Daf Ditty Rosh Hashanah 2: Fit for Kings

“Shakespeare is not only my Poet, but my Philosopher also. His anatomy of the human heart is
delineated from nature, not from metaphysics; referring immediately to our intuitive sense (...)
No author had ever so copious, so bold, so creative an imagination, with so perfect a knowledge
of the passions, the humours, and sentiments of mankind. He painted all characters, from
heroes and kings, down to inn-keepers and peasants, with equal truth, and equal force. If human
nature were quite destroyed, and no monument left of it, except his Works, other Beings might
learn what man was, from those writings.”

Elizabeth Griffith

1
MISHNA: They are four days in the year that serve as the New Year, each for a different purpose:
On the first of Nisan is the New Year for kings; it is from this date that the years of a king’s rule
are counted. And the first of Nisan is also the New Year for the order of the Festivals, as it
determines which is considered the first Festival of the year and which the last.

On the first of Elul is the New Year for animal tithes; all the animals born prior to that date
belong to the previous tithe year and are tithed as a single unit, whereas those born after that date

2
belong to the next tithe year. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: The New Year for animal
tithes is on the first of Tishrei.

On the first of Tishrei is the New Year for counting years, as will be explained in the Gemara;
for calculating Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years, i.e., from the first of Tishrei there is a
biblical prohibition to work the land during these years; for planting, for determining the years of
orla, the three-year period from when a tree has been planted during which time its fruit is
forbidden; and for tithing vegetables, as vegetables picked prior to that date cannot be tithed
together with vegetables picked after that date.

On the first of Shevat is the New Year for the tree; the fruit of a tree that was formed prior to
that date belong to the previous tithe year and cannot be tithed together with fruit that was formed
after that date; this ruling is in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai. But Beit Hillel
say: The New Year for trees is on the fifteenth of Shevat.

GEMARA: The New Year for kings; with regard to what halakha is it mentioned in the
mishna? Why is it necessary to set a specific date to count the years of a king’s rule, rather than
counting them from the day that he ascends to the throne? Rav Ḥisda said: It is for determining
the validity of documents.

RASHI

3
Gemara, with regard to what halacha - That is to say why is there a separate day to count for kings
perhaps every King's year should begin from his ascension date [meaning, if king A took over 1
Shevat and King B who took over after him took over 2 Adar the next year perhaps the new year
for Kings should be reset from 1 Shevat to 2 Adar in accordance with when the king took power].

For contracts - To figure out whether a contract was post or antedated

Summary

Introduction1

This famous mishnah gives four new years and explains the halakhic significance of each of each
of them.

There are four new year’s:

The first of Nisan is the new year for kings and for festivals.

The order of the new years in this mishnah reflects the order of the months in the Torah. In the
Torah, Nisan, the month in which Pesah falls, is considered to be the first month of the year, so it
is listed here first. The first of Nisan is new year for the kings, which means that we count the
years in which a king has ruled from the first of Nisan. The reason why this is important is that in
those times they would date their documents by the years in which the king had ruled. In order for
a document to be valid, therefore, one needed to know if which year of the king’s rule this was.
“For festivals” means that Pesah is considered to be the first festival of the year. The reason that
this is important is that it impacts someone who makes a vow to bring something to the Temple.
Rabbi Shimon holds that he has three festivals to bring the vow-offering, and that the count of
those three festivals begins on Pesah. So if he makes a vow after Pesah, he doesn’t begin counting
the three festival time-limit until the following Pesah.

The first of Elul is the new year for the tithe of beasts. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon
say: the first of Tishri.

1
https://www.sefaria.org/Rosh_Hashanah.2a.1?lang=bi&p2=Mishnah_Rosh_Hashanah.1.1&lang2=bi&w2=English%20Explanati
on%20of%20Mishnah&lang3=en

4
The first of Elul is the Rosh Hashanah for tithing animals. When tithing animals, one groups them
by year. The first of Elul is the beginning of the next year, so any animals born on or after this date
count toward the next year’s tithe and not towards those animals that need to be tithed from the
previous year. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon disagree concerning tithes. They hold that just as
tithes for vegetables are fixed on the first of Tishri (see below), so too are tithes for animals.

The first of Tishri is the new year for years, for shmitta and jubilee years, for planting and
for [tithe of] vegetables.

The first of Tishri, what we today call Rosh Hashanah, is the new year for “years.” This means
that when we count what year it is, we count from the first of Tishri. This is how we still count the
years today. Many other commentators take this to mean that counts based on the rule of non-
Jewish kings are based on Tishri being the start of the new year. The shmitta (Sabbatical) and
Jubilee years begin on the first of Tishri meaning from this date all of the prohibitions and
regulations concerning the Sabbatical and Jubilee years begin to take effect. This is also the new
year for “planting” trees, meaning that we count the number of years a tree has grown starting on
the first of Tishri. This is important in order to know when it stops being “orlah” fruit which is
prohibited during the trees first three years. Finally, the first of Tishri is the Rosh Hashanah for the
tithes of vegetables. Vegetables that were picked before Tishri are not tithed with vegetables
picked afterwards.

The first of Shevat is the new year for trees, according to the words of Bet Shammai. Bet
Hillel says: on the fifteenth of that month.

The two houses debate the date of the new year for trees: Bet Shammai holds that it is on the first
of Shevat, and Bet Hillel holds that it is on the fifteenth (Tu B’shvat). The importance of this new
year is that fruit which has begun to sprout on the tree before this date is not tithed with fruit that
spouts afterwards.

THE ROSH HASHANAH FOR KINGS

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The Mishnah lists different days that serve as the new year for various matters. The first day the
Mishnah mentions is the first of Nisan, the Rosh Hashanah for Melachim, kings. The Gemara asks,
"l'Melachim l'Mai Hilchesa" -- what practical relevance is there for a Rosh Hashanah for kings?

RASHI explains that the Gemara means to ask why the Chachamim did not simply begin the count
of each king's reign from the day on which he came to power. According to Rashi's understanding,

2
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/rhashanah/insites/rh-dt-002.htm

5
the Gemara knows the practical ramifications of a Rosh Hashanah for kings, and it merely seeks
to determine why specifically the first of Nisan was chosen to be that Rosh Hashanah.

Rashi's explanation deviates from the literal understanding of the question. Why does Rashi not
explain the Gemara's question in its straightforward sense: what difference does it make that there
is a Rosh Hashanah for kings?

The RITVA explains that Rashi was bothered by the Gemara's answer. Had the Gemara's intention
been to ask what practical difference a Rosh Hashanah for kings makes, then the answer "for the
sake of Shtaros" would have sufficed. However, the Gemara continues to say, "As we have learned
in a Mishnah (in Shevi'is), that predated deeds of debt (Shtarei Chov ha'Mukdamim) are not valid,
while post-dated ones (ha'Me'ucharim) are valid."

The Gemara should have said simply that the practical application of a Rosh Hashanah for kings
is how to date Shtaros; there was no need to mention which types of Shtaros are valid. Without the
second clause, one would have assumed that the Gemara refers to a simple case in which two
creditors attempt to collect their debts from buyers (Lekuchos) who purchased collateralized
property from the debtor.

