Leonard Grunstein

The Times of Israel

The Blogs

March 19, 2019



The Ancient and Sordid History of the             Dual Loyalty Canard


The latest crop of anti-Semitic politicians seeking to make a name for themselves by deceitfully accusing Jews of having dual loyalties are relative neophytes, when it comes to invoking this canard. It is ancient in origin and has been discredited time and time again. History can help us better understand this unique phenomenon, which has plagued the Jewish people for millennia.

The Bible[i] describes what was likely the original effort cynically to contrive the dual loyalty or more generic disloyalty false narrative. It started with the very inception of Jewish people-hood in ancient Egypt. The Bible depicts a new king arose over Egypt, who knew not Joseph[ii]. He felt insecure in his position[iii], possibly because he was not a descendant of the prior king[iv]. He gathered together with his advisors, Balaam, Job and Jethro[v] , who were not Egyptians, to deal with the perceived threat of a powerful Jewish presence in Egypt[vi]. The meeting was not about fact-finding. As the Bible reports, they had a preconceived notion that the Jewish people were too numerous and strong[vii].

The Talmud[viii] comments their concern was actually about remaining in power. It goes on to describe how this fear was borne of projection. This makes most sense when viewed through the prism of how the new Pharaoh came to power in the first place. If he could seize power, then so could someone else and replace him. The object of the cabal of Pharaoh and his advisors was to contrive a shrewd plan to deal with the perceived threat to their remaining in power. They formulated the libel that if a war came, the Jews would join the enemy and fight against the Egyptians. They deceitfully advanced this fabricated excuse for their notorious program against the Jews.

Sound familiar? It should be, because it is the same false narrative being advanced today about Jews having allegiance to a foreign country or dual loyalty.


A similar theme is evoked in Megillat Esther[ix]. This time the perpetrators are King Achashverosh, a usurper of the Persian throne[x] and Haman, a non-Persian[xi], who is his notorious advisor and partner in crime. Achashverosh is insecure in his new position. As the Talmud[xii] explains, he sought approval from the elites he invited to his 180-day long party[xiii]. He even demanded his royal wife Vashti, a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar[xiv], appear unclothed on the last day of his subsequent 7-day gathering for the people[xv] to please his guests[xvi].

After disposing of Queen Vashti[xvii], Haman and Achashverosh hatched a scheme against the Jews. They invoked the ancient canard of disloyalty to target the Jewish people[xviii]. Haman described the Jews as a certain people, who are different and scattered and dispersed throughout the realm. He then slandered them, by accusing them of following their own laws and not the King’s. In substance, he falsely asserted the Jews were not loyal to the King and it was not worth tolerating them. His solution to the perceived threat was wholly to eliminate the Jews.

Whether characterized as outright disloyalty or dual loyalty the effect is the same; it is about identifying the Jews as enemies. The promoters of this false and notorious conspiracy theory typically have an agenda. Blaming the Jews and demonizing them serves their political needs. Stoking fear and hatred of an identifiable minority can help establish solidarity within a constituency. The modus operandi is all too familiar. The pattern of branding someone else as an enemy can also divert attention away from any personal character deficiencies or similar disabilities.

It is likely the motivation for promoting this egregious canard today is no different. Like the Biblical headline of yore, the new one could just as well be, newly ennobled and insecure political actors seek validation by attacking others. It’s calculating and contrived; but it’s also reckless. The effect is only temporary, because hatred is a vile and poisonous emotion, which eats away at the souls of those involved. Historically, it eventually causes their own self-destruction, in the orgy of hatred they engendered. The real question is how many innocent people are negatively affected in the process. It’s why we have to act to prevent harm to others.

I am a child of Morris Grunstein, of blessed memory, a Holocaust survivor of Auschwitz and Ida Grunstein, a victim of the Soviet labor camps of Siberia, where her father perished for the crime of wanting to remain Jewish. I am sensitized to the fact that there is no right or left that is blameless, when it comes to anti-Semitism. Members of both the left and right have used the tools of anti-Semitism and self-proclaimed victimhood, in furtherance of their nefarious goals and programs.

There was the delusional Austrian, Hitler, may his name and memory be blotted out, who also invoked the ancient disloyalty canard. Never mind that Jews loyally served in the German army in World War I. Indeed as loyal citizens of the many countries at war with each other in World War I, they often fought against each other, too. Hitler, though, managed to unify the German people, in no small measure, by falsely labeling the Jews as disloyal and demonizing them as the enemy of the people. This enabled him, as the aggressor, to play the victim. Thus, he proclaimed the German people were the victims of the Allies and the Versailles Treaty, as well as, the Jews. He also managed to deflect attention away from himself, as an Austrian, who despite failing at most things in life became the Fuhrer of Germany. He and his cohorts were the masters of the modern big lie, invoking all sorts of conspiracy theories and fantasies about Jewish power to justify causing World War II and perpetrating the Holocaust.

Stalin, the notorious communist Premier of the Russian Soviet Empire, was also no stranger to anti-Semitism. As a Georgian by birth, he was not readily accepted by polite Russian society. Is it any wonder that he saw conspiracies everywhere? Why not single out the Jews to villainize, as the enemy, to deflect attention from himself? Almost to his last breath, he sought to brand Jewish doctors in the Soviet Union as disloyal and enemies of the state. This was to be the prelude to his new anti-Semitic campaign. Fortunately, he died before he could actually set his plan in motion. However, when leftists like the UK’s Corbyn continue to spout their deceitful hate of Jews, is it any wonder that we feel unease at the specter of renewed anti-Semitism in our wonderful United States of America?

