?  Because those regimes are terrified that large numbers of Palestinians might further destabilize their hold on power.  Also, because it has enabled them to keep the pressure on Israel ratched up for the past sixty years.

Where is the protest on behalf of the one hundred fifty thousand people killed and millions of displaced Syrians?  Where are the campus protests calling for an end to discrimination against women in Saudi Arabia?  Why is there no movement to eliminate honor killings, which are accepted outright in some societies, or treated in other legal systems (such as the Palestinian Authority) as a mitigating factor that carries a lighter sentence.

Not to excuse improper actions by the Israeli government, but there is at best a gross naivety when one compares the moral challenges in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with some of the terrible atrocities that are committed in repressive societies around the world.

This is nothing new for Israel.  Israel has been held to an unequal standard for its entire existence.  Of the 1822 resolutions passed by the U.N between 1948 and 2009, 235 involved Israel, which equates to 13% of all resolutions.  Since the formation of the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2006, Israel has been condemned forty five times, which comprises 45.9% of all country-specific resolutions passed by the council.

Dealing with international condemnation is nothing new for Israel.  In fact, despite such antagonism throughout its existence, Israel has built a thriving society.  It long ago learned to ignore most of what comes out of the UN and the international community.  The following story illustrates the point.  To understand it, you will need to know that the Hebrew acronym for the U.N. is או”ם, “um.

It is 1955, and the Israeli cabinet is debating what to do about increasing cross-border fedeyeen terror attacks from Egypt.  They are considering whether to invade and capture the Gaza Strip to prevent the attacks, and are debating the international repercussions.  Prime Minister Moshe Sharett points out that if it had not been for the 1947 U.N. resolution, Israeli would not have been founded.  In response, David Ben Gurion, who was the Defense Minister at the time, snaps “Um shmum!”  And that has been a pretty good description of how Israel has felt about the United Nations ever since.

So what else it wrong with BDS?

Simply put – it will not work.

Israel has become so successful in the global economy.  Its businesses are integrated with corporations and countries around the world.  Just think about all of the connections between Silicon Valley and Israel.  National borders are becoming increasingly irrelevant when it comes to the expansion of global businesses.  I am highly doubtful that a BDS campaign could negatively impact the thriving Israeli business and academic climates in any meaningful way.  It’s just not going to work in a globalized world.

But there is another, far more important reason why the BDS movement is completely misguided.  Historically, whenever Israel has felt pressure from the outside, it has dug in with even greater stubborness.  The idea that imposing sanctions and boycotts will bring Israel to its knees and force it to give in is totally naive.  If anything, BDS will acheive the opposite result.

Those who want to promote the cause of the Palestinians, improve the chances for coexistence, and possibly even bring about a peaceful solution, ought to do the exact opposite of BDS.

Instead of pulling money out of corporations doing business in Israel, pour money in.  Invest in economic development in the West Bank.  Invest especially in joint business and research ventures between Israelis and Palestinians.  Build more SodaStream factories.  People are willing to make concessions when they feel secure and when they have hope that their lives will improve.  People will take risks for peace when they can see the realistic possibility that their children will enjoy a higher standard of living than they themselves have experienced.

That is only going to happen when there is not only dialogue on a grassroots level between Israelis and Palestinians, but when there are real economic incentives for building something together.

Unfortunately, the BDS movement is not actually interested in pursuing peace.  In calling for the right of return for all Palestinians to Israel and the granting of citizenship to all Palestinians, combined with intensive delegitimization, it seems clear that what the BDS movement is really after the dismantling of Israel as a Jewish state.

The most hurtful aspects of the BDS campaign, sadly, occur at universities.  On numerous campuses, local BDS groups bring forth resolutions calling for the university to divest from corporations that do business in Israel.  The tactics are often filled with intimidation.

There are practical reasons why divestment is a bad idea.  Harvard President Drew Faust said last year, “Significantly constraining investment options risks significantly constraining investment returns.”  In other words, artificially imposing limits on investment opportunities will result in less money available for university programs.  That is bad for students.

The other reason is ethical and political.  The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a one-sided issue.  The plight of the Palestinians is wrapped up in complicated international histories and relationships.  There are many parties that bear responsibility, including Arab governments, the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and yes, Israel.  To single out one side is ignorant and irresponsible.

Plus, these kinds of movements on university campuses are often experienced by Jewish students, staff, and faculty as unfair and discriminatory.  BDS campaigns often intimidate students, stifle constructive debate, and repress free speech.