Both creditors are holding Shtaros, one of which is dated with an earlier month in the king's reign
than the other. The one holding the Shtar with the earlier date is entitled to collect from the
Lekuchos first. (This is the way the Yerushalmi and Rabeinu Chananel explain the relevance of
the king's years according to the Mishnah.) Alternatively, one would have assumed that the
significance of a Shtar marked with an earlier year in the king's reign is to determine whether the
loan described in the Shtar occurred before or after a buyer purchased land from the debtor. If the
loan occurred before the purchase, the land would have a lien on it and could be collected as
payment for the loan, but not if the loan occurred after the purchase.

Since the Gemara does not answer simply "for Shtaros" but it adds a description of what type of
Shtar is valid, it must be that the Gemara was not asking what the practical relevance is of a Rosh
Hashanah for kings. Rather, the Gemara knows from the start that a Rosh Hashanah for kings has
legal ramifications with regard to Shtaros. (Indeed, Rashi in the Mishnah mention this as the reason
for why there is a Rosh Hashanah for kings. Rashi clearly implies that this reason is known even
before the Gemara discusses it.) The Gemara means to ask why the Chachamim made a special
enactment to count the years of kings from the month of Nisan.

This answer explains the words of Rashi. However, the Gemara still needs clarification. Why does
the Gemara introduce the concept of predated Shtaros in order to answer its question? Why does
the Gemara not answer its question by stating simply that the institution of counting kings' years
from the beginning of Nisan was made in order to prevent confusion as to who should collect from
Lekuchos when two (or even one) valid (not predated) Shtaros are presented to the court?

1. According to Rashi, the Gemara's logic may be that the Chachamim were not concerned that
people would collect from Lekuchos improperly based on a Shtar with a vague date. To prevent
such fraud, the person with the earlier Shtar, or with the purchase which predates the loan, could
simply write the date more clearly (for example, he could specify in the Shtar itself the month in

6
which the king began his reign). There is no need for an enactment of the Chachamim since anyone
could thwart such fraud on his own. Rather, the Chachamim felt responsible to prevent a different
problem -- the case which Rashi describes, where witnesses make a statement which might mean
that the Shtar is predated but which might also mean that the Shtar is valid. In such a case, Beis
Din might make a mistake about what the witnesses said and rule that the Shtar is not valid when
it actually is valid. The person who loaned the money will not be to blame for not being more
specific in the Shtar and for causing confusion to Beis Din, because he could not have known that
he would be causing confusion. After all, he actually post-dated the Shtar (Shtar Me'uchar),
writing it months after the loan took place in front of the same witnesses who saw the loan take
place months earlier. The person who loaned the money had no reason to consider the possibility
that Beis Din might misinterpret the witnesses' testimony. Therefore, the Chachamim saw the need
to prevent confusion by establishing one day by which to count the years of every king, so that
Beis Din will not invalidate any Shtar by mistake.3

2. TOSFOS (DH l'Shtaros) explains that the Chachamim were not concerned that Beis Din might
forget when the king came to power. Accordingly, when Shtaros with different dates, and which
are not predated, are presented in court there will never be confusion about which was written first.
Rather, the reason the Chachamim instituted that the king's years be counted from the beginning
of Nisan was because the scribe who writes the date in the Shtar may forget which day the king
came to power and write the wrong year of the king's reign in the Shtar, thereby predating it
inadvertently.

Although part of the scribe's professional responsibility is to know the date of the king's
appointment, nevertheless one year from the king's appointment he might mistakenly think that
the king was appointed one day later than he actually was. For example, if the king was appointed
on the first of Adar, on the following first of Adar the scribe might remember incorrectly that the
king was appointed on the second of Adar. He will write the date in the Shtar as, "first of
Adar, first year of the king," thereby inadvertently predating the Shtar by an entire year. The
Chachamim's enactment that all kings' years begin at the first of Nisan prevents the scribe from
making such a mistake.4

3. RABEINU CHANANEL (as mentioned above) explains that the Gemara's answer is "Lav
Davka," imprecise. When the Gemara says that a Rosh Hashanah for kings is needed in order to

3
This answers another question on Rashi's explanation. TOSFOS (DH l'Shtaros) asks why Rashi explains that the Chachamim
made their enactment for a case in which Beis Din might mistakenly invalidate a valid Shtar that was post-dated (Me'uchar). Rashi
should have explained that the Takanah was made to prevent Beis Din from mistakenly collecting with a Shtar that is invalid and
predated (Mukdam). According to the above explanation, the latter case is of no concern, since a predated Shtar is problematic only
if a person uses it to collect from Lekuchos. In such a case, however, it is the negligence of the Lekuchos which causes their own
loss. The Lekuchos should have made the date of their purchase more clear by indicating in their Shtar the exact month in which
the king came to power.
4
This answers another question on Rashi's explanation. TOSFOS (DH l'Shtaros) asks why Rashi explains that the Chachamim
made their enactment for a case in which Beis Din might mistakenly invalidate a valid Shtar that was post-dated (Me'uchar). Rashi
should have explained that the Takanah was made to prevent Beis Din from mistakenly collecting with a Shtar that is invalid and
predated (Mukdam). According to the above explanation, the latter case is of no concern, since a predated Shtar is problematic only
if a person uses it to collect from Lekuchos. In such a case, however, it is the negligence of the Lekuchos which causes their own
loss. The Lekuchos should have made the date of their purchase more clear by indicating in their Shtar the exact month in which
the king came to power.

7
know which Shtar is predated, it also means that a Rosh Hashanah for kings enables one to know
which Shtar collects first when two creditors of the same debtor present two Shtaros to collect
from Lekuchos. (The Yerushalmi here also says that this is the reason for a Rosh Hashanah for
kings; see end of Tosfos DH l'Shtaros.) Why, then, does the Gemara mention the Mishnah which
says that a predated Shtar is invalid?

The BA'AL HA'ME'OR explains that the Gemara not only answers the question of why there is
a need for a Rosh Hashanah for kings, but it teaches an additional lesson. One might have thought
that, b'Di'eved, if he wrote the date in the Shtar counting from the day the king came to power, the
Shtar is nevertheless valid. The Gemara therefore teaches that such a Shtar is invalid even
b'Di'eved because it is predated.

The RA'AVAD answers that when the Gemara mentions that a predated Shtar is invalid, it does
not mean that a Rosh Hashanah for kings is necessary specifically to prevent the problem of
predated Shtaros. The Gemara includes all cases of Shtaros which enable the bearer to collect
based on the precedence of the date written in the Shtar, including the case of two Shtaros being
collected from the Lekuchos of one debtor.

The Four New Years

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5

The opening Mishna in Massekhet Rosh HaShana teaches that the halakha recognizes four
separate dates as being new year’s, with each one defining the beginning of a new cycle for that
particular idea or event.