The Talmud[xix] analyzes the problem of projection and concludes that anyone who habitually claims others are flawed should themselves be examined, because they likely posses those same flaws. This is a powerful critique of those who regularly accuse others of disloyalty or dual loyalty. Consider the misplaced focus on the legitimate domestic lobbying efforts of proponents of a strong US-Israel relationship. Is this perhaps an effort to divert attention from the outsized role of foreign money from the Gulf States[xx] and identification with terrorist linked groups[xxi]?

Given this historical perspective and my own family’s real life experiences, I can’t help but react soberly and skeptically when it comes to anti-Semitism and those who express this ancient anti-Semitic canard. They have plagued the Jewish people since ancient times and the memories of the more recent outbursts of hate and destruction, as relayed to me by my parents, are still vivid. The cry of ‘Never Again’ reverberates in my brain. We can’t sit back complacently and just let it happen again; not here; not now; not anywhere or anytime.

It is why I believe it is disingenuous, cavalierly to explain away this destructive and contemptible false narrative as somehow expressed out of ignorance. Perhaps some might have innocently misspoken. But if that were so for others, then why would they promote it publically, again and again, and publicize it so thoroughly on social media? Why defend it when questioned?

The reaction of some is to treat the accusation as if it were a rational one. However, it is most assuredly not. Efforts to explain, educate and discuss are misplaced; they often only embolden the perpetuators of the canard. This is because the entire issue is cunningly contrived just to generate this kind of a response. It is designed to enable the victimizer falsely to claim the status of a victim, because of his or her inability to respond coherently to any factual, logical and irrefutable defense. In essence, the vigorousness of the defense is used to support the very conspiracy theory he or she is falsely promoting in the first place.

We can’t afford to be naïve; we have our children and grandchildren to think about. It is reckless to ignore the connivance the Bible warned about in its introduction to its report of this canard. It uses the expression ‘Havei NisChachma Lo’, which is loosely translated as, lets deal shrewdly with them. Should we expect any less of the Jew haters of today? Don’t be taken in by the appearance of youth and inexperience. It’s an act designed to mislead and obfuscate the malicious and callous intent hidden in the evil heart of those promoting this libelous slander against Jews.

As we approach the Jewish Holidays of Purim and Pesach, we should be mindful of how we faced similar challenges to our existence in the past. We are grateful that G-d saved us then, with hidden miracles in the case of Purim and overt ones in the case of Passover. It’s, thus, also a fortuitous time to pray for G-d’s grace and aid in resolving this new present crisis of anti-Semitism, here in the US and elsewhere. However, G-d also wants us to do what we can to help ourselves, too. Calling it out for what it is, just plain despicable anti-Semitism, is something; but it’s not enough. We must vote for and support candidates who recognize anti-Semitism is unequivocally wrong and should not have a home in the USA. This doesn’t mean that we don’t disdain any form of hate. Let me be clear; hate has no home in the USA. May we all be blessed to live in a world at peace, where there is no longer any threat of anti-Semitism.



[i] Exodus 1:9-10.

[ii] Exodus 1:8.

[iii] Exodus Rabbah 1:8.

[iv] Ibn Ezra commentary on Exodus 1:8.

[v] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sota, at page 11a.

[vi] Exodus 1:7.

[vii] Exodus 1:9.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] Megillat Esther 3:8.

[x] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Megillah, at page 11a.

[xi] As noted in Megillat Esther 3:1, Haman was a descendant of Agag, who was an Amalakite. See also Pesikta Rabbati 13:1.

[xii] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Megillah, at page 12a.

[xiii] Megillat Esther 1:3-4.

[xiv] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Megillah, at page 10b and Esther Rabbah, Petichta 12.

[xv] Megillat Esther 1:5-11.

[xvi] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Megillah, at page 12b and Esther Rabbah 3:13.

[xvii] Megillat Esther 1:16-19. See also Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Megillah, at page 12b, which identifies Memuchan as Haman.

[xviii] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Megillah, at page 13b.

[xix] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin, at pages 70a-b.

[xx] See What about ‘the Benjamins’ coming from the Gulf States?, by Barabara Boland, dated 3/13/19, in the Spectator.

[xxi] See Ilhan Omar to Speak at Banquet for Group Known for Terrorist Group Support, by Ilanit Chernick, dated 2/19/19, in the Jerusalem Post. See also Ilhan Omar to Speak Alongside Man Who Praised Killing Jews, Report Says, by Ryan Saavedra, dated 2/11/19, in the Daily Caller and CAMERA Op-Ed: Stop Whitewashing Ilhan Omar’s Antisemitism, by Sean Durns, dated February 18, 2019.




About the Author

Leonard Grunstein, a retired attorney and banker, founded and served as Chairman of Metropolitan National Bank and then Israel Discount Bank of NY. He also founded Project Ezrah and serves on the Board of Revel at Yeshiva University and the AIPAC National Council. He has published articles in the Banking Law Journal, Real Estate Finance Journal and other fine publications.



The Chinese-Jewish Conversation at Yeshiva University

by Michael Bettencourt for YU News

On Tuesday, February 12, 2019, East and West met at a special event titled “China and Israel: How did ancient states emerge? Archaeological perspectives,” which took place in the David Yagoda Commons on the Israel Henry Beren Campus. Marking a special cooperation among different YU schools, it was cosponsored by the Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies, the Colloquium Initiative of the Office of the Provost, and the Katz School of Science and Health, which has recruited many Chinese students for its master’s programs.

