Who Chose Whom?

Pesikta Rabbati, 21

Context of the Midrash: This famous legend from the midrash is an explanation of the somewhat puzzling response from the Israelites to Moshe when he read them the Torah. They responded with the words נַעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע – na’aseh venishma – we will do and we will listen. The story has it that God was looking for a nation to accept the Torah and commit to a covenant and special relationship with God, He revealed himself to four of ancient Israel’s closest neighbors (who were also enemies): Eisav, Ammon and Moab, and Yishmael. Each time He made the offer to one of these nations, they inquired as to the contents of the covenant, and found something in the Torah they could not live by (because it was antithetical to a core part of their identity) and rejected the offer. However, when God came to the Israelites, not only did they not qualify their response by asking after the content of the covenant, but they accepted the Torah without qualification or condition. This explains the order of the phrase na’aseh venishma – we commit to observing the Torah, and only later will we hear what the content of the covenant is. 

Chosenness reflects the Jewish People’s active acceptance of the Torah: This midrash strongly suggests that the “chosenness” of the Jewish people is based on their own choosing. God was open to having this relationship with other nations but they rejected him. The Israelites accepted the relationship unconditionally. 

It is important to note that this midrash is clearly polemical, and a clear criticism of the character and values of the surrounding biblical nations that were often in conflict with the Israelites. This historical context is important to take into account when considering the messages behind the text.

As is well known, there are often conflicting narratives found in different midrashic texts (and midrashim are not to be taken as texts teaching historical fact, but rather pedagogical truths), and aggadic telling of these events found in the next source directly contradicts this notion of the origins of the chosenness of the Jews.

Talmud Bavli, Shabbat 88a

Context of the text: This aggadah (Talmudic story)  presents a troubling picture of the origins of the relationship between the Israeliates and God at Sinai when they were given the Torah. The gist of Rav Avdimi’s teaching here is that God felt the need to threaten the Israelites with utter destruction if they refused to accept the Torah, the terms of the covenant with God. There are many approaches to explaining this difficult passage. For example, some suggest that it was not an actual threat; Rav Avdimi was only imagining the great trepidation that must have been felt there at Sinai at the time of the giving of the Torah. The great noise and trembling may have created for the people the impression that they had no choice, and that if they did not accept the Torah, they were doomed (some presents you have no choice but to accept!) 

Drafted into a covenant without free-choice: However, the simple understanding of the story is that it presents the possibility that despite the great “privilege” of concretizing the covenant with God, the awesome responsibilities that go with it may have been more than the nation was able to consciously accept out of their own freewill. The responsibilities that accompany being the “Chosen People,” according to this interpretation of the events, may not have been attractive to all parties involved in the acceptance of Torah, and to this day there may be those who actually perceive these “privileges” of Jewish life as burdensome. In a sense, according to this aggadah, the Israelites at Sinai were “drafted” into “chosenness against their will.” It is interesting how Rav Acha understood the implications of this situation: should this have been the case, then every Jew to this day should have an acceptable excuse for not following the terms of this forced covenant!

Commitment to the covenant despite persecution: However, the aggadah continues, indicating that no matter what the situation was at the time the Torah was given, ultimately, in the days of Esther, Mordechai, and Haman, the people did demonstrate their great desire to accept the Torah willingly. Far removed from the Land of Israel, the Jews of Shushan (Persia/Iran) – victims of the Babylonian exile – stood up for their lives and bravely made public their Jewish identities. Rather than hide their Jewishness, they boldly wore it on their sleeves and by doing so iterated their desire to be bound by the terms of the covenant. Again, this might easily be understood as a metaphor: Jews have throughout the ages found themselves living under oppressive circumstances. And yet, despite the persecutions and even threats to life and limb, many remained committed to Torah – the terms of the covenant. This ongoing reaffirmation was embodied by this aggadah in the Book of Esther and based on a proof text found therein. The important willful national acceptance of Torah to which the Talmud here alludes is perhaps the feature that serves as the basis for the ongoing validity of the covenant to this day. 

Golda Meir, My Life

Context of the author and text: In her autobiography, describing her early life and the role religion played in her childhood home, Golda Meir gives her perspective on the concept of the Jews being a “chosen nation” (a concept obviously well-known and a significant element of the identity of Jews she knew in Russia during her formative years.) Even in these early years she describes being uncomfortable with the faith of her parents, and challenged many aspects of their beliefs, including this one.

The Jews chose God: She shares in this quote an alternative understanding that she arrived at, that sat better with her world outlook. Rather than God choosing the Jews for a national mission or because of an inherent superiority to other nations, for Meir the chosenness was in fact on the side of the Jews themselves. They were early adopters of ethical monotheism when they “chose God”. This was and is the only source of their uniqueness in the family of nations. 

Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, Moral Grandeur and Spiritual Audacity

God chose the Jewish People to enter a unique relationship: Heschel emphatically disagrees with Meir’s approach to Jewish chosenness and teaches that God did in fact choose the Jews. However, he stresses that the impact of being chosen is not felt beyond the relationship the people have with God. Being chosen vis-à-vis God does not tell us anything about the status of the Jews relative to other peoples. Thus, this concept implies no superiority of one group over another. Heschel thus rejects the position of the Kuzari found in the block “Why were the Israelites chosen?” who saw a “divine quality” in the people themselves when he writes that being chosen does not signify “a quality inherent in the people” (and it is well known that Heschel’s religious beliefs led him to take an active role in the Civil Rights movement in the United States of the 1960s, which lies comfortably with this world outlook of equality among people). 

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Nineteen Letters, Letter 15

Chosen to exclusively  serve God: In the final source in this unit, Hirsch gives us a further approach to chosenness. He admits that we do believe God chose the Jews, but not to the exclusion of other relationships with other peoples (however from the perspective of the Jewish people, their relationship with God must be exclusive, and are forbidden from relationships with other gods). Just as a parent has a unique love for each of their children, the love they have for any individual child does not mean they cannot have other unique relationships and love for their other children. The chosenness of the Jewish people does not imply any superiority inherent in the Jews, or that the relationship or even a monopoly of divine love. Only that it is a unique relationship, and not necessarily to the exclusion of other covenants and relationships with other peoples. For all people are His creations.

Talmud Bavli, Shabbat 88a
Compilation of teachings of 3rd–6th century scholars in Babylonia (amora’im); final redaction in the 6th–7th centuries.