The four new years are:

• The first day of Nissan, which begins the new year for kings and holidays
• The first day of Elul, which begins the new year for tithes taken from flocks of animals
• The first day of Tishrei, which begins the new year for counting years, including
shemita (the Sabbatical year) and yovel (the Jubilee year), as well as planting trees and
tithes on vegetables
• The first (according to Beit Shammai according to Beit Hillel it is the 15th) of Shevat,
which begins the new year for tithes on fruit.

The Gemara will go on to explain each of these items individually. On our daf the focus is on the
first day of Nissan, which is the new year for kings. Given the fact that monarchs usually had

5
https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446

8
lifetime positions, why was there a need to establish a particular calendar day that was the
beginning of his reign?

Theoretically, a king's reign should begin whenever he took office. Rav Hisda explains that "for
kings" means for dating contracts. It was common practice under a given monarchy that the year
that would appear in a contract was not the number of years since creation or from an arbitrary
point in history, but how many years into the current king's reign. Rashi explains that this was done
for reasons of shalom malkhut-- to stay on good terms with the king by honoring him in every
matter.

Tosafot point out that since the Mishna refers only to Jewish kings (some say that the Mishna's use
of the plural "kings" is to indicate that both kings of Judea and kings of the northern kingdom of
Israel were included), shalom malkhut should not apply. They argue that this was simply the
common method of dating contracts at that time.

The Mordekhai and the Ge'onim point out that these days become minor holidays, given their
description by the Mishna as Rosh HaShana. Therefore a day like the 15th of Shevat becomes a
day of celebration to the extent that neither fasting nor eulogies are permitted.

9
 Giant Redwood Trees of California By Albert Bierstadt

Mark Kerzner writes:6

There are four New Year’s (Rosh Hashanah): for the kings, for the Holidays, for the animals, and
for the plants. How so?

The New Year for the (Jewish) kings starts on the first day of the month of Nisan. That is, if a king
ascended the throne even one day before Nisan, this is still considered the first year of his reign,
and on the first of Nisan they begin counting his second year. This year is then used in business
documents, such as loan notes, to honor the king.

Why does there have a to be a New Year for the Holidays (Pesach, Shavuot and Sukkot)? - for
promises. If someone promises a sacrifice, he needs to bring it within the next three Holidays, but
he starts counting not from the day of the promise but from Nisan. In an extreme case therefore, if
he promises the sacrifice before Shavuot, he has five Holidays to bring it: Shavuot, Sukkot, Pesach,
next Shavuot, next Sukkot.

The New Year of the animals is for animal tithe: all animals born in that years are tithed together.
The New Year of the trees is for counting the first three years during which their fruit is prohibited
- this is known as " orlah ".

6
https://talmudilluminated.com/rosh_hashanah/roshhashanah2.html

10
Rachel Scheinerman writes:7

These days, Rosh Hashanah (literally: “head of the year”) is one of the most recognizable Jewish
holidays — and, along with Yom Kippur, one of the most solemn. Growing up, my public school
closed for the first day of Rosh Hashanah (but not the first day of Passover) and I have found this
is true for my kids as well. So some may be surprised to learn that the Torah makes no mention of
Rosh Hashanah — at least not by name, and not as the beginning of the year. In fact, from the
Torah’s perspective, the beginning of the year isn’t even the autumn month of Tishrei — it’s the
spring month of Nisan (Exodus 12:2). The year begins, appropriately enough, in the season of
redemption and rebirth.

The Hebrew term rosh hashanah does appear in the prophetic book of Ezekiel (40:1), but as you
can see I’ve rendered it in lowercase because there it refers rather non-specifically to the beginning
of the year. Indeed, that verse states: “In the 25th year of our exile, the 14th year after the city
had fallen, at the beginning of the year (rosh hashanah), the 10th day of the month … the hand
of the Lord came upon me.” Whatever day Ezekiel is talking about (the sages understand it to be
Yom Kippur of a jubilee year), Rosh Hashanah as a first-of-the-month holiday of repentance and
new year celebration isn’t mentioned here.

What we call Rosh Hashanah is, in the Torah, Yom Teruah — Day of Blasting (of the shofar, of
course). This language is used in the Kiddush recited on Rosh Hashanah. Yom Teruah is
mentioned in Numbers 29:1 as a festival: “In the seventh month, on the first day of the month,
you shall observe a sacred occasion: you shall not work at your occupations. You shall observe
it as Yom Teruah.” As noted above, in the Torah’s reckoning, Tishrei is not the first month (as it
is on contemporary Jewish calendars) but the seventh. Notice too that the only major feature of
Yom Teruah, aside from being a festival on which no work is performed (as those of you who
joined us for Tractate Beitzah now well know), is the blasting of the shofar (see also
Leviticus 23:24).

So how do we square Ezekiel’s statement that the year begins in Tishrei with the Torah’s certainty
that it begins in Nisan? In some ways, Tractate Rosh Hashanah is a response to this conundrum.

As is so often the case for the rabbis, they respond with the same spirit that keeps improvisational
comedy afloat: yes, and. Yes, Nisan is the beginning of the year. Yes, Tishrei is the beginning of
the year. And what’s more … well, I’ll let the first mishnah of the tractate speak for itself:

They are four New Year’s:

The first of Nisan is the New Year for kings; and for festivals.

The first of Elul is the New Year for animal tithes. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say the New
Year for animal tithes is on the first of Tishrei.

7
Myjewishlearning.com

11
The first of Tishrei is the New Year for years, for sabbatical years and jubilee years, for
planting, and for tithing vegetables.

On the first of Shevat is the New Year for trees, according to Beit Shammai. Beit Hillel say the
15th.

Surprise! There aren’t just two new years — there are four. Each new year is attached to significant
cycles. We do this too in our modern secular lives. We count each calendar year starting January
1st, but a traditional school year starts sometime in early fall. And if you’re a farmer (or a baseball
player), your year begins in the spring.

Likewise, the sages counted years starting on the first of Tishrei, but calculated animal tithes on
the first of Elul (though Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon took exception) and the age of trees
according to the month of Shevat (specifically the 15th according to Beit Hillel, creating a tax
deadline that the kabbalists later rendered into the beautiful ecological holiday of Tu Bishvat). The
sages counted festivals beginning in Nisan, meaning that each Passover was paired with
the Shavuot and the Sukkot that followed as one cycle of pilgrimage festivals.

Naturally, this mishnah sets us up to discuss many interesting aspects of the Jewish calendar and
how it operated in antiquity. But we’ll get back to the holiday at hand and learn about Rosh
Hashanah and its signal commandment — blasting the shofar — soon enough. It’s a quick tour
— just 35 pages — so enjoy the ride!

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:8

Having been taught in the Mishna (Rosh Hashanah 1:1) that the first of Nissan is the New Year
for kings, the Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 2b) explains that this is deduced from Melachim I 6:1
where the reign of Shlomo HaMelech is calculated in relation to the Exodus from Egypt: ‘just as
the Exodus is counted from Nissan, so too, the reign of Shlomo is counted from Nissan’. But what
is the significance of a king’s reign being measured from the Exodus?