This event marked the inauguration of the “Chinese-Jewish Conversation at Yeshiva University,” a new initiative spearheaded by Dr. Mordechai Cohen, professor of Bible, associate dean of Revel and chairman of the academic Jewish studies division. Dr. Cohen opened the event by describing this YU initiative, after which he introduced the two main speakers: Dr. Jill Katz, clinical assistant professor of archaeology, and Debby Li, a senior at New York University majoring in anthropology and art.

(l-r): Dr. Jill Katz; Debby Li; Dr. Mordechai Cohen

In his remarks, Dr. Cohen explained that the idea of the Chinese-Jewish conversation at YU actually began in October 2015 when Revel hosted a lecture by Dr. Youde Fu, founding director of the Institute for Judaic and Inter-religious Studies at Shandong University in Jinan, China.

Dr. Fu presented a lecture on “the profound parallels between the Jewish and Chinese traditions,” and over the past three years, Dr. Cohen has been invited by Dr. Fu to teach a course at Shandong, where he has seen “firsthand the connections between our traditions.”

What are these connections? “As a Jewish person,” said Dr. Cohen, “I felt at home in Chinese culture immediately because we share core values: pride in continuous and unbroken cultural, literary and spiritual traditions that go back over 3,000 years; reverence for our ancient traditions embodied in classical texts; respect for our elders and ancestors; belief in the ideal of being part of a community, a family, to care for others; and the role our ancient histories play in our cultures.”

For next hour, Dr. Katz and Li gave in-depth lectures about the archeology of Israel and China, specifically looking at how states came into being in each region, or, as Dr. Katz phrased it, “the emergence of civilization.”

Along with offering descriptions of what archeologists actually do as they extract history from the sherds, bones and artifacts they discover, Dr. Katz and Li also noted the truth that none of the work archeologists do can be separated from the interpretations people make of it, whether that has to do with confirming a claim of ownership of land or maintaining a myth of cultural homogeneity.

“I hope people learned a bit more,” said Dr. Katz, “about how archeological interpretations are influenced by both current and historical narratives.”

Li agreed, stating that “the discoveries we have made are more than pottery and bones; they are pieces of a collective and complex human history to which ideology’s contribution is indispensable.”

For the approximately 100 people attending the lecture, this inaugural event of the Chinese-Jewish Conversation at Yeshiva University created a welcome space for YU’s growing Chinese graduate student population while providing the intellectual groundwork for two different cultures to share their commonalities and aspirations.

“By pairing a seasoned professor like Dr. Katz with a talented—and already highly accomplished—young scholar like Debby Li,” noted Dr. Cohen, “this event demonstrated what a university is all about: training the next generation to engage in exciting and meaningful scholarship.”

On March 13, 2019, Revel will present the next iteration of the Chinese-Jewish Conversation at Yeshiva University with a lecture titled “Confucian Role Ethics” by Dr. Roger Ames of Beijing University, a leading world scholar of Confucian thought. Registration is at yu.edu/confucius.


Dr. Daniel Tsadik

Dr. Daniel Tsadik, associate professor of Sephardic and Iranian studies at Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies, has recently published The Jews of Iran and Rabbinic Literature: New Perspectives by Mosad Ha-Rav Kook (Jerusalem).

The book addresses the question of Iranian Jewry’s affinity with rabbinic literature from the 16th to the beginning of the 20th century. Many of the book’s theses challenge and revise prevailing views that see this Jewry as largely isolated from world Jewry and its rabbinic legacy.

“Born to Iranian Jews, I have always felt intrigued by my parents’ Iranian roots,” said Dr. Tsadik. Completing his PhD work at Yale on the status of the Jews of Iran in the latter part of the nineteenth century gave him the chance to explore these roots in more depth.

“I came across some letters that were written in impressive Hebrew, at times utilizing a variety of Jewish sources, from the Hebrew Bible to the Mishna, midrashim, Talmud and kabbalistic texts. This surprised me, as the common wisdom was that the Jews of Iran were cut off from the Jews residing elsewhere, and, consequently, were ignorant of mainstream Judaism.”

Years after completing his dissertation and turning it into a book titled Between Foreigners and Shi’is; Nineteenth-Century Iran and its Jewish Minority (Stanford University Press, 2007), he decided to revisit those letters. “In undertaking my research for the current book, a whole world became open to me as I came across a lot more than just missives, such as Hebrew and Judeo-Persian manuscripts, Shi’ite anti-Jewish polemical compositions, missionary reports and diplomatic dispatches, among other sources. The end result, in showing the affinity of Jews in Iran with rabbinic works, is a revision of the field.”

Book cover in Hebrew



Mr. Leonard Grunstein

Mr. Leonard Grunstein

Leonard Grunstein

The Times of Israel

The Blogs

February 4, 2019

The Art of Compromise

‘It’s a matter of principle’ or ‘I’m right and you’re wrong’ are conversation stoppers that frustrate efforts to resolve a dispute between opposing parties.

Worse yet is an ad hominem attack on the proponent of a position. Once one party to a dispute demonizes the other, it becomes extremely hard to conclude any negotiated resolution of a matter. Similarly, labeling a position advanced as somehow less than virtuous also presents an obstacle to settlement. These formulations suggest winning at all costs is the only alternative and that perforce there must be a loser. Is compromise then an anathema?

