Between the Holy and the Profane — Naming our son Shlomo Machiavelli
(Between the Holy and the Profane I Live)
After the Brit of our second child, first son, a couple of people, including close loved ones, reached out to express concern with the name that he was given.
Shlomo Machiavelli
Shlomo, is a common Hebrew name. If you don’t speak Hebrew you probably know it as Solomon, the son of King David. But in Hebrew the name is Shlomo. However, his second name Machiavelli seems to bother some people. Perhaps this is because of the negative connotation associated with the work of Nicclo Machiavelli, the father of modern political philosophy. His statue stands in the colonnade of the Uffizi Gallery in Florence, Italy, next to other great Italians such as Leonardo Da Vinci and Galileo Galilei.
The fear of words (or names) with negative connotations reminds me of one of my favorite Gemorot…
Breachot 11B -
״יוֹצֵר אוֹר וּבוֹרֵא חֹשֶׁךְ״.
“Who forms light and creates darkness”
לֵימָא: ״יוֹצֵר אוֹר וּבוֹרֵא נוֹגַהּ״!
With regard to this formula of the blessing, the Gemara asks: Let him say the following formula instead: Who forms light and creates brightness, so as not to mention darkness, which has negative connotations.
כְּדִכְתִיב קָאָמְרִינַן.
The Gemara answers: We say the blessing as the verse is written in the Bible and do not alter the formula that appears in the verse.
The Gemora seems to be bothered by the fact that the first blessing we say leading up to the Shema states that G-d creates darkness. Presumably because of the negative connotation associated with darkness. As the commentary in the Artscroll Siddur points out, darkness is associated with suffering, failure and death.
For me this brings up one of the unique moral dilemmas I have thought much about over the years. If we believe that there is one almighty G-d and that he is good how can we explain anything not good that happens in the world.
Which is not an idea we should run from. As R. Yehudah Halevi writes in the Kuzari “The pious person thinks about the meaning of each blessing and understands its purpose and the principle from which it is derived”.
But many people who proclaim belief in one almighty and good G-d have not wrestled with the implications of this dilemma. The polytheist can simply create another G-d, the atheist can blame the random nature of the universe. A monotheist who does not believe G-d is good can easily allow him to do bad things and a monotheist who doesn’t believe G-d is all powerful can blame an outside source.
First let us make clear that the Jewish belief is to accept the dichotomy. The source for this blessing comes from the book of Yeshayahu (Isaiah) where G-d explicitly states that he also is the creator of evil.
יוֹצֵ֥ר אוֹר֙ וּבוֹרֵ֣א חֹ֔שֶׁךְ עֹשֶׂ֥ה שָׁל֖וֹם וּב֣וֹרֵא רָ֑ע אֲנִ֥י יְהוָ֖ה עֹשֶׂ֥ה כָל־אֵֽלֶּה׃
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I, the Lord, do all these things. — Isaiah 45:7
At this point you might be thinking that we named our son Machiavelli because we think that Machiavelli was evil and wanted to highlight this dichotomy as we do with that blessing. Sorry to burst your bubble but we do not consider Niccolo Machevilli an evil man. Instead I have brought Gemora to prove a point — that much like the world we live in, all people have both positive and negative aspects of their lives and legacies.
For example, let us take a look at a story from my namesake King David, who is almost exclusively considered as a positive historical character. We will not look at the most famous sin he committed, the one with Bat-Sheva. Instead let’s look at something that happened earlier in his story.
As recorded in the first book of Shmuel (Samuel) chapter 27. Fearing for his life from the King Shaul (Saul), David takes 600 men to the land of the Philistines to request asylum. He received land and was now safe away from the wrath of King Shaul. Now he needed to court favor with his new lord.
His method of choice: Raiding lands. Slaughtering the people and stealing all their property. The biblical account specifically notes that he killed the women as well as the men.
וְהִכָּ֤ה דָוִד֙ אֶת־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְלֹ֥א יְחַיֶּ֖ה אִ֣ישׁ וְאִשָּׁ֑ה וְלָקַח֩ צֹ֨אן וּבָקָ֜ר וַחֲמֹרִ֤ים וּגְמַלִּים֙ וּבְגָדִ֔ים וַיָּ֖שָׁב וַיָּבֹ֥א אֶל־אָכִֽישׁ׃
When David attacked a region, he would leave no man or woman alive; he would take flocks, herds, asses, camels, and clothing. When he returned and came to Achish, — 1 Samuel 27:9
It must have seemed as if would best show his loyalty by doing this against the Jewish people. But since he was still loyal to his people he decided to raid other lands and lie about where the spoils came from. Which is why he had to kill the women as well and leave absolutely no one alive.
