The Best Prophetic Jew

When the late Rabbi Zalman Schachter Shalomi (aka Reb Zalman) of Boulder CO, was asked to comment on the role of the Jewish people amongst the nations he would often respond by suggesting the “Organismic Model”. Just like each organ in the body has a different structure and different function as it helps to sustain the entire organism, so too Jews have their unique role amongst the nations. And he would always add, so too do the other nations and traditions. Just like all organs in a body need to exchange signals, and cooperate in order to preserve and enhance the body’s wellbeing, so too all nations and traditions need to communicate and cooperate in order to sustain a healthy humanity. A professor of comparative religion and a great humanist, Reb Zalman encouraged active dialogue and cooperation with other religions, a process he termed “Deep Ecumenism”.

However the organismic model has also been sharply criticized especially by some Jewish progressives. They argue that while the organismic model on its face may encourage interfaith dialogue it also allows for exclusivist Jewish particularism. How so? Because Just as in the human body some organs are more essential than others, so too the model may suggest that some peoples are more essential to humanity than others, i.e. the Jewish notion of the chosen people. These critics reject essential particularism on the grounds that all people were created equal “B’Tzelem Elohim”, in God’s image (Genesis 1:27). They thus express a concern that the organismic model, while explaining differences between peoples, also bolsters a sort of rationalized Jewish religious and ethnic chauvinism.

In my view this concern is unwarranted because of the dichotomy that is assumed at its foundation. This dichotomy proposes that people can either be seen as essentially the same (i.e. differences are only skin deep) or seen as essentially unequal (i.e. a perceived hierarchy of racial and cultural traits). I would like to reject this dichotomy as false, and a narrow and simplistic view of the human condition. In my view “same” doesn’t necessary mean “equal” and “difference” doesn’t necessary mean “unequal”. I would like to advocate for a middle way that reconciles the poles of this false dichotomy.

A commentary by Rashi (11th century classical Bible and Talmud commentator) on Parashat Naso (Bamidbar 4:21) illustrates this middle way. The tribe of Levi are divided into three clans, headed by the three brothers Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. Parashat Naso begins with instructions for taking a census of the Gershonite and the Merarite clans as they receive their designated roles in service of the Tabernacle (the mobile temple in which the Israelites worshiped as they wandered through the Sinai desert). At the end of the previous Parasha, Kohath, Gershon’s younger brother and his clan, undergo their own census before being designated for the most prestigious assignment in the Tabernacle service, the transportation of the precious ritual vessels that were located in the Tabernacle’s Holy of Holies.

Rashi notices a strange linguistic feature relating to the Gersonite clan in the opening of the Parasha: “נָשֹׂ֗א אֶת־רֹ֛אשׁ בְּנֵ֥י גֵרְשׁ֖וֹן גַּם־הֵ֑ם…׃, Take a census of the Gershonites, of them also, .…”. Rashi wonders why the use of the words “them also”? The narrative could have simply said “take a census of the Gershonites”, period. Whom is “them also” referring to, and why, as it does not seem to make any significant contribution to this part of the narrative. Or does it?!

Rashi explains: “even as I (God) have commanded you (Moses) regarding the sons of Kohath (in the previous Parasha)”. In other words, Rashi is clarifying the Torah’s intent that not only the younger brother Kohath was instructed to take a census before being assigned their role but (them, the clan of Gershon) also were so instructed. But why does Rashi bother with this comparison to begin with? What is Rashi (and several other classical commentators, such as Bechor-Shor, Bartenura, and Hizkuni) concerned about?

A review of the entire census narratives of all three clans, as well as a review of the other commentaries clarifies that Rashi is wrestling with the question of hierarchy versus equality amongst the three brothers or three clans of the tribe of Levi.

We saw that the census instructions given to each clan are followed by each clan’s designated responsibilities as caretakers of the Tabernacle. Rashi directs our attention to the fact that the structure of the census narrative is almost identical for the Gershonites as for the Kohathites in the previous Parasha, demonstrating that the stature of their roles must be of equal value in the eyes of Torah and God. Rashi is suggesting that the Torah is cautioning us not to wrongly perceive the role of Gershon as being any lesser than that of Kohath, despite superficial appearances to the contrary. How do we reconcile this tension between a perceived hierarchy verses a value proposition of equality, in the text as in life? By calling out the falsity of the dichotomy to begin with.

To sum it up, handling the most sacred vessels of the Mishkan by the Kohathites appears markedly more important than the handling of the tent within which these vessels are housed, the task of the Garshonites. The Merarite’s task of handling the outer perimeter fence and gates could be viewed as an even lesser task than that of the two others. Yet as brothers and as human beings they are equally valued by their ancestors and by their Creator. The Torah teaches us that questions of value and equality are often context dependent such that they can be both of disparate value and equal value at the same time. Thus, we are challenged to allow the dichotomy to collapse.