It’s not often that this kind of a genuinely obstructionist attitude is encountered in daily business life. Most successful business people are able to see past the posturing and focus on dollars and cents, as a medium of exchange, for addressing many purportedly insurmountable problems. I’ll never forget the scene of a particularly peeved day-to-day operating partner addressing the controlling investor partner in the business. The operator made an emotionally charged presentation about how unfairly he had been treated by the investor given his overwhelming, but seemingly underappreciated, contribution to the success of the venture.

The investor listened attentively and did not interrupt the operator during his entire approximately fifteen minute soliloquy and poignant peroration. In response, the investor paused a moment and then softly and forthrightly asked, ‘OK, how much?’ The matter was promptly settled without rancor. Somehow each party was able to see past the unhelpful expressions of absolutes and set about the constructive process of achieving a workable compromise. It was not what each party initially demanded, but the result was acceptable to both.

Would that many of the world’s problems could be settled this way, without pyrotechnical displays, resentment or worse. Of course, not every problem can be solved with a monetary compromise. Some, like matters of life or death are not susceptible to this kind of a solution. However, so many could be resolved by compromise and benefit from a toned down, less rancorous, approach. Yet, it appears so much of the contemporary discourse and debate of issues of common concern are needlessly clothed in emotionally charged and inappropriately negative rhetoric.

Isn’t this the very situation we are facing today in discussing such important matters as border security and immigration reform? Public opinion is divided on the matter and it appears each side casts the other as somehow evil for advancing their heartfelt beliefs. If one side wins then the other will likely be profoundly unhappy and also resentful. Why alienate so many people if there is another way to resolve the dispute? It almost feels like a self-induced nightmare.

The compromise resolution is obvious to so many and would likely please the overwhelming majority of the people. Yet, the public discourse is dominated by those espousing extreme positions and demonizing each other. The rhetoric is also not limited to the issues at hand. All sorts of demons are being released, in the heated diatribes. As is often the case when this occurs, the Jewish people are not immune and ant-Semitism rears its ugly head.

The conflict is most unsettling and trust and confidence in our most sacred institutions of government is being undermined. If history has taught us anything, it’s that unrestrained conflict can quickly escalate and set in motion a cascade of events that cause all sorts of unintended consequences. I can’t help but wonder if this is not a part of the insidious goals of many of the extremists asserting these untenable positions.

Wouldn’t it be more useful to state the positions more rationally, such as this is what you want and this is what I want, without casting aspersions? This would permit mediation and a creative solution to be found that might yield a negotiated result acceptable to the parties. Shouldn’t mediation and compromise be the dispute resolution methodology of choice? Why not permit a so-called win/win solution?

The Talmud[i] stresses the advisability of compromise over insisting on strict justice. It notes that the goals of rendering strict justice and promoting genuine peace are often mutually exclusive. Mediation and compromise offer the possibility of combining justice and true peace, because both sides are satisfied with the results. It also enables a person to achieve a more charitable result than strictly enforcing a judgment.

Thus, when a Beit Din[ii] is first convened to hear a dispute, it is required to offer the litigants the opportunity for mediation, before proceeding with the matter on the basis of strict justice[iii]. However, once the Beit Din hears the case and has already formulated a conclusion, there can no longer be a mediated result. It cannot evade the responsibility to render the judgment once it is determined.

The Talmud[iv] views those who elect to pursue mediation, instead of insisting on strict justice, as particularly virtuous. This kind of noble action is sometimes referred to as going beyond the letter of the law. It reports that Rav Yochanan said, Jerusalem would not have been destroyed if it had not been for those who demanded strict justice and did not go beyond the letter of the law. Their unwillingness to forgo strict justices resulted in the baseless hatred[v], which is stated elsewhere to be the root cause of the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem[vi].

It appears that Moses also faced a crisis arising out of seemingly unending conflicts among the people[vii]. It is not clear from the Biblical text what were the underlying claims in dispute; but it appears the problem was pervasive. Some attribute the spate of litigation to disputes about the division of the spoils derived from the recent battle[viii] with the Amalikites[ix] or claims by the formerly Egyptian mixed multitude relating to the bounty received by the people of Israel in the Egyptian Exodus[x]. Whatever the precipitating cause, apparently, the recently freed people of Israel were experiencing conflicts that required resolution. Considering the circumstances and the diversity of the group, this could hardly be unexpected. Some had endured the harsh reality of being slave laborers and others had a different experience[xi]. There were those who had herds of cattle and others with only the gifts their erstwhile Egyptian masters bestowed upon them as they left Egypt, in the miraculous Exodus. There were also a mixed multitude of others, who accompanied the Jewish people, as a part of the Exodus from Egypt, who had their own agenda.

Moses was faced with the challenge of how to meld this collection of individuals, with differing life experiences and views, into a new nation. The outbreak of discord among so many of the people threatened to jeopardize achieving this important goal. Amazingly, the Jewish people did come together, under Moses’ leadership, because they would shortly approach the impending revelation at Mount Sinai like one person with one heart[xii]. What was the secret of his success?

The Bible sets the scene with the appearance of Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro. He witnessed Moses constantly engrossed in judging the overwhelming number of disputes among the people. He was busy from morning until night, with long lines of litigants waiting to assert their claims. Jethro concluded that this crushing process was having a negative effect not only on Moses, but also on the people. He couldn’t contain himself and like all good fathers-in-law, he offered Moses advice on how to deal with the problem.