The answer, I believe, relates to what the Exodus represents. As Rabbi Sacks9 explains, “God, who
led His people from slavery to freedom, desires the free worship of free human beings” and as
such, “the Jewish people were, from the outset, called on to live out the truth that the free God
desires the free worship of free human beings, and that therefore it must construct a society
whose members never take freedom for granted” (ibid. p. 109).

Unlike those kings, as powerfully personified by Pharoh, who harness their power to rule over
their subjects for their personal gain, the mandate of a Jewish king is to use their influence for the
dignity and freedom of their subjects and for the honour of God. And by having their reign
measured from the month of the Exodus, a Jewish king is constantly reminded that they should not

8
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com
9
“Radical Then, Radical Now” Harper Collins 2001, 22

12
feel superior to their subjects, like Pharoh, and instead should stay loyal to the laws of God and
the rights of their subjects (see Devarim 17:20).

Understood this way, when a king considered the length of their reign as measured from Nissan,
they were forced to consider not what they had gained for themselves during their reign, but
instead, what they had achieved for others; not what they had taken from their subjects, but how
they had brought them closer to redemption.

Today we do not have a Jewish king. Still, the need to secure and protect freedom and redemption
remains central to the mandate of our local and national leaders. Given this, perhaps we too should
measure their length of leadership from Nissan, and by doing so, this may serve as a regular
reminder to them to use their influence for the dignity and freedom of those whom they serve, and
for the honour of God.

The Jewish Consumptive Relief Sanatorium of Denver

A New Year for Health

Jeremy Brown writes:10
Rosh Hashanah 2
The new tractate of Talmud that we begin to study today opens with these famous words:

‫א‬, ‫ראש השנה ב‬

‫ארבעה ראשי שנים הם באחד בניסן ר"ה למלכים ולרגלים באחד באלול ראש השנה למעשר בהמה ר' אלעזר‬
‫ור"ש אומרים באחד בתשרי באחד בתשרי ראש השנה לשנים ולשמיטין וליובלות לנטיעה ולירקות באחד בשבט‬
‫ראש השנה לאילן כדברי בית שמאי בית הלל אומרים בחמשה עשר בו‬

10
http://www.talmudology.com/

13
There are four days in the year that serve as the New Year, each for a different purpose: On the
first of Nisan is the New Year for kings; it is from this date that the years of a king’s rule are
counted. And the first of Nisan is also the New Year for the order of the Festivals, as it
determines which is considered the first Festival of the year and which the last.

On the first of Elul is the New Year for animal tithes; all the animals born prior to that date
belong to the previous tithe year and are tithed as a single unit, whereas those born after that
date belong to the next tithe year. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: The New Year for animal
tithes is on the first of Tishrei.

On the first of Tishrei is the New Year for counting years, as will be explained in the Gemara;
for calculating Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years, i.e., from the first of Tishrei there is a
biblical prohibition to work the land during these years; for planting, for determining the years
of orla, the three-year period from when a tree has been planted during which time its fruit is
forbidden; and for tithing vegetables, as vegetables picked prior to that date cannot be tithed
together with vegetables picked after that date.

On the first of Shevat is the New Year for the tree; the fruit of a tree that was formed prior to
that date belong to the previous tithe year and cannot be tithed together with fruit that was
formed after that date; this ruling is in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai. But
Beit Hillel say: The New Year for trees is on the fifteenth of Shevat.

Declaring different kinds of New Year’s goes back to the Talmud. But this practice was updated
in a remarkable way by a Russian Jewish immigrant to the US in the early twentieth century.
Today, Talmudology is proud to tell his remarkable - and overlooked - story.

CHARLES SPIVAK AND THE FIGHT AGAINST TUBERCULOSIS

Hayyim Haykhl Spivakovski (1861-1927) immigrated to the US from Russia, where he became
Charles Spivak. He graduated from Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia in 1890 (and his
thesis, on talmudic theories of menstruation won a prize), and after his wife contracted tuberculosis
in 1896 he moved with her to Denver. There she could take advantage of the high altitude which
had been shown to help fight the disease. This began his life-long mission to fight the tuberculosis
and improve the care of the many Jewish refugees from eastern Europe who contracted it.

14
Spivak11 founded the Jewish Consumptives’ Relief Society (JCRS), which provided kosher food
and a Sabbath atmosphere, but was open to anyone. “We have in our institution chasidim and
agnostics,” he wrote in 1914, “Jews and Christians, republicans and progressives, socialists and
anarchists, men of all kinds of religious, political and economic options.”

Spivak’s personal philosophy was informed by “a unique blend of Yiddishkeit [Jewish values],
secularism and socialism” and his approach to the distribution of funds was sometimes at odds
with bureaucratic and impersonal ways that some Jewish charities functioned. “We may not be
able to return him [the patient] to his family as a useful working unit,” he reminded his
benefactors, “we may actually waste money without any hope for any return, nevertheless, we
feel that he or she must receive our care and attention, that whole-souled and whole-hearted
charity is, after all, the only true, pure and unalloyed charity.”

He estimated that of among the 3.3 million Jews then living in the US about 4,600 died each year
from the disease, and ten times that number were chronically infected, or as he put it, were “living
tuberculous Jews.” It was therefore the duty of the Jewish community to support the fight for to
prevent the spread of tuberculosis and search for a cure.

11
Denver’s working-lass Jewish community in West Colfax founded the Jewish Consumptive Relief Society (JCRS) in 1904. The
new organization recruited Dr. Charles Spivak. In his honor, our student studio building is named Spivak.,
https://twitter.com/rmcad/status/1209300191783862273

15
 Dr. Charles Spivak

As we learn in today’s page of Talmud, we learn that are several different dates that mark the
beginning of different new year’s. The first day of the Spring month of Nissan is the new year for
kings, which is used to date legal documents. The new year for trees is marked in the late winter
month Shevat, which is used to count tithes, and first day of the late summer month of Tishrei is
used to count the number of years since creation. In December 1918, Spivak updated this list and
gave it a thoroughly modern twist. Writing in the Journal Jewish Charities, he suggested that the
rhythm of the Jewish calendar could be used to improve public health and reduce the toll from
tuberculosis.

16
 Spivak’s suggestion was of course dependent on a working knowledge of the Jewish calendar, but
the dates he suggested would help. The fifteenth of Shevat was often celebrated in schools, and
Lag B’Omer, the thirty-third day of the period leading up to the festival of Shavuot was celebrated
as a minor holiday; it marked the end of the pandemic deaths of the students of the talmudic giant
Rabbi Akiva. Most Jewish adults, even those who had jettisoned traditional Jewish practice when
they arrived in America, would be aware of the timing of the other two months. The festival of
Pesach (Passover) is celebrated in Nissan, and Rosh Hashanah, the start of the Jewish New Year
that leads into Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) is commemorated in Tishrei.

H E L P I N G O T H E R S, E V E N A F T E R H I S D E A T H

Spivak, a member of the Denver Hebrew Speaking Society, developed liver cancer and died in
1927 at the age of 68. His generous spirit is evident in his last will and testament, where he asked
that

Apparently his request was fulfilled, and somewhere on the campus of the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem is his skeleton.

D E N V E R ’S N A T I O N A L J E W I S H H O SP I T A L

Spivak was not the only Jew who helped Denver’s many “consumptives.” He had traveled to
Denver because of its high altitude, and in there in the 1880s a woman by the name of Frances
Wisebart Jacobs raised funds to open a new hospital to treat the many “consumptives” who had
traveled to the mile high city. She found support from the Jewish community, which agreed to
plan, fund and build a nonsectarian hospital for the treatment of respiratory diseases, primarily
tuberculosis. That hospital opened in 1899 as The National Jewish Hospital for Consumptives, and
after several name changes it is now known as National Jewish Health. Today, it remains a major
center for the care of patients with lung and respiratory illnesses.

17
While the Talmud declared four kinds of new year, Spivak declared a fifth. His new year for health
was tied to the Jewish calendar, and his memory is a reminder of the importance of getting a routine
physical exam from your doctor. It might save your life.12

A New Year for Kings

Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:13

12
Marjorie Hornbein, “Dr. Charles Spivak of Denver: Physician, Social Worker, Yiddish Author,” Western States Jewish Historical
Quarterly 11/3.
13
https://torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/rosh-hashanah-2-a-new-year-for-kings

18
"Arba Rosh Hashana hem, there are four New Years; on the first of Nissan is the New Year for
kings and festivals" (Rosh Hashanah 2a).
Amongst the New Year’s listed are those for tithing of fruit (Tu Beshvat), animals (1st of Elul),
and vegetables (1st of Tishrei); and the beginning of the Shmitta and Yovel years (1st of Tishrei).
The dates of these New Year’s correspond to their natural cycles: fruits begin to ripen around Tu
Beshvat, animals give birth in the late summer, and vegetables are harvested as fall approaches.
That Rosh Hashanah is the Day of Judgment for humanity is most likely a direct result of man
having been created on the first of Tishrei[1]. With the first Jewish festival being Pesach, it is
easily understood that Nissan would be the New Year for holidays. The practical importance of
such a new year relates to the amount of time allotted to make good on a promise of a gift to the
Temple, or of charity--the details of which are elaborated on in the Gemara. But most unclear is
the significance of a New Year for kings—a query which marks the opening question of the
Gemara of Masechet Rosh Hashanah.
The Gemara explains that the conventional way of dating documents in Talmudic times was
according to the year of the king; to give it a modern twist, we would write, "in the 7th year of the
reign of President Peres". Regardless of the date on which a king was appointed, come the first of
Nissan, documents would be dated to the second year of his reign. This was a beautiful way to
give honour and respect to the sovereign of the state in which one resided, and applied equally to
Jewish and non-Jewish kings (though the Gemara explains that for non-Jewish kings, their year
would begin at Tishrei).
While the reference in the Mishnah is to human kings, perhaps Masechet Rosh Hashanah begins
with the mention of kings in order to allude to the King of kings, Rosh Hashanah being the time
of malchiut, when we coronate the King of the Universe.
Yet at the same time, there seems to be a more basic, if more subtle, reason for beginning Masechet
Rosh Hashanah with the laws of documents. Dating documents to the year of the king might be a
very nice custom, but the Gemara wants to know the practical importance of such. The answer
relates to the technical laws of property liens.
When one borrows money—and such a loan is documented—one's property automatically
becomes indebted to the creditor; a kind of mortgage, if you will. If the debtor then sells his
property and cannot pay back the loan, the creditor has the right to seize the property from the
purchaser to satisfy his debt—leaving the purchaser to try to recover his loss from the original
debtor. It thus becomes quite important to know if the loan or the sale of the property came first.
If the latter, the creditor would have no recourse against the purchaser. Thus, the need to have a
common new year for documents, so that we would know that a document dated Tammuz is earlier
than one dated in Cheshvan (just as a December 31 cut-off date lets us know that March is before
September).
As a deterrent—or perhaps as punishment—for backdating a document, our Sages declared that
all such documents are, ipso facto, invalid—even if there is no third party involved.

19
"The sustenance of man [for the year] is determined from Rosh Hashanah to Yom
Kippur[2]" (Beitzah 16a). G-d and man are business partners. Our job is to put in the necessary
efforts to provide for our family, and G-d's role is to determine the result of our efforts. Trying to
fool our Partner is not only foolish, but displays a lack of belief in His abilities.
Our Sages were most precise when they declared that the first question our Creator will ask us
after our sojourn on this earth is, "Were your business dealings conducted b'emunah, in
faith?" (Shabbat 31a). The true test of our faith in G-d is determined by our monetary dealings.
Masechet Rosh Hashanah may begin with the technical laws of documents, but these documents
say a lot about our acceptance of the Kingship of G-d, which is the overarching theme of the Rosh
Hashanah that begins on the first of Tishrei.

[1] According to the view that the world was created in Nissan (Rosh Hashanah 10b), presumably judgment is related to Yom
Kippur, when G-d forgave not man, but the Jewish people.
[2] The Gemara lists, as an exception to this rule, monies spent on Shabbat and Yom Tov as well as money spent on one's children's
Jewish education, where the Gemara asserts that, "if he spent less, he is given less; and if he spent more, he is given more".

Rebbetzin Tziporah Heller writes:14

14
From "This Way Up: Torah Essays on Spiritual Growth" by Rebbetzin Tziporah Heller, Feldheim publications.
https://www.aish.com/h/hh/rh/ag/Fit_for_a_King.html

20
God never gives up on us.

Once there was a king. The king had a servant to whom he entrusted a precious vessel. The vessel
was somehow damaged. The servant's awe of the king was so great that he did not know what to
do, where to turn. He found a wise man and sought his counsel. The wise man told him that he
should not bring the shattered vessel before the king; it was not befitting. The servant decided it
would be better to seek advice from one of the king's closest friends. The servant thought a person
such as that would be more likely to have a deep knowledge of how the king would respond and
would also know what course of action the king would take.

When he appeared before the king's trusted companion, he asked his advice and received the
following reply: "I know the king's greatness and exaltation. A vessel such as this may not be
placed before him. You must destroy the vessel completely."

The servant still did not know what to do and finally decided to go to an expert craftsman, hoping
that perhaps he would be able to repair the broken vessel. He went to the craftsman, who told him
that even if he succeeded in repairing it, it would still look damaged. Its appearance would remain
marred; it would never be appropriate to take to the king.

The servant said to himself, I cannot act as though nothing has happened; I cannot absolve myself
from responsibility. I will go before the king. Let him do to me as he sees fit.

The king said, "I will use the broken vessel. Those with whom you consulted responded as they
did for the sake of my glory. I, however, choose to use the vessel as it is."

Fear Of Confronting One's Failures

21
God unveils His presence to those who are able to see. The awesome splendor of nature, the
intimacy of Divine Providence, are visible to anyone who has not blocked his vision.

Feelings of spiritual inadequacy can be overwhelming."

When we seek to go beyond the blinders of ego, materialism, and escapism, we are still at times
blocked. At times it's not what we don't see that causes our blindness; it's what we do see. When
we let ourselves hear our deepest selves, the voices of inner wisdom of spiritual yearning, we are
sometimes overwhelmed. We feel that "the vessel cannot be placed before the King." These
feelings of spiritual inadequacy can be so overwhelming that we don't know what to do. We see
our brokenness, and in sharp contrast we perceive the power and goodness of God. At moments
of stark revelation, we tend to retreat. How can we possibly live with what we have become? The
more honest we are, the less accessible teshuvah, repentance, feels.

Teshuvah, repentance, is a statement of God's very nature: His never-ending compassion.

The ultimate insult one person can give another is lowering one's expectations of him. The attitude
"I would never expect any better from you" is not one of compassion. It is the most profound form
of disdain. God does not give up on us. His exacting judgment, which we must face on Rosh
Hashana, is real. We must not allow ourselves to be defeated by the dread this knowledge inspires.

God judges us, not because He wishes to punish us and see us get what we deserve, but because
He believes in our ability to transcend our blockages. Even the most severe punishments ever
meted out to humanity, such as Adam's expulsion from the Garden of Eden, were given to enable
personal rebuilding of that which was broken in Adam and in the world.

We must not be afraid to approach God honestly.

Teshuvah is the key to our rebuilding ourselves. We must trust God's compassion and not be afraid
to approach Him honestly. The month of Elul is the time of year when the spiritual nature of the
season moves us toward Him and Him toward us.

Seeing Ourselves As We Are

Examining where our lives have taken us is the first step. The purpose of this is not to generate
self-hatred or despair, but to seek correction and ways of moving beyond our present situations.
We must be willing to look, not only at the specific actions that may be less than perfect, but at the
character traits that motivated errors in moral judgment. When we content ourselves with
superficial self-examination, our efforts are doomed.

I am a fairly unsuccessful gardener. The verdant plants I bring home from the nursery live very
uneventful (and unusually short) lives. Part of the reason is that my own urban childhood brought
me to maturity without the ability to look at two green shoots and know which one is a weed.
When the shoots grow tall enough to make it clear (even to me) which is which, I tend to cut the
weed rather than uproot it. The re-germination of aggressive and unwanted weeds is an eternal,
unpleasant surprise.

22
Similarly, when searching for the "real" self, one must ask the basic question: why? Why do I do
this? Why do I want this? Which basic trait is somehow contorted? Until these questions are
honestly answered, the root of the weed is left untouched. There is still little awareness of
which middah, character trait, needs to be corrected. The "plant," therefore, is very likely to
flourish again. The same deed (or its very similar first cousin) is likely to be a prominent part of
one's soul-searching next year.

What To Do With The Flaws

Character traits don't disappear. One of the most irrational decisions that can be made is the
rejection of one's essential personality. Finding new and appropriate channels for the traits that are
the least desirable is a challenge. Denying their existence, or attempting to eliminate them, is
escaping the challenge that is part of one's very being, for finding a positive outlet for them often
has the effect of uprooting the negative aspect of the trait.

To understand the mechanics of change, let us look for a moment at one of the most striking
examples of self-change I have ever seen.

Irene's parents never wanted a child. Perhaps they wanted a trophy to show others, very much as
they collect art and hang it on the walls of their exquisite home. Irene never felt wanted. This was
not a matter of unrealistic expectations; it was a realistic acceptance of her status. When her
parents' marriage dissolved, the custody battle revolved around who would be "stuck" with the
child. She was raised from the age of eight by various hired women.

By the time Irene was an adult, her insecurity was a very strong component of her personality. We
all know the forms insecurity takes. No friend was loyal enough, and therefore she constantly
"tested" them until they almost always failed to meet her expectations. No situation was stable
enough, and she moved from lifestyle to lifestyle.

I, too, was a member of the society of failed friends. I liked her and admired her enormously; she
is a woman of rare brilliance and refinement. However, I was unable to give her the kind of
unconditional support she needed and therefore demanded.

We drifted apart. I heard of her occasionally. She is an artist, and her works are displayed
periodically in various galleries. One Elul, I wrote her a letter in which I asked forgiveness for
having allowed our friendship to disintegrate.

As God would have it, I met her on the bus the very day I put the letter in my purse. As I handed
her the letter, I did not know what her response would be. Would she trust my sincerity or would
she see this as a sort of cushion upon which I could lean to alleviate any guilt I might be feeling
before the High Holidays arrive? She smiled at me warmly, gave me her address and phone
number, and invited me to her home.

In the course of my visit to her somewhat isolated house on a remote Israeli settlement, I found
myself feeling as though the body of the person to whom I was speaking was Irene, but the person

23
inside the body must be someone entirely different. The warmth, security, and genuine interest she
showed in me and my life were completely out of character.

To uproot her insecurity, she wrote an account of every good she experienced.

As the sun began to set over the desert, I felt comfortable enough to ask her how she had
accomplished such a major achievement. She knew exactly what I meant. She had decided to
uproot the negative side of her insecurity completely. In order to do this, she wrote a brief account
of everything good she experienced every day. She opened her closet and showed me a collection
of tens of school notebooks. Each one was full, and each one was a statement of its owner's longing
to free herself from the limitations that enveloped her. This changed her view of the Creator and
His world.

Simultaneously, she decided to use her insight to zero in on other people's fears and insecurities
and make herself a friend to many people who would never approach someone less sensitive to
their fears. I felt that I was in the presence of one of the authentic heroines of our generation.

Mitzvahs: Their Place in the Cure

The Maharal speaks about the difference between positive commandments, in which the Torah
tells us how to direct our energies, and negative commandments, various actions the Torah tells us
to refrain from in order not to diminish ourselves. Both are necessary for us to retain the integrity
of our characters. Therefore, when one notices that a certain trait is the root of behavior that is self-
destructive, reestablishing a commitment to the commandments that are most difficult is a first
step. When performed with the consciousness that what is at stake is not just a specific mitzvah,
but also a redefinition of how one's traits can be used, there is a world of difference.

We must use every day that is left to see ourselves as we are. We must see our histories, our
choices, our potential, our habits and hereditary tendencies. We must not be afraid to see the flaws;
rather, we must take our broken vessels to the King and let ourselves be healed.

As we begin the new masechta and the new Mishnah I was haunted by the notion that kings not
only began their reign on the same day of the year but just how we manipulated our calendrical
cycle so as to fit their reign dates. It is as if the earthly king paralleled the divine king. As we
internalize the mythic structures as archetypes of the inner soul we come to the greatest
psychologist and how he dealt with kingship and maturing.

Shakespeare’s Kings

24
No writer created as many kings as Shakespeare did. Some were based on real historical kings
and others were fictional or drawn from mythology. One was even from the fairy world.

Politics, and the way human beings are governed by those who exercise power in society is
something that was of profound interest to Shakespeare. Apart from the universal themes of death
and love, the themes of war and politics are elevated to the universal by Shakespeare because of
his keen interest in those topics. For Shakespeare, politics affects us like the air we breathe.

In his history plays Shakespeare explores such things as a man’s qualifications and qualities that
make him fit to be king; what are the things that make a man a bad king; what makes a good king;
what external factors hinder a man from being a good king; what damage a bad king can do to
society; what benefits will come to society from being ruled by a good king.

There are many ‘bad’ kings in Shakespeare’s plays and some that are neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’,
having the qualities of both. However, Shakespeare does produce the model of a ‘good’ king in
his Henry V, and takes pains to show, through two plays leading up to Henry V. Henry IV Part
1 and Henry IV Part 2 depict the education and development of a young prince in preparation for
his ascension to the throne.

In these plays we follow King Henry V from his early youth, enjoying his training for kingship.
We are witnesses of his great decisions, we smile at his charming approach to women and we thrill
to his military exploits. His great speeches are not only models of leadership but have become the

25
very words of the historical Henry V, who may not actually have uttered a single word at the Battle
of Agincourt (let alone delivered such a stirring St Crispin’s Day speech). The Henry V we know
is an invention of Shakespeare – and whatever historians may labour to tell us about the real Henry
we will always think of Shakespeare’s Hal, the ‘warlike Harry’ stirring his men when we hear his
name.He is so convincingly portrayed by Shakespeare that he has become a historical reality for
most people.

Apart from the history plays – all based on historical kings transformed into characters that fit the
themes he wishes to explore – there are many more kings and rulers with other titles like, Emperor,
Prince, Duke, Governor, and even General. There have always been rulers and Shakespeare’s plays
take in a vast sweep of history, from the ancient Greek and Roman worlds, through Mediaeval
Europe, to his own, modern Renaissance Europe. In the plays set during the Renaissance, and also
in Mythological Greece, the political structure of city-states is reflected in the high number of
characters who are princes and dukes of those states.

The below list of Shakespeare’s kings includes only those who have the title of king, along with
the play(s) that they appear in.

Shakespeare’s King Characters

Alonso, King of Naples
The Tempest
Antiochus, King of Antioch; Simonides, King of Pentapolis
Pericles
Claudius, King of Denmark
Hamlet
Cymbeline, King of Britain
Cymbeline
Duncan, King of Scotland; Macbeth, afterwards King of Scotland; Malcolm, afterwards King of
Scotland
Macbeth
Ferdinando, King of Navarro
Love’s Labours Lost

26
King Edward IV; Edward, Prince of Wales, afterwards King Edward V; Richard, Duke of
Gloucester, afterwards King Richard III
Richard the Third (read more about Shakespeare’s King Richard III vs the reality)
King of France
All’s Well That Ends Well
King John; Philip, King of France
The Life and Death of King John
King Henry IV
Henry the Fourth Part 1
King Henry IV; Henry, Prince of Wales, afterwards King Henry V
Henry the Fourth Part 2
King Henry V; Charles VI, King of France
Henry the Fifth
King Henry VI; Charles, Dauphin, afterwards King of France
Henry the Sixth Part 1
King Henry VI
Henry the Sixth Part 2

“Thou Must be Thyself”: A Jungian Shakespeare

In his essay Psychology and Literature15 Jung asserts that a work of art is something in its own
right which possesses integrity and does not need to be bent in order to fit any psychological
theory.21By analyzing Jung and Shakespeare we see that both of them dealt with man and his
psyche only from different points of view – Jung from the scientific and Shakespeare from the
artistic angle, and that arrived at the same conclusions – that powerful, inexplicable forces to the
human mind direct or influence our behavior. In that respect Soellner made the following remark
on Shakespeare:

Thus, exploring human nature through the analysis of literary characters is what enables us to link
Jung and literature, in general, or Jung and Shakespeare, in this case. As Paris said: “We gain

15
Jung. Psychology and Literature in The Spirit in Man, Art and Literature, p. 103-117

27
greater insight into human behavior because of the richness of artistic
presentation.”23Shakespeare’s dramas are, in fact, literary expressions of some of the main
Jungian psychological concepts, as the archetypes of the persona and of the masculine and
feminine, the psychological process of individuation, with the compensatory role of the psyche,
which is as a dynamic, self-regulating system. The link between literature and psychology is,
therefore, seen in the way in which Shakespeare’s literary characters embody or personify the
contents of the human psyche as Jung saw and defined them. In that respect Vyvyan said:

for a Jungian analysis their existence as part of the hero’s unconscious is something that cannot be
neglected:

Ultimately, the manner in which to approach and understand Shakespeare, and art in general, can
be found in the following Jung’s words:

The Concept of Individuation in C.G. Jung

28
Shakespeare’s plays dramatize what Jung described as an innate need for selfrealization:
“Individuation means becoming an 'in-dividual,' and, insofar as ‘individuality’ embraces our
innermost, last, and incomparable uniqueness, it also implies becoming one’s own self. We could
therefore translate individuation as ‘coming to selfhood’ or 'self-realization'.”534 Individuation is,
therefore, the process of becoming an individual, and that process is an ongoing one - the
realization of the Self is a goal that can never be completed: “The goal is important only as an idea;
the essential thing is the opus which leads to the goal: that is the goal of a lifetime.”535 Daryl
Sharp explains the concept in the following manner: “The process of individuation, consciously
pursued, leads to the realization of the self as a psychic reality greater than the ego. Thus
individuation is essentially different from the process of simply becoming conscious. ... In
Jung's view, no one is ever completely individuated. While the goal is wholeness and a healthy
working relationship with the self, the true value of individuation lies in what happens along
the way.”536

According to Jung, at the end of this psychic development is the archetype of Self: “As an
empirical concept, the self designates the whole range of psychic phenomena in man. It
expresses the unity of the personality as a whole. But in so far as the total personality, on account
of its unconscious component, can be only in part conscious, the concept of the self is, in part,
only potentially empirical and is to that extent a postulate. … In so far as psychic totality,
consisting of both conscious and unconscious contents, is a postulate, it is a transcendental
concept, for it presupposes the existence of unconscious factors on empirical grounds and 534

29
thus characterizes an entity that can be described only in part but, for the other part, remains at
present unknowable and illimitable.”537

The sense of self, therefore, represents according to Jung, either a process of psychological growth
(by getting to know and integrating the unconscious parts of our personality) or of regression into
the darkness of the unconscious. In that respect, Shakespeare’s dramas reflect Jung’s opinion that
man is not born as “tabula rasa”538 and that life, as a dynamic process of acquiring experience, is,
or at least should be, a path toward self-development and transformation.

The power of the famous tragic flaws 539 of Shakespeare’s characters can in Jungian terms be
seen as the power of archetypes which the ego has to face. The closer to the Self we are, i.e. the
less we diverge from the path to the Self that we instinctively feel as the right one, the less
susceptible we are to the destructive forces of the unconscious contents: “The nearer it [the
consciousness] approaches the optimum, the more the autonomous activity of the unconscious
is diminished, and the more its value sinks until, at the moment when the optimum is reached,
it falls to zero. 53716

We can say, then, that so long as all goes well, so long as a person travels the road that is, for
him, the individual as well as the social optimum, there is no talk of the unconscious.”540

In the contrary situation, we are faced with a loss of link with the Self and, consequently, with the
state of mind that resembles that of madness, i.e. “loss of balance”541 , which Shakespeare shows
so well in his tragedies. Related to the individuation process, Soellner notices that Shakespeare
makes plenty of allusions to self-knowledge through phrases meaning knowing or not knowing
oneself, not being oneself, forgetting oneself, losing oneself, being true to oneself, finding oneself,
forgetting oneself etc. 542

Losing and finding oneself is depicted differently throughout Shakespeare’s dramas. In his earlier
works, e.g. in The Comedy of Errors, the psychological sense of insufficiency is expressed as the
absence of an actual person, i.e. in external terms:
“I to the world am like a drop of water, That in the ocean seeks another drop, Who, falling there
to find his fellow forth Unseen, inquisitive, confounds himself, So I, to find a mother and a
brother, In quest of them, unhappy, lose myself.”543

The Comedy of Errors, 1.ii, 35-40

In his later dramas, however, this “quest” is internalized, i.e. the search for oneself on the path to
individuation is the expression of internal psychological processes, whereby the characters are
given much more psychological depth so that they can be interpreted as parts of the hero’s psyche
as well as characters in their own right.

In relation to the process of psychological development and individuation in Shakespeare’s plays,

Laurie Maguire notices: “But whereas comedy is triumphant and circular (the marriages with
which it concludes represent the ascendance of the next generation and herald procreation and

16
Shakespeare's Patterns of Self-Knowledge. Ohio State University Press, 1972, p. xii

30
birth, the human equivalent of spring’s ascendance), tragedy is linear and leads to
extinction.”544

One of great examples in Shakespeare’s dramas of the archetype of Self in comedies is the
character of Duke in Measure for Measure. He represents the paradoxical view of the archetype
from the standpoint of ego-consciousness, and as such is the embodiment of opposites. On the one
hand he is described as “[a] very superficial, ignorant, unweighing fellow… [who] yet would
have darkly deeds darkly answered” (Measure for Measure, 3.ii, 136; 171) 545.

On the other, however: “[H]e shall appear to the envious a scholar, a statesman and a soldier.
... One that, above all other strifes, contended especially to know himself.” 546 (Measure for
Measure, 3.ii, 141-142; 226-227)

Also, The Duke as a monk has a spiritual connotation, and as such represents the Jungian spiritual
centre of the psyche, i.e. the archetype of self. In the play he acts with the aim to help the other
characters gain deeper self-knowledge and, in that way, free them from their “persona”
identifications. The Duke, therefore, acts as a benevolent higher power that Shakespeare’s tragic
heroes were deprived of; hence the difference in what happened to them and the characters of this
play.

On the other hand, in depicting the human psyche, Shakespeare suggests that not all people are
meant to understand and recognize their true sense of self - failed individuation can be said to be
a characteristic of Shakespeare’s tragedies.547 In those terms, Richard III is a fine example of the
activation of a compensatory function of the psyche as a sign of failed individuation and an attempt
of psyche to reach balance. In Jung’s words: “We can take the theory of compensation as a basic
law of psychic behaviour. Too little on the one side results in too much on the other. Similarly, the
relation between the conscious and the unconscious is complementary.” 548

Thus, Shakespeare’s link with psychology is that he proves that human psyche is, indeed,
extremely complex, with limitless individual variations. As McGinn nicely pointed out,
Shakespeare “is content to recognize variety, to celebrate it even. Each human being, in
Shakespeare’s universe, is an original, not a variation on a prototype.”733 More than that,
Holbrook states, Shakespeare “believed that human beings were irreducibly complex, and
anything but rational choosers. … Like Montaigne, Shakespeare sees individual people as
embodying not one disposition exclusively (goodness or badness, courage or cowardice, etc.) but
as precarious combinations of qualities.”734

Thus, Shakespeare understands what it means to be human and presents dramatically the desires
and ethical problems which we, as contemporary readers, can still recognize as valid. Along these
lines, Bloom noted that Shakespeare taught us to understand human nature - he is our psychologist:

31
Shakespeare’s psychological themes and insights are focused on those hidden forces that cannot
be explained but that influence the rational mind. Pure rationality, as Shakespeare shows and thus
goes in line with Jung, is susceptible to the influence of forces whose sources cannot be clearly
pointed at or defined but whose effects are quite palpable, says McGinn736, and further concludes
that we are not entirely autonomous beings in terms of control of our thoughts, feelings or actions
– the ratio is very fragile and susceptible to the forces that attack or usurp it.

Shakespeare’s tragedies prove this in the sense that to provide an explanation as to why certain
course of action is or is not taken creates enormous difficulties. Thus, Shakespeare shares Jung’s
view of the psyche as a dynamic force consisting of various opposing tendencies rather than of the
psyche as a unified linear progression of logically aligned thoughts. The psyche is much more than
rationally made, transparent decisions, and Shakespeare enables us to deepen the understanding of
our own nature by staging human psychology as we know it. As far as the link between Jung and
Shakespeare is concerned, Vyvyan summed it up in the following manner:

Thus, it can be concluded that Shakespeare’s characters are susceptible to dual interpretation, i.e.
as persons in their own right and as embodiments of archetypes.

The representation of archetypes and their influence is what Shakespeare stages. We see that he
pays special attention to the anima and the mother archetype. One representation of its positive
aspect he embodied in Perdita as a representation of a beautiful young woman who symbolizes
love and creativity.

32
When that positive aspect is neglected, the dark forces of that archetype are represented in e.g.
Volumnia. As King Lear and Hamlet demonstrate, the suppression or not succeeding to establish
a successful relationship with both the archetypal masculine and feminine has fatal consequences.
The role playing, i.e. the persona archetype, is what characterizes the Henriad: the unconscious
persona identification of Richard II, the conscious role playing of Henry IV, and the conscious
identification with the kingly persona of Henry V.

The issues with the archetypes of persona, as well as with the feminine and masculine show the
degree of importance of the individuation process that can be recognized in Shakespearean drama.
The fact that it was successful for some (e.g. Florizel) and for others not (e.g. Timon and Troilus)
show that psychological maturity is never easy to obtain, and that whether it is achieved or not
depends on the psychological structure of the individual character in question.

In the end, it can be concluded Jung and Shakespeare show how literature and psychology are
connected, and that link, along with our insight into our own personalities, contributes to our better
understanding of ourselves and of human behaviour in general.

As Paris said: “There is a triangular relationship between literature, theory, and the individual
interpreter. Our literary and theoretical interests reflect our own character, the way in which
we use theory depends on the degree to which it has become emotionally as well as intellectually
meaningful to us, and what we are able to perceive depends on our personality, our theoretical
perspective, and our access to our inner life.”738

Notes:

33
34
35