That which applies to the three clans of Levi also applies to humanity as a whole. While all human individuals as well as all human groups are equally created in the image of the Divine, yet according to the organismic model all individual souls as well as human communities, nationalities, and religious traditions are designated for roles that are substantively and qualitatively different from one another.

As we learn from the three clans example, this does not imply that one is superior nor inferior to another. This principle applies across the board to religions, nations, organizations, synagogues, churches, classrooms, and so forth. Some roles are more essential than others and so are the individuals and/or groups called to fulfill them. However, when the workday is over, as it were, we all go back to being equal in the eyes of our Creator. Thus a person’s value or a tradition’s value are dynamic and context dependent.

A rookie schoolteacher some decades back, I completely lost control of my middle-school classroom which descended into absolute pandemonium. One of the more intelligent yet quiet students in my class who was overwhelmed by the intense chaos surprised me when she came up to my desk, looked me in the eye, and said: “Mr. Modek, you should take control of the class”.

She or anyone else in the classroom, in principle, could have equally taken control of the situation. But none did because it wasn’t their designated task. It was uniquely mine. My young student with an abundance of intuitive wisdom had asked me to fulfill my essential role for the benefit of the entire classroom organism. Or put another way, when my inability to fulfill my essential role has resulted in chaos and dysfunction, the classroom organism began signaling that I must realign myself with my purpose as the classroom’s teacher and leader.

At that time, however, I was not sufficiently skilled at reading and appropriately responding to the wisdom expressed by the classroom organism, of which I was a member. In later years with the benefit of more training and experience I came to understand that at the time of this incident I was too distracted by an unconscious and selfish need to be the “cool and easy going teacher”, instead of possessing a commitment to being the effective teacher that the classroom needed. This example illustrates the importance of each organ in an organism living up to its designated unique role, strength and purpose.

According to the organismic model, all spiritual traditions have divinely assigned roles, just like the three clans did or the rookie teacher in the middle school classroom. Each tradition contributes to the spiritual wellbeing and evolutionary trajectory of all of humanity. When we, progressive Jews, shirk our responsibility to be the best Jews we can be in favor of maintaining a superficial universalism, we sow seeds of human chaos. Being a well meaning universalist, it turns out, is not enough to counter nor remedy Jewish fundamentalism, nor the fundamentalism of other traditions.

Based on my internal as well as external observations I have concluded that more often than not the universalist impulse is driven by one’s own fear of being Jewishly assertive. This fear is often compounded with a selfish need to “play nice”. Simplistic universalism, in my view, does not serve the evolution and wellbeing of humanity but more likely obstructs it. Our challenge as Jews, I am discovering, is not how to be the best universalists we can be, but rather how to dialogue with all peoples from a place of humble greatness as we consciously and deliberately deepen our commitment to our prophetic calling.

Biblical Isaiah succinctly articulated this calling for us: “I GOD, in My grace, have summoned you, and I have grasped you by the hand. I created you, and appointed you a covenant-people, a light (to the) nations” (Isaiah 42: 6). As we invest ourselves fully in our Torah, and our tradition, the world receives the spiritual and ethical “nectar” that we are uniquely qualified to provide. Not so when we muffle our particularism and collective brilliance in order to appear integrated and agreeable. That is not what Reb Zalman meant by deep ecumenism.

I have come to believe that when we consciously fulfill our particular role alongside Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and others who too are consciously fulfilling their own unique divine roles, messianic times can indeed manifest. Dialogue with our fellow humans, while necessary, should not replace the deep and exclusive inner excavation that only Jews can do, and only with one another.

All people’s are chosen people and would be wise to deepen that for which they were chosen. Though, at the same time we MUST remember that we were chosen amongst a plurality in order to raise the entirety of humanity. We were not chosen to raise ourselves above others, the error and shortsightedness of Jewish chauvinists (or any other type of chauvinist for that matter). As counterintuitive as it may seem, the middle path allows both deep Jewish uniqueness and universal equality to coexist in the same space and time, as they should. The Jewish story ever since Abraham and Sarah’s first step toward the One does suggest an essential role for our people, which apparently, I would submit, has kept us around for all this time.

No, it is not our business to speculate about other peoples’ virtues or lack thereof. Value comparisons between traditions are not for us to consider but are better left for the “Judge on high”. Our single responsibility is to be the best Jews we can while “loving the stranger (Ger), as we too were once a (Ger) stranger…” (Deuteronomy 10: 19). Just like the Levites did, all of humanity should practice holy exclusivity and holy equality both at once as we rescue coherence from the jaws of universal chaos.

The Organismic Model that Reb Zalman espoused means, in my view, a deep knowing of one’s unique national purpose, and being shy only about its repression and denial. The Jewish progressive left envisions a world without essential particularistic distinctions among human beings. The Jewish extreme right envisions a world of delusional Jewish superiority. The Organismic Model envisions a rich human universe in which each butterfly flaps its particular wings at the precise frequency that effects harmony throughout the entire ecology. When a best Jew, a best Christian, and a best Muslim enter a bar, it is raised for all.