Jethro’s suggested solution is most interesting. He proposed Moses set up a system of judges, who would handle the small matters and the large cases would be reserved for Moses. He offered that Moses should see to it that the judges were capable and accomplished, G-d fearing and trustworthy and also despised dishonest gain.

It would appear Moses heard Jethro’s advice, but did not actually follow it. Instead, he set up a system that was devoted to mediation and arbitration in place of strict justice[xiii]. Jethro’s judicial system and the type of judges he recommended would only have intensified the discord among the people. Moses selected capable people of accomplishment and this was his primary criterion for appointment[xiv]. He wanted judges, with life experience, genuine wisdom and discernment; who understood business and human nature; and knew how to get things done[xv]. This meant the proven ability to overcome challenges, foster shared visions and teamwork, build relationships and establish peace among competing interests[xvi]. The alternative dispute resolution system in combination with judges, who were so capable and accomplished, was dynamic. It appears not only was the problem solved, but the people also came together as a nation.

The secret was not to insist on strict justice and winners and losers; it was to compromise. The result was a win/win situation.

Let’s all strive to apply this important lesson in practice. The result can transform our own society as well. Compromise; and instead of one side being happy and the other resentful, make many people happy and at peace. Let the blessings of peace prevail.



[i] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, at page 6b.

[ii] Jewish Court of Law.

[iii] Ibid. See also Maimonides, Mishne Torah, Laws of Sanhedrin and Penalties within their Jurisdiction 22:4 and Tur, Choshen Mishpat, 12:2-5, as well as, the Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 12:2.

[iv] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Bava Metzia, at page 30b.

[v] Ibid, Tosafot.

[vi] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yoma, at page 9b.

[vii] Exodus, Chapter 18.

[viii] Rabbi Yaakov Meidan, in his article, titled ‘Eifo V’Eifo…’, in Megadim 17 (1992), at pages 79-80.

[ix] Exodus 17:13.

[x] See Sechel Tov, Exodus 18:13 and Lekach Tov, Exodus 18:13.

[xi] Midrash Rabbah, Exodus 14:3, as well as, Meshech Chochma, Parshat Vayera 8 and Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Rosh Hashana 3:5, at page 17a.

[xii] See Mechilta D’Rabbi Yishmael 19:2 and Rashi commentary on Exodus 19:2. See also Exodus 19:8.

[xiii] See Netziv, in his Harchav Davar commentary on Exodus 18:23.

[xiv] Cf. Nachmanides commentary on Exodus 18:21 and Ibn Caspi commentary on Exodus 18:25, who note the term ‘Anshe Chayil’ is inclusive of all the other detailed characteristics Jethro specified.

[xv] See Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch commentary on Exodus 18:21.

[xvi] It’s interesting to note, that the term Beitzah, used by Jethro in Exodus 18:21, in the phrase hate Beitzah, is interpreted to mean hate dishonest gain. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch strains to define the term by comparing it to petzah, which means to wound. In my humble opinion, the use of this particular word might also be a play- on-words. Thus, the Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin at page 6a) uses the term Bitzuah, as a synonym for Peshara, meaning mediation and compromise. Under this construct, Moses chose judges who, notwithstanding the advice of Jethro, didn’t hate mediation and compromise; but rather embraced it.


About the Author

Leonard Grunstein, a retired attorney and banker, founded and served as Chairman of Metropolitan National Bank and then Israel Discount Bank of NY. He also founded Project Ezrah and serves on the Board of Revel at Yeshiva University and the AIPAC National Council. He has published articles in the Banking Law Journal, Real Estate Finance Journal and other fine publications.


Mr. Leonard Grunstein

Mr. Leonard Grunstein

The Times of Israel

The Blogs

Jan 24, 2019


Kvetching and the Divine

Does G-d appreciate our complaining? If not then why is it such a quintessential part of the human condition? Oh, sure there are stoics among us; but most can’t repress the urge to complain about something, at some time.

It appears the propensity to complain is a part of our genetic makeup. Indeed, from an early age, when we are challenged with such thought provoking questions as: how are you; is everything all right; or can I help you; the automatic response is often to express some need or dissatisfaction. Even a seemingly positive response of everything is fine can be couched in a plaintive tone and tense body language to signal the opposite is true. Perhaps, this is the origin of the colloquial term kvetching, meaning complaining. It is derived from the Yiddish word kvetch, literally meaning to squeeze; but, the idiomatic usage, meaning to complain, is more prevalent.

It takes genuine conditioning to trigger a response expressing how everything is copacetic, instead of a complaint. Even more training is required to express genuine gratitude. Why then are we burdened with this negative functionality?

The ability to speak and communicate both our needs and how grateful we are when those needs are satisfied is a fundamental part of our humanity. An essential part of our faith is that we can talk to G-d and G-d is listening. We can ask for our needs and that is what prayer is all about. Isn’t prayer then just another form of complaining?

The Bible recognizes the human propensity to complain. Indeed, the famous groan heard round the world occurred when the Jewish people were slaves in Egypt. They were afforded some time off to mark the death of the Egyptian Pharaoh. They finally had a moment to groan[i] and cry out because of the crushing burden of their bondage. They may not have expressly appealed to G-d for help; but their sighs were heard by G-d, as if they were a prayer[ii]. It was this collective groan[iii], which precipitated the ultimate redemption from slavery in Egypt. The Bible does not chastise those who groaned and cried out. Indeed, it would appear that they had the right to complain about their plight and G-d responded positively.