Jewish students at NYU and other universities recently had mock eviction notices placed under their doors.  Students are sometimes harrassed walking across campuses.  The tone of the rhetoric is often hateful, equating Israel with Nazi Germany or apartheid South Africa, and targeting pro-Israel students in ways that often cross the line of anti-Semitism.  Some BDS protests have turned violent.

It is happening all over the country.  Five UC campuses, including UC Santa Cruz last week, have passed BDS resolutions.

Also last week, the student Senate at the University of Washington resoundingly rejected a BDS resolution by a vote of 59 to 8, with 11 abstentions.  That is the biggest defeat of a BDS resolution so far, and that is pretty remarkable at a school like UW, which has a history of anti-Israel activity.

The reasons it failed at UW are important.  Hillel students spent a full two years preparing for a resolution that they knew would be coming.  They did so in a grassroots way that united individuals who did not agree with each other.  It brought together students on the right and the left who were affiliated with AIPAC, Stand With Us, and J Street.

As a result of their efforts, the broader student body felt that the dialogue that had taken place had been respectful and substantive.

The UW outcome is a tremendous victory that has left students feeling energized and empowered, but it comes at a cost.  For two years, Jewish students and leaders on campus devoted an enormous amount of their energies to defending Israel.  What was neglected?  After all, there is more to being Jewish than defending Israel.  Think of all of the positive Jewish programming that did not take place because of the resources devoted to defeating a BDS campaign.  University is supposed to be a time for gaining independence, being exposed to new ideas, and engaging in constructive dialogue with people of different backgrounds and opinions – not defending yourself from attack and discrimination.

In an article published after the victory, Rabbi Oren Hayon, the Executive Director at UW Hillel, describes the numerous students who came to him under tremendous stress.  He writes critically of the treatment of students by people on both sides of the issue as “‘troops’ to be mustered, ‘vessels’ to be filled, ‘fields’ to be planted, and ‘assets’ to be positioned.  Rarely, if ever,” he writes, “were they celebrated as thinkers, partners, or colleagues.”  That is a shame.

What can we do?

It seems that we may need to get more involved.  Not because BDS poses a great threat to Israel’s security, but because it places harmful pressure on Jews living in the Diaspora, especially college students.  And we cannot simply rely on campus Hillels to bear the burden.

One simple thing that is easy for all of us: Buy Israeli products.

Also, do not get into emotionally-laden shouting matches with BDS supporters.  You are not going to change their minds.  Speak about Israel with people you know: friends at work and at school.  Don’t be shy about it.  But always speak with respect, ask lots of questions, and always listen.

Ki Tissa 5774 – The Horns of Moses

In 1505, Pope Julius II commissioned the Renaissance artist Michelangelo to design and contruct his tomb in Rome.  In the course of his work, Michelangelo created one of the most famous statues in the world, known simply as the Moses.  Giorgio Vasari, a contemporary of Michelangelo, wrote a description of the statue:

Michelangelo's MosesMichelangelo finished the Moses in marble…, unequalled by any modern or ancient work. Seated in a serious attitude, he rests with one arm on the tables, and with the other holds his long glossy beard, the hairs, so difficult to render in sculpture, being so soft and downy that it seems as if the iron chisel must have become a brush. The beautiful face, like that of a saint and mighty prince, seems as one regards it to need the veil to cover it, so splendid and shining does it appear, and so well has the artist presented in the marble the divinity with which God had endowed that holy countenance. The draperies fall in graceful folds, the muscles of the arms and bones of the hands are of such beauty and perfection, as are the legs and knees, the feet being adorned with excellent shoes, that Moses may now be called the friend of God more than ever, since God has permitted his body to be prepared for the resurrection before the others by the hand of Michelangelo. The Jews still go every Saturday in troops to visit and adore it as a divine, not a human thing.  (Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the Artists Michelangelo Buonarotti of Florence, Painter, Sculptor and Architect)

Where did they come from?

This morning’s Torah portion, as it turns out.

After the disaster with the Golden Calf, God wants to wipe out the Israelites altogether and start over with a new nation descending from Moses.

Moses, in his role as God’s therapist, manages to talk God down and gets God to give the people a second chance.  Moses then descends the mountain to investigate the damage.  He breaks the tablets with the Ten Commandments on them, cleans house, and heads back up to the top of Mount Sinai to reestablish the relationship between God and Israel.

Moses is on a roll.  So he decides to strike while the iron is hot.  Now is the time to ask God the question that he has been saving for just the right moment:  “Show me Your glory.”

Moses wants to see God’s essence.  That, it turns out, is a bit too much even for someone like Moses to handle, so God agrees to shelter Moses in the cleft of a rock while the Divine Countenance is revealed.  Then, Moses will be able to catch a glimpse after God’s Presence has passed by.

