IT GETS BETTER

(Thoughts on Behar-Bechukotai 5773/2013)

Lev. 25:1 – 27:34

[I shared the following dvar torah with the congregation on Friday evening 5/3/13, the start of Ben W.’s bar mitzvah weekend.]

This Shabbat we are concluding the Book of Leviticus with the final double-portion of “Behar” and “Bechukotai.”  Like much of Torah, these chapters contain some passages of great inspirational value – and others that make us want to hang our heads in shame at the content of our tradition.  But as Jews we embrace all of it --- warts and all, so to speak – and view it as the start – not the end – of a conversation that extends across the centuries.

The Torah’s text dates from a time in world history when slavery was rampant.  And our foundational story as Jews is about our liberation from the bondage of Egyptian servitude.  But this week’s Torah reading seems to draw only a limited, incomplete lesson from that experience.  We learn in Leviticus 25 that Israelites may not treat their Israelite slaves harshly, and that such slaves must be freed to return to their ancestral tribal holdings with the coming of the fiftieth year – the so-called Jubilee year.  But as for non-Israelites, Leviticus 25:44-46 states –“…[I]t is from the nations round about you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also buy them from among the children of aliens resident among you, or from their families that are among you, whom they begot in your land.  These shall become your property:  You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property for all time.  Such you may treat as slaves.  But as for your Israelite kinsmen, no one shall rule ruthlessly over the other.”

Yukkhhh!!! If only we had just stopped reading after verse 8, which is so much more inspiring when it says ––  וּקְרָאתֶ֥ם דְּר֛וֹר בָּאָ֖רֶץ לְכָל־יֹֽשְׁבֶ֑יהָ / ukeratem deror ba’aretz lekhawl yosh’veha/ “Proclaim Liberty throughout the land to all the inhabitants thereof.”  Okay, some linguists say that the rare Hebrew word “deror” is better translated as “release” rather than “liberty.”  But, still, “Proclaim release throughout the land to all the inhabitants thereof” still sounds pretty good to me.  Don’t you agree?

How can we not be frustrated and ashamed by the chauvinism and immorality of the later verses of Leviticus 25 that say that this liberty, this release, doesn’t apply to non-Israelites?   And indeed, how can we not be frustrated and ashamed by the failure of the Torah to abolish slavery altogether?  Wouldn’t THAT have been the more appropriate lesson to draw from the story of Passover and the Exodus from Egypt? 

Did not the Torah elsewhere say without equivocation that humanity is created “btzelem elohim”/”in the image of God” (Gen. 1:27) – not just Israelites, but rather all people  -- all of whom it portrays as descending from that first Adahm  who is created both male and female?

One traditional way of dealing with all this comes from Maimonides, writing in the twelfth century.  Essentially, he argues that in a world where slavery was universally practiced, it would be too radical a shift to outlaw it all at once.  Rather, God in the Torah starts with regulations that limit slavery among Israelites, with the implicit hope that ultimately this will lead to a world where it can be eradicated entirely.       

A more contemporary approach, which resonates more for me personally, is that the Torah, like all scriptures of all religions, is written - so to speak – of the people, by the people and for the people.  And people, then as now, don’t know everything.  We progress over time in our ethics, in our understanding, in our science, in our technology, albeit not without periodic setbacks.  The Torah is our collective spiritual autobiography as a people.  Religion comes from the people up not from the mountaintop down.

I believe in God, but I don’t believe in a God who writes books  --- whether they be the books of the Torah or the books of the Prophets or the New Testament or the Koran or the sacred books of any other religion.

Torah in particular doesn’t exist in a vacuum.  It is informed by the cultural environments of the time it was written, by the cultural environments of the centuries through which it has been interpreted, and by the cultural environment of this time and place when we ourselves engage with it.

Really, I guess I could start out every single dvar torah of every single Shabbat with these thoughts I’ve just been sharing with you.  And perhaps those of you who have gotten to know me a bit over the last three years already knew all this…

But it feels worth saying it again:  Before we get bogged down with arguing in public forums with those who use scripture to justify discrimination against unpopular groups. 

Or before we get bogged down with arguing against those who use scripture to justify cruel indifference to the needs of the poor and disenfranchised. 

Or  --  before we get bogged down with defending ourselves against those who denigrate all scripture as reactionary, outdated, sociopathic drivel.