וְאִ֨ישׁ וְאִשָּׁ֜ה לֹֽא־יְחַיֶּ֣ה דָוִ֗ד לְהָבִ֥יא גַת֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר פֶּן־יַגִּ֥דוּ עָלֵ֖ינוּ לֵאמֹ֑ר כֹּֽה־עָשָׂ֤ה דָוִד֙ וְכֹ֣ה מִשְׁפָּט֔וֹ כָּל־הַ֨יָּמִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר יָשַׁ֖ב בִּשְׂדֵ֥ה פְלִשְׁתִּֽים׃
David would leave no man or woman alive to be brought to Gath; for he thought, “They might tell about us: David did this.” Such was his practice as long as he stayed in the territory of the Philistines. — 1 Samuel 27:11
So it seems he was familiar with the old saying “Dead Men (and women) tell no tales.”
And lest you think this was one off mistake remember the text informs us that this was his practice the entire time he lived with the Philistines, a year and four months (1 Samuel 27:7). Unlike the famous Bat-Sheva story which ends with a great apology and teshuva (repentance) the story just moves on to Philistines preparing for war against Israel.
While David’s tactics were effective for many they will conjure up the word “Machiavellian”.
Niccolo Machiavelli on the other hand doesn’t seem to have ever done anything worthy of that label. He was a diplomat and politician, but not a notable one. In fact he ended up outside of politics and was better known during his lifetime as a playwright, songwriter and poet. But politics remained his life’s passion. Despite his failed attempts to participate in politics as he wanted to, he did write about the reality that he saw during the time he played the game. As well as his correspondence with others and his historical studies. Those particular writings were not published until after his death.
Over time they have grown to be accepted as some of the most influential writings of the modern world. Even if the logical conclusions from their premises can lead to controversy. But as we have already learned, leaders made those decisions far before he gave us an insight into their thought process.
The contribution he gave to the world through his writing is invaluable. Which is why to this day he is celebrated in Italy as one of the greatest thinkers their country has produced.
It is his skill of being able to analyze and accept the reality of the world for which our son is named. A valuable skill which I believe must be the starting point of true change. A skill many of us lack when the reality is unpleasant. Failure to develop this skill stops many people from successfully creating the life they want, and it also stops us from creating the world we want.
Even if that is what it means to me there is still the criticism that our child will be unfairly judged based on the dictionary definition of “Machiavellian” — whether or not that is a fair judgement of the writings of Machiavelli.
To put it bluntly we expect our children to be unfairly judged regardless of their names, so it is not a relevant point to consider.
You may find that statement cynical, but the reality is that our children have a Black father. Because I am Black. And I have always lived in a world where I can expect to be judged unfairly.
I had a friend who lived in Israel for a few months before feeling the need to return back to the States. She had one black parent and one white parent. In a personal conversion she confided that she was sick of being treated “like an enemy”. Many people assumed she was Arab and she was tired of how she was being treated here because of how she looked.
My response to her was asking if things were better in America. She conceded that they aren’t but at least she was used to navigating in that environment and spoke the language.
Reality is not fair. It is easy to ignore the facts we find unsavory. This benefits no one. Especially not those of us fighting to make the world a better place.
Before the Brit (circumcision) of our son the Mohel took my wife aside — to confirm that I was Jewish. When you look like I look, even when wearing a kippah and tzitzit, people still want to check.
This is far from uncommon. In fact it is a pretty regular occurrence, often I am out minding my own business and a stranger feels the need to stop me and ask. While this may be a rude question it still beats:
“Why are you wearing a kippah if you are not Jewish?”
Which I have gotten a few times.
What is the right thing to do in these situations?
Maybe it is to make a scene, call racism and crusade against the forces of evil.
Or maybe it is to just answer the question and move on. Which is what my wife did at the Brit and what I do at Rami Levi.
For me this is one of the more benign ways I have been unfairly judged over the course of my life. If you follow me on Twitter or Facebook you are probably familiar with others.
One of the best pieces of advice I ever got was
“Do you want to be right or do you want to get what you want?”
Which may be a Machiavellian way of looking at the world, but has saved me a lot of time and energy over the years.
Yesterday we wanted to have a Brit, give our son a strong name and celebrate the occasion with friends and family.
Which is what we got.
Today I want to teach you Torah and bring to light some of the racism still alive in the world.
If I managed to do that please reach out and let me know what you learned. You can find me on Twitter or send me an email.