Even that is pretty impressive.  When Moses comes down the mountain after forty days, everybody is excited for the reunion.  Moses has a shiny new set of Tablets, and the people are eager to have their leader back.  But as soon as they see him, the Israelites recoil in fear.

In his encounter with God, something has happened to Moses’ face.

The Torah describes it.  קָרַן עוֹר פָּנָיו (karan or panav) – Our Etz Hayim chumash translates it as “the skin of his face was radiant.” (Exodus 34:29) Robert Alter says, “the skin of his face glowed.”

In other words, Moses was radioactive.

But it is kind of a strange expression.  In fact, it is the only time in the entire Hebrew Bible that the verb karan appears.  The word means “to send out rays [of light]”

There are far more common words that would have conveyed the same image.  L’ha-ir, for example, is a common Hebrew word that means “to shine.”  Why didn’t the Torah use that word?  There must be something unique about this particular event that would explain the use of such a rare expression.

In the 4th century, Saint Jerome translated the Bible into Latin for the Catholic Church.  When he got to our word, he connected the verb karan to the noun keren, which is a common Hebrew word that means “horn.”  He translated it into the Latin cornuta, meaning “horns.”  The Latin translation would go something like this:  Moses had sprouted horns from the skin of his face.

It doesn’t really fit the context.  First of all, horns would grow from the head, not from the skin of the face, as the text describes.  Second, it makes a whole lot more sense that Moses would come away from his encounter with God reflecting some of the Divine fire that engulfed the mountain.

Jerome probably did not mean anything negative by attributing horns to Moses.  In the ancient world, horns were often associated with power.  The Babylonians and Egyptians had horned deities, and the Romans used horns to symbolize might, depicting horned statues of Jupiter.

The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Bible, which Jerome certainly knew and understood, translated karan as “glorified.”  Jerome probably had something similar in mind.

But not everyone knew that.  It was in the 11th century that depictions of a horned Moses started appearing in Christian art.  The idea of Jews having horns also emerged around this time.  It was an especially pernicious accusation, possibly rooted in  a misunderstanding of Jerome’s translation.

In 1267, the Council of Vienna decreed that all Jews had to wear a special, pointed, horned hat.  Jews in other European communities over the following centuries were forced to wear other degrading symbols or items of clothing – often having something to do with horns.  (Joshua Trachtenberg, The Devil and the Jews, pp. 44-46.)

Why horns?

Horns were associated with the devil.  And so along with horns, Jews were also accused by medieveal European anti-Semites of having large, hooked noses, tails, goat-like beards, and cloven hooves.  It was a nasty rumor that persists to this day.  When my sister-in-law met her roommate upon first arriving at university, she asked her, in all sincerity, “where are your horns?”

What did Michelangelo mean by giving his Moses horns?  It’s hard to say.  There had been artistic renderings of Moses for hundereds of years, some with horns, and some without.  Some of those that depicted him with horns did so in a particularly evil light.

But there is no evidence that Michelangelo meant anything nasty by it in his Moses.  He was an artist, not a biblical scholar.  So he made Moses according to the words in his Bible: with horns coming out of his face.

But we still haven’t answered the question of why the Torah uses such an unusual word in Hebrew.  The Bible scholar Nahum Sarna suggests that the word karan “is probably a pointed allusion to the golden calf, for keren is the usual word for a horn.  It subtly emphasizes that the true mediator between God and Israel was not the fabricated, lifeless image of the horned animal, as the people thought, but the living Moses.” (Nahum Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, p. 221.)

In other words, the Torah describes Moses’ glowing face with the word karan to emphasize that there can be no physical representations of God.  A horned calf made out of gold is a false god.  God cannot be encountered through an idol.  The Divine is not comprised of stone, wood, or precious metals, which are inanimate and lifeless.  God’s will is transmitted through human beings – through the Prophet Moses, and through the written and oral Torah that our tradition traces back to Moses’ intimate conversations with God.

After the people recoil from Moses’ glowing face, he gently urges them to come back.  “It’s ok.  It’s ok.  Everything will be fine.”

From then on, whenever he shares his conversations with God, the Israelites are illuminated by the Divine light reflecting off of Moses’ face.

And it is a conversation that continues to this day.  We have the records of Moses’ interactions with God, and the records of generation after generation of students and teachers trying to understand, apply, and extend those conversations to meet the evolving needs of contemporary life.  Whenever we engage in that conversation, we too are illuminated by the radiance that shone from the skin of Moses’ face.