Pick your issue:  Tax policy, gay rights, death penalty, war, immigration, environmental protection.   Yes, we have scriptural verses on our side – but so do they have on their side.  You can’t look to Torah for a single answer on any political or social question.  Rather, Torah is a collection of voices—just as a congregation is a collection of voices.  Just as a city, a state, a nation, a world – is a collection of voices.

Ben --- I hope you will find your own voice in the collection of voices that is Torah. 

And that is also my wish for every one of us.  As we say in the central blessing of the Shabbat Amidah --- “veteyn chelkeynu betoratekha” – “grant us a “chelek” /  a “share”/ a “portion” of your Torah.

So, in Parshat Behar-Bechukotai, for example --- the part about it being okay to have foreign slaves – that sure isn’t the “chelek”/ the “portion” the “share” that I claim.

But the part about proclaiming liberty throughout the land to all the inhabitants thereof --- that suits me better.

I hope for each of us, that when we literally hold the Torah – as Ben and some of his family members will do tomorrow morning – or when we figuratively embrace the Torah – as when we study it, and speak of it --- when we sit in our house, and when we walk on the road, and when we lie down, and when we rise up ---  that we may be blessed with the ability to connect to it as etz chayim/ a tree of life … whose ways are ways of pleasantness and all of whose paths are peace. 

And trust me, it gets better --- once we’re done with Leviticus.

Shabbat shalom.

(c) Rabbi David Steinberg 2013/5773 

Breaking the Cycle

Dvar Torah for Parashat Bo  (Exodus 10:1 – 13:16)

(given at Temple Israel, Duluth on Friday evening 1/18/13)

This week’s Torah portion, Bo, features the last three of the ten plagues.  Just as in last week’s parasha, we read about God hardening Pharaoh’s heart, and we wonder about what that means for us who ascribe to a faith tradition which emphasizes that we have free will. 

However, though God had told Moses in Exodus 7:3    וַאֲנִי אַקְשֶׁה, אֶת-לֵב פַּרְעֹה   (“I will harden Pharaoh’s heart”), God doesn’t actually start doing so until the 6^th plague, whereas for the first 5 plagues the Torah portrays Pharaoh as hardening his own heart.  The 12^th century Spanish Jewish commentator Nachmanides explains:  “When God warns one on three occasions and one does not turn from one’s ways, God closes the door of repentance on that person in order to punish that person for his or her sin.  Such was the case with Pharaoh.”

Viewed metaphorically, we might understand this to mean that we do indeed have free will to act virtuously or sinfully.  However, if we act too immorally, for too long, it becomes a locked-in pattern of behavior that becomes harder and harder to break.  As it says in Pirke Avot, the rabbinic era compendium of ethical teachings:   “Mitzvah goreret mitzvah va'verah goreret averah...”/ “One mitzvah leads to another mitzvah, but one sin leads to another sin…” (Pirke Avot 4:2).  

Those teachings come to mind this week as we follow the news of Oprah Winfrey’s televised interview with Lance Armstrong, the first part of which was broadcast last night.   

Armstrong had denied for years the various allegations leveled at him concerning use of banned performance enhancing drugs during his cycling career.  He still was proclaiming his innocence last summer, when the United States Anti-Doping agency stripped him of his seven Tour de France wins, and banned him from professional cycling.  However, this week, in the wake of ever increasing evidence of his misdeeds, he changed his story.

“Mitzvah goreret mitzvah va'verah goreret averah...”/ “One mitzvah leads to another mitzvah, but one sin leads to another sin…” (Pirke Avot 4:2).   

Winfrey asks: “For 13 years you didn't just deny it, you brazenly and defiantly denied everything you just admitted just now. So why now admit it? “

Armstrong responds: "That is the best question. It's the most logical question. I don't know that I have a great answer. I will start my answer by saying that this is too late. It's too late for probably most people, and that's my fault. I viewed this situation as one big lie that I repeated a lot of times, and as you said, it wasn't as if I just said no and I moved off it."

Later Winfrey asks how he viewed his own actions:

OW: Did you feel in any way that you were cheating? You did not feel you were cheating taking banned drugs?

LA: "At the time, no. I kept hearing I'm a drug cheat, I'm a cheat, I'm a cheater. I went in and just looked up the definition of cheat and the definition of cheat is to gain an advantage on a rival or foe that they don't have. I didn't view it that way. I viewed it as leveling the playing field."

*****************

I’m well aware, and I do try to take to heart the admonition, which we find elsewhere in Pirke Avot, אל תדון את חברך עד שתגיע למקומו / “Don’t judge your fellow until you have arrived in his place” (Pirke Avot 2:5), or, as it is sometimes idiomatically rendered, “Don’t judge another until you have stood in their shoes.”

My sister Robin is a serious cyclist and triathlete.  Last summer I posted on her facebook wall a link to a N.Y.Times article about the latest in the Lance Armstrong saga, and I asked her what she and her cycling buddies thought about it.  She said (and some her friends chimed in in agreement) that she would rather focus on Armstrong’s heroic fight against testicular cancer that preceded his Tour de France races, and on the millions he had raised for cancer research through the “Livestrong” charity.

No doubt the story will continue to develop over the coming days and weeks.

And various pundits and members of the public, and the people directly impacted by Armstrong’s actions, will come to their own conclusions about these latest developments.

Is Armstrong’s repentance genuine? 

As the medieval commentator Sforno said concerning God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart:  “Had Pharaoh sincerely wanted to repent, nothing would have prevented it.”  And maybe that’s the case now for Lance Armstrong. 

None of us are in those big leagues of the sports world, but just like a champion athlete who over and over again faces the choice of whether or not to cheat, or an ancient Pharaoh who over and over again faces the choice of whether or not to oppress others, we face our own moral choices each day.

Psalm 95, the first of the Kabbalat Shabbat psalms in our Friday night liturgy challenges us:הַיּוֹם, אִם-בְּקֹלוֹ תִשְׁמָעוּ. / hayom, im bekolo tishma’u/ “O, if you would only hear God’s voice this day.” (Ps. 95:7) 

What is that voice telling us?  Whenever we are faced with a moral decision, big or small, that voice of conscience is indeed there within us “im bekolo tishma’u” --- if only we would hear it. 

Inspired and challenged by the age old words of our liturgy, our times of prayer each day (and especially during the unrushed hours of Shabbat), afford us the opportunity to go deep within ourselves to find that voice.

May we indeed be graced with the fortitude to follow it in all of our moral choices, not only on this Shabbat but throughout all the days of our lives.

Shabbat shalom.

(c) Rabbi David Steinberg 5773/2013

HOLDINGS/אחוזות

Dvar Torah for Shabbat Vayigash (12/21/12; 9 Tevet 5773)

(Gen. 44:18 – 47:27)

Well, we made it.  No Mayan Apocalypse today.  And even better – we made it to the solstice so that the daylight hours will start getting longer again. 

And we made it to another Shabbat – that “palace in time” (as Heschel describes it) which affords us “a taste of heaven” (as the sages tell us). 

And we made it to another day.

And we made it to this moment.

For these miracles we give thanks.

Of course, we never know what tomorrow may bring, which is why Jewish tradition also includes such meaningful teachings as this one from Masechet Shabbat in the Talmud:

"Rabbi Eliezer would say: Repent one day before your death. His students asked Rabbi Eliezer,  ‘But does a person  know on which day he or she will die?’  He said to them: ‘Well, since that’s the case, one should repent today, for perhaps one will die tomorrow. Therefore, let all one’s days be passed in a state of teshuvah.”   (Shabbat 153b)

At all times we should strive to be kind to one another; at all times we should strive truly to see one another as btzelem elohim/ created in the image of God. 

Especially in light of the mass shootings in Connecticut last week, we are painfully aware of the fleeting nature of life, and of the necessity of treasuring each moment we share together on this planet. 

At times like this we are reminded that the most important things in life are our relationships with one another, not the things we own. 

And what about those things we own?  At Genesis 46:27, the last verse of this week’s Torah portion, Vayigash, we learn:  "Vayeshev yisra'el be'eretz mitzrayim be'eretz goshen vayei'achazu vah vayifru vayirbu me'od" which the new Jewish Publication Society Tanakh translates at Genesis 46:27 as:  “Thus Israel settled in the country of Egypt, in the region of Goshen; they acquired holdings in it, and were fertile and increased greatly.” (emphasis added)

Within that verse, I’d like to focus on the phrase “Vaye’achazu vah” , translated as “they acquired holdings in it.”  When I was reviewing the parashah this week, something seemed odd about that phrase to me, and I double checked my biblical Hebrew grammar and, indeed, there is something fishy about the translation.

I don’t doubt the scholarship of the team that translated the Tanakh for the Jewish Publication Society.  I’m sure they’re right that, as a matter of idiomatic usage, the expression “vaye’achazu vah” can reasonably be translated as “they acquired holdings in it.”

Indeed, Ibn Ezra’s commentary back in the 12^th century says that the phrase "vayei'achazu vah" means “shekanu sham achuzah”/ “that they purchased there a holding.”   However, the Torah doesn’t actually say “shekanu sham achuzah” – what it actually says is "vayei'achazu vah"  using a passive conjugation of the verbal root alef-chet-zayin, which means “to hold” or “to grasp”.   So, translated literally, the phrase “וַיֵּאָֽחֲז֣וּ בָ֔הּ” / vayei'achazu vah means “they were held by it.”   That’s quite a difference – between “they acquired holdings in it” versus “they were held by it”….

And this reminded me of another verse in Genesis that uses a passive form of the verb alef-chet-zayin:  In Genesis 22:13, in the famous story of Akedat Yitzchak/ The Binding of Isaac – Abraham looks up and sees a ram “ne’echaz basvach” – Caught in a thicket.  “Ne’echaz” is also a passive form of that same verb (aleph-chet-zayin) used in Genesis 47 to describe Israelites  settling in Goshen. 

We know what happens after that:  A new pharaoh “who knew not Joseph” arises and enslaves the Israelites for 400 years.  (We get to that part of the torah two weeks from now in Parshat Shemot).  In this week’s Torah reading, the bitterness of Israelite slavery is yet to come.  But the scene is set here: They thought they were purchasing holdings but  ---in fact --- just like the ram destined for the slaughter, they were “ne’echazim” – held/caught/ensnared/trapped by their own possessions.

I’m 51 now, and a saying I came across not too long ago sticks in my mind:  Up to age 45 we try to acquire stuff – After age 45 we try to get rid of stuff.

That seems so wise to me:  You don’t have to go to extremes with any of this – but – truly --- as we get older we can get ensnared/ ne’echazim/ by our possessions.  The older we get, the deeper we understand that our true riches are in the connections we make with others, and in the experiences and the wisdom that we acquire in our journeys through life.

Coming back to the events of last Friday in Newtown, Connecticut, we can’t help but be struck by the tragic consequences of so many Americans’ obsession with the possession of guns.  The Torah says: “וַיֵּאָֽחֲז֣וּ בָ֔הּ”/ "vayei'achazu vah"and we ask:  Does this mean “they acquired holdings in it” ?   Or does this mean “They were ensnared by it” ?.  And similarly we ask:  Isn’t it really the gun owners themselves who are ensnared  -- who are “held up” by the lethal weapons they purport to hold? 

And, indeed, studies have shown that the presence of a gun in one’s home, even if intended for protection, statistically increases the odds of the owner being killed[1] -- as was the case with the shooter’s own mother in Connecticut who was killed by her son using a gun she herself owned.

One of the big challenges we face in the struggle to pass effective gun control legislation is that guns have become a sort of macho identity badge.  But Jewish tradition offers a different view, as we see in the following teaching from the Mishna. 

As background to the following teaching, remember that traditional Jewish law, halacha, forbids the carrying of items in the public domain on Shabbat.  However, if an item forms part of your clothing or jewelry, then you would be considered to be “wearing” it (which is okay) and you wouldn’t be considered as “carrying” it (which would be a halachic violation).  And so we learn in the Mishnah in Masechet Shabbat, ch. 6, Mishnah 4: 

ו,ד לא ייצא האיש לא בסיף, ולא בקשת, ולא בתריס, ולא באלה, ולא ברומח. ואם יצא, חייב חטאת. רבי אליעזר אומר, תכשיטין הן לו; וחכמים אומרים, אינן לו אלא גנאי, שנאמר "וכיתתו חרבותם לאיתים, וחניתותיהם למזמרות" (ישעיהו ב,ד)[.[..

A man must not go out [of the house on Shabbat] bearing a sword, nor a bow, nor a shield, nor a lance nor a spear. And if he did go out [with one of these] he is liable for a sin offering [because he has violated the final Shabbat labor, carrying]. Rabbi Eliezer says, “these are his ornaments” [like clothing or jewelry, and therefore he should be allowed to wear them]. But the Sages say [he is liable, because these are not ornaments. Rather,] these [weapons] are shameful; as it says, (Isaiah 2:4), “they shall beat their swords into plough shares and their spears into pruning-hooks”

And that verse from Isaiah quoted in the Mishnah concludes –

"lo yisa goy el goy cherev, velo yilmedu od milchamah"

"Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, and they will not learn war any more” […]  

That is our prayer as well.

Shabbat shