Reb Saunders Quotes

“No,” I said” (95). The significant part of this passage reads when Reuven says “No”. This remains important because four days earlier, Danny Saunders nailed him in his eye with a baseball purposely. And even though Danny Saunders did that awful thing, Reuven let him sit next to him. What an act of kindness and forgiveness! Because Reuven let Danny sit next to him, gesturing an act of forgiveness, his exhibited his unrelenting kindness. Overall, Reuven’s skill to forgive Danny even though he hurt him, designates his personality trait of kindness.

“Reuven, he has already talked to Danny about it, he has talked to Danny through you” (pg 101)

Both Carol S. Dweck and Annie Murphy Paul use the term intelligence in their essays, but they have slightly different meanings. While Carol S. Dweck uses the term intelligence as a measure of how smart someone is that can be expanded through effort, while Annie Murphy Paul uses intelligence in the same manner (a measure of how smart someone is), but in how it can be suppressed.

Intellectualism is most often described as someone who has a vast amount of knowledge, is well spoken, and most people’s idea of intelligence is someone who is “book smart”. Book Smart would be described as someone who van write and converse about subjects that are most often taught in school. Another type of “smart” would be someone who is known as “street smart”. They are seen as intellectuals who are knowledgeable in the world around them, and today’s culture, and individuals who learn through personal experiences. In the essay Hidden Intellectualism, by Gerald Graff he insists

In some ways, Potok gives a negative mood to the book, plaguing Reuven with trouble after trouble, however, with every challenge, Reuven keeps moving ahead. “In the middle of March Rav

“Things are always how they seem, Reuven? Since when?” This quote represents the constant reoccurring concept that appears in The Chosen. It’s brought up in many ways where the reader or Reuven’s perception is altered because they don’t know the entire story. Reuven works well as a narrator because we share his position as an outsider looking in on the unfamiliar Hasidim ways. Reuven’s view of Danny Saunders, and his perceptions about Freudian psychology are examples of views that were changed throughout the story.

Reuven and Danny’s friendship continues to grow deeper. They are both introduced to new ideas, perspectives, and experiences. “Yes, You know what a friend is Reuven?--- two people ---with two bodies and one soul.” (David Malter 110). Reuven also goes to Danny’s synagogue where he watches in amazement as Danny and his father go back and forth arguing about the finer points and interpretation of the Talmud. Danny has a photographic memory and a very deep understanding of the Talmud and per the tradition of his Hasidic Jewish sect is expected to take his father’s footsteps and become a

The Saunders share dinner each night, shrouded in Reb’s silence, whereas the Malter clan discusses the day and the Zionist movement. Towards the end of the novel, Danny reveals to Reuven, “you can listen to silence and learn from it” (267). Reuven cannot comprehend the meaning behind Danny’s statement because of the parenting technique David Malter utilizes; even with just father and son, conversation is constant. Reuven remains unsure of the point Reb Saunders tries to prove until the man orders an end to the boys’ friendship. Only then does he understand, as the boys communicate through looks instead of words. Not only do the parenting styles of each family differ, but the dynamics diverge. It is clear that Reb Saunders will not tolerate anything than what he declares, while David and Reuven act as an equal pair in their family dynamic. Both boys learn from the other’s father. David gives Danny knowledge through reading and books, proving that life involves more than just religion; Reb helps Reuven understand how to overcome differences and understand different points of view. Reb Saunders and David Malter interact with their sons in different ways, yet teach the boys invaluable

Danny and Reuven’s friendship begins because of, and continues in spite of, Danny’s irrational thoughts. The reader sees Danny’s irrational side in Danny and Reuven’s first meeting and in Danny’s refusal to try to see from the point of view of his psychology teacher. Danny Reuven first meet on a baseball field where Danny feels irrational hate towards Reuven. He tells Reuven later, “I wanted to walk over to you and open your head with my bat” (Potok, 65). Even though Danny begins their acquaintance with harmful thoughts toward Reuven, an unlikely friendship forms between them. When faced with a psychology professor who believes differently about psychology than he does, Danny does not try to see from the professor’s side, instead, he irrationally only thinks about how miserable he feels learning from the professor’s approach to psychology. (186). When Reuven approaches Danny and tries to reason with him, that he should try to like it, Danny blows up; however, Reuven remains ready to forgive as he does not want to lose their friendship. Through Danny’s harmful thoughts and irrational feelings toward Reuven and others, Reuven and Danny’s friendship stays strong.

Danny and Reuven’s relationship progresses from tension in the beginning to an intimate friendship because of a mutual trust that is established. Danny says, “Sometimes I’m not sure I know what God wants though…I’ve never said that to anyone before” (80). From early on Danny feels comfortable confiding in Reuven. He shares his innermost feelings with Reuven and they form a closely knit bond. Danny and Reuven have a conversation; Reuven asks Danny, “Are you going to like being a Rabbi?” (82). Danny replies, “No, but I have no choice, it’s like a dynasty, if the son doesn’t take the father’s place, the dynasty falls apart” (Ibid.). This piece of evidence once again displays a profound trust the boys have. This conversation is a turning point for the book because Danny admits he does not want to carry on his father’s rabbinic dynasty. The fact that Danny openly shares this shocking information with Reuven shows how strong the boys relationship is. After a personal conversation Reuven narrates as he observes Danny, “I saw him begin to play absent-mindedly with one of his earlocks. We were quiet for a long

After Reuven initially wakes up, Danny visits him in the hospital to apologize. “‘I am sorry,’ he said quietly. ‘I’ll just bet you are,’ I told him. He…turned and walked slowly away.” After Reuven tells his father of the events, his father tells him that he should have listened. This response on David’s part initially caused Reuven to listen to Danny when he returned the second time.

Reb confides in Reuven in hopes that Reuven will share his wisdom with Danny. Reuven doesn’t understand how Reb is using him until the end of the book. Reb attempts to shine light on Reuven when he says, ‘It is never pleasant to be a buffer Reuven’ (Potok 170). Reb continues to speak to Reuven, “You have become a

On the other hand, Reuven and David mutually support the notion that the lines of communication between them should always be open. Whenever Reuven struggles with a problem or simply a question, regardless the significance, he comes directly to his father for assistance. David listens intently and offers a few suggestions or delivers a thorough answer to his son’s query. For example, when Reuven wonders about Danny, David answers with a lengthy and detailed account. This demonstrates not only the comfort they bear in talking to each other but also the patience they’ve developed that has stemmed from their communication. Despite their lack of communication, Reb Saunders and his son share the same admiration, respect, and trust for each other that are consistent with Reuven’s and David’s relationship.

In all of their conversations, Mr. Malter seeks to pass his moral wisdom onto Reuven. At the beginning of the novel, after Reuven refuses to listen to Danny’s apology, his father visits him at the hospital to discuss his

Charles Spearman’s theory (1904) also takes the psychometric approach that there is a general intelligence. Spearman maintains that intelligence is hereditary and an individual is born with their maximum mental ability. This suggests that intelligence cannot be changed or strengthened. The concept of ‘general intelligence’ suggests that an individual has an underlying intelligence, in which their performance in one type of cognitive task is often similar to their performance in another (Boundless 2013). Spearman demonstrated this through the correlations between tests, where individuals who performed well in one test, often performed well in others. This led Spearman to the conclusion that intelligence is defined as a single factor. However, critics refute Spearman’s conclusions, as they argue that one cannot reduce all factors of intelligence to an indefinable “g” (Neisser et al. 1996).