Moses’ complaints about the plight of the Jews in Egypt[iv] were also well received by G-d. Imagine the scene, when Moses speaks G-d, after his fateful meeting with Pharaoh. As G-d instructed, he demanded Pharaoh let the Jewish people go. Pharaoh responded by making life far worse for the Jews. Moses takes this up with G-d and, in a direct and forthright manner, asks why did G-d instruct him to do this when it only brought harm to the Jewish people? Furthermore, he confronts G-d with the fact that G-d has also not yet saved the Jews. Wow, now that’s chutzpah. The response of G-d is instructive. G-d does not chastise Moses for his brazenness. Instead, G-d assures Moses that he will witness what G-d does to Pharaoh and how, with a strong hand, the Jews shall be freed[v].

It is, therefore, suggested G-d likes us to complain to G-d and plead for our needs to be accommodated. In this regard, I can’t help but reflect on how my father, of blessed memory, would graciously handle any complaints by customers in his supermarket. These were rare occurrences, but I vividly remember one, where the customer was particularly abusive. I asked my dad whether I should escort the customer out of the store. His answer was most instructive. He said no and went on to explain that as long as the customer came into the store to complain, he or she was still a customer. I kind of think that’s the way G-d might react to our complaints. As long as we are directing them to G-d, we are still faithful customers.

It’s when we complain to others, who can’t actually help resolve the issue that there’s a problem. Worse is when we just complain for its own sake, for no reason and with no expectation of redress. Grumbling about unsatisfied needs and desires to everyone who might listen is not an approach well calculated to achieve a positive result. Often it just reinforces the person’s negative feelings. Grousing can also be infectious and when an atmosphere of negativity is established, it can cloud and interfere with our perception of reality. Thus, even when the needs are miraculously satisfied, those affected might fail to appreciate it. Correspondingly, there is a failure to be grateful for G-d’s graciousness, which only serves to exacerbate the problem. These lessons are driven home in the Bible, including in the Torah reading of Parshat Beshalach[vi].

The people of Israel, who just experienced the miraculous parting of the Red Sea, after the extraordinary exodus from Egypt and the Ten Plagues, are now traveling through the dessert. They are brutal in their remonstration of Moses and Aaron[vii] and complain bitterly that they are hungry. They want meat and bread to satiate their hunger.

Moses seeks to deflect their grumbling against him by suggesting, why complain to him? He urges the people instead to plead to G-d, who can actually satisfy their needs and provide them with meat to eat in the evening and bread in the morning[viii]. Moses tells Aaron to gather the people, because G-d heard their complaints[ix].

G-d then appears and confirms to Moses a meat meal would be provided in the evening and bread in the morning[x]. That night, quail appeared and covered the camp[xi]. In the morning, the people were treated to the miraculous Manna surrounding the camp[xii]. The people feasted on the quail meat that night[xiii] and in the morning ate the Manna. Their hunger was satisfied. For 40 years, the people of Israel wandered the desert under Moses’ leadership and were sustained by the Manna that miraculously fell each day of the week other than the Sabbath.

There are a number of such instances in the Bible where the people complained. Moses was often upset by their grumbling. Nevertheless, in most instances, G-d was more forgiving. Indeed, G-d appeared, nonchalantly, to deal with their complaints, by just satisfying their needs. For example, the Bible reports another instance of profound complaining right after the incident of the Manna, noted above. This time it involved a thirst for water[xiv].

After trekking through the desert for days, the people were parched. They needed potable water to slake their thirst and there was none to be found. The people began to quarrel with Moses and demanded water to drink. Moses’ response was to ask, why were they arguing with him and testing G-d’s patience? Moses was beside himself and cried out to G-d, what should he do? G-d instructed Moses to take his rod and strike the rock. Water miraculously poured out and the people had water to drink.

However, not every incident of complaining ended well. There is the famous one in Parshat Beha’alotcha[xv], known as the Graves of Desire[xvi], which also appeared to involve a craving for meat. Once again G-d showered the camp with quail. However, this time, it resulted in many people dying, with the meat they seemed to desire so much still stuck between their teeth, before they could even chew it[xvii].

Why the disparate treatment for what was apparently the same desire for meat to consume? Was there any difference in the nature of the people’s complaints in Parshat Beha’alotcha, as compared to Parshat Beshalach?

The Chizkuni[xviii] explains that the gift of the quail was meant to be a one-time occurrence and, hence, demanding it a second time was an overreach and wrong. Rashi[xix] takes a more nuanced approach. He critically analyzes the two Biblical texts and concludes there was a fundamental difference between the two incidents. The first time the people asked for meat in Beshalach, they were hungry and asked for meat and bread to satiate their hunger. The second time in Baha’alatcha, their bellies were already full, because they had the Manna to eat. Their insistent and demeaning demands of Moses were not about need; instead, they were all about fulfilling desires.

The Manna was all the people needed to subsist. Indeed, the miraculous food had incredible nutritional qualities[xx]. Meat was not a necessity; it was a luxury. Moreover, as Rashi notes, the people already had an ample supply of meat at their disposal, in the form of the herds of cattle they had with them. Rashi goes on to press home the point about separating needs from desires by concluding they didn’t need meat to subsist. It was about fanciful desires and not basic needs. In essence, their complaints were gratuitous and baseless.

My son Dr. Eli once delivered a Dvar Torah in Synagogue about this subject. To the delight of everyone in attendance, he contrasted the nature of need versus desire in our contemporary existence in Teaneck. One example that drew laughter involved transportation to work. He posited, what we may desire is a fancy, new, needlessly expensive, sports car to serve this utilitarian purpose. What we actual need, though, is a few dollars to pay the fare for a bus or jitney ride along Route 4, to take us from home in New Jersey across the Washington Bridge to work in Manhattan. Need and desire are two very different things. However, I can’t help but wonder does G-d really mind if we ask for more than just our basic needs. Is it wrong to ask G-d to help us fulfill our wildest dreams and desires?

Rabbeinu Bachya[xxi] takes an entirely different approach. He notes that, besides the Manna in the morning, quail meat was also available each evening during the 40-year sojourn in the desert[xxii]. In this context, the complaint about craving meat was baseless and wholly contrived. Moreover, the sarcastic way it was expressed was especially demeaning. As Rabbeinu Bachya explains[xxiii], there was no need to disdain what they had. Deprecating the miraculous Manna, by caustically touting the superiority of melons and cucumbers that were objectively inferior[xxiv], was wholly inappropriate. Mentioning fish was another low blow. The only kind of fish fed to the Israelite slaves in Egypt was of the variety that had already begun to decompose and stink.

This kvetching exercise was not about anything constructive, because the complaints expressed were not real. In this regard, as Rabbeinu Bachya notes, not all complainers are the same[xxv]. Some may be seeking redress for a real grievance they have personally suffered. Others, though, may appear to complain, but they are just acting that way as a pretext[xxvi]. The narrative they espouse bears no actual relationship to the substance of their feelings of discontent.

The incident of the Graves of Desire was begun by a vocal band of a few activists[xxvii]. What they really wanted was to shake off the perceived burdens of the Torah commandments, which G-d revealed at Mount Sinai only a little more than a year prior to this event. They wanted to be free to do whatever they wanted. According to the Talmud[xxviii], this included a desire for the permissive society and lifestyle of Egypt and not the family life and other legal and cultural norms prescribed by the Torah.

Their modus operandi was just to complain loudly and bitterly and inspire others to do so, as well. They mounted what in modern parlance might be referred to as a resistance. They did not overtly complain about having to fulfill G-d’s commandments. This kind of an open break with traditions and societal norms may not have been acceptable to or tolerated by the vast majority of the Jewish people around them. Instead they were more insidious, choosing to fixate on not having meat to eat. They used this as a pretext to challenge the prevailing authority of G-d, the Torah and Moses. The Bible views the use of baseless grievances and contrived outrage, as a pretext for justifying negative behavior, most disparagingly.

Sounds familiar doesn’t it? It appears that so much of the news today, involving politicians and other activists, is about calling attention to some cause or another, involving some class of unnamed victims. Why not, instead, actually do something about it and help the individuals, who are genuinely be aggrieved? It often seems like nothing more than a pretext to scream and protest. I can’t help but wonder, why take to the streets when there are available forums with actual decision-makers willing to listen and able to resolve matters?

In the US, we have a system of laws, duly elected executives and legislatures, courts and administrative agencies devoted to handling all sorts of claims and issues. Are these public marches, demonstrations and even riots really about addressing any particular grievances unable to be handled by these wonderful institutions of our vibrant democracy or are they just expressions of rebellion against the existing order? Is it about improving the system or denying it? Are these organized protests being hijacked and misused by some for less than wholesome purposes? What is their real agenda?

The messages delivered by some at the Women’s March this past weekend are a good example. Ms. Mallory and Sarsour, leaders of the March, sought to appear like legitimate advocates of the causes associated with the March; but they were really just using it as a pretext. They are nothing more than garden variety anti-Semites, who misused the platform they were afforded by the March to propagate vile and nefarious anti-Semitic canards. In this regard, I can’t help but note, what do BDS and other anti-Semitic sentiments have to do with the rights of women in the United States? Unfortunately, it also appears that that this kind of insidious behavior is seductive and infectious. Witness the people clapping for these dissemblers. It was reminiscent of disastrous occurrences in Europe during the period of the 1920’s and 1930’s, when extremists of the left and right fought with each other and enlisted so many misguided souls in their effort to overturn, not reform society. The result was the horrors of the Holocaust and the Second World War, which took the lives of countless tens of millions of people.

Let’s focus on redressing actual individual wrongs. That’s how Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and others did it successfully in the past. Complaining as a pretext undermines society; it does not further social or other progress and goals.

These, as well as, a number of other lessons about kvetching can be derived from the Biblical texts noted above and life generally. First and foremost, grumbling to others who can’t help is destructive, not constructive. It is a particularly loathsome practice that serves no useful purpose. It’s far better to direct any complaints to G-d. Secondly and just as importantly, don’t kvetch for kvetching sake. It is critical only to complain when there is something to complain about. It should not be used a pretext to foment rebellion or other negative actions.

When properly engaged, kvetching is a form of prayer. In fact, speak plainly, because G-d appreciates our prayers, no matter what form they take. I remember well, Rav Aaron Soloveichik reported he was asked by someone how to pray to G-d. Rav Soloveichik, a graduate of NYU Law School, answered in his characteristic style, what do you mean, just state your case.

Heartfelt genuine complaints to G-d, including crying out in sheer pain and desperation, are the equivalent of prayer. Moses’ language may have been harsh, but G-d is gracious, understanding and forgiving. In this regard, reference may be made to the Book of Job in the Tanach. The Talmud[xxix] reports Moses likely wrote Job and that it was probably a fictional work[xxx]. The Book of Job discusses suffering, complaining and the nature of Divine Providence. Job suffered so mightily that he wished he had never been born[xxxi]. When Job’s three friends visited him, they, in effect, reprimanded him for complaining about his lot[xxxii]. Yet G-d defended Job and rebuked Job’s friends[xxxiii]. As the Talmud[xxxiv] explains, what Job said may have been inappropriate, but G-d does not hold a person responsible for what he says when he is in distress.

Thirdly, take yes for an answer. When we experience something good, it is a gift from G-d and it’s good to recognize it and stop kvetching. There was a wonderful LP record of Jewish humor, called ‘You Don’t Have to be Jewish’. My dad, of blessed memory, would often play it on Saturday nights after the Sabbath. One of the routines involved a man kvetching that he was thirsty. His refrain was: ‘Oy! Am I thirsty’ repeated again and again, driving everyone to distraction. The next voice heard is someone offering him a drink and the gurgling sound of the man greedily slurping it down. When asked if he was alright now, the previously thirsty man responds, ‘Oy! Was I thirsty’, repeating it again and again, to recorded laughter. Is this the way some of the people acted in the desert? Perhaps it was; but in any event it’s a good story.

Finally, always be grateful. The Talmud[xxxv] expresses this in no uncertain terms. It counsels we must bless G-d for the bad just as we do for the good. But to do so we must necessarily mention the bad, as well as, the good. In a sense it elevates what might otherwise be a mundane complaint into a most compelling testament to our enduring faith in G-d. It also helps us maintain balance and good cheer, a fundamental element of a good and meaningful life.

So kvetch away to G-d. It is proof positive of our faith. Rest assured G-d welcomes your prayers, no matter what form they may take. As my father, of blessed memory, stated so well, as long as you come into the store to complain, you’re welcome, because you’re still a customer. May we be blessed to live life free of reasons to complain.




[i] Exodus 2:23.

[ii] Ibid and see Ohr Hachaim and Chizkuni commentaries on the verse.

[iii] Exodus 6:5 and see Rashi and Sforno commentaries thereon.

[iv] Exodus 5:22-23.

[v] Exodus 6:1.

[vi] Exodus Chapter 16.

[vii] Exodus 16:2-3.

[viii] Exodus 16:8.

[ix] Exodus 16:9.

[x] Exodus 16:12.

[xi] Exodus 16:13.

[xii] Exodus 16:13-19, 31 and 35.

[xiii] Mechilta D’Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai 16:8.

[xiv] Exodus, Chapter 17.

[xv] Numbers Chapter 11.

[xvi] Kivrot Hataavah in Hebrew.

[xvii] Numbers 11:33.

[xviii] In his commentary on Exodus 16:13. See also Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Arakhin, at page 15b, as well as, Tractate Yoma at page 75b.

[xix] In his commentary on Exodus 16:7-8.

[xx] See Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yoma, at page75a-b; Sifrei, Bamidbar 87-88; and Midrash Tehillim 23:2. See also interesting comment by Chizkuni, Numbers 11:6.

[xxi] In his commentary on Exodus 16:13. Interestingly, Rabbeinu Bachya also cites Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Arakhin, at page 15b, in support of this proposition. See also Tractate Yoma, at page 75b.

[xxii] Rabbeinu Bachya explains the Bible pays greater attention to the Manna, because of its miraculous nature, as compared to the more natural regular occurrence of flights of quail over the encampments.

[xxiii] In his commentary on Number 11:5.

[xxiv] Rabbeinu Bachya notes that Egypt produced excellent food and comparing the Manna unfavorably to Egypt’s most inferior produce was a calculated insult.

[xxv] In his commentary on Numbers 11:1. The Biblical verse describes the prelude to the incident of the Graves of Desire. In the verse, the Bible speaks of the ‘KiMitoneninm Ra’. The phrase literally means those who were like bad complainers. If complaining is inherently wrong, then why does the Bible make mention of the fact that the complainers were bad? Furthermore why does the Bible refer to them in terms of their being ‘like’ bad complainers? Rabbeinu Bachya notes the qualifiers are not superfluous. They refer to those expressing complaints that are not real and merely used as a pretext. I note in passing that Nachmanides, in his commentary on this verse, explains the unique phrasing as referring to a self-inflicted condition and, hence, the complaining was inappropriate.

[xxvi] See Sifrei, Bamidbar 85:1. See also Rashi and Malbim commentaries on Numbers 11:1.

[xxvii] Numbers 11:4.

[xxviii] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yoma, at page 75a. See also Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Ta’anit, at page 23b and Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbos, at page 130a.

[xxix] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Bava Batra, at page 14b.

[xxx] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Bava Batra, at page 15a. See also Maimonides, Guide to the Perplexed 3:22.

[xxxi] Job, Chapter 3.

[xxxii] See, for example, Job 2:11 and Chapters 4, 8 and 11.

[xxxiii] Job 42:7-8.

[xxxiv] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Bava Batra, at page 16b and see Rashi commentary thereon..

[xxxv] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Brachot, at page 54a.




About the Author

Leonard Grunstein, a retired attorney and banker, founded and served as Chairman of Metropolitan National Bank and then Israel Discount Bank of NY. He also founded Project Ezrah and serves on the Board of Revel at Yeshiva University and the AIPAC National Council. He has published articles in the Banking Law Journal, Real Estate Finance Journal and other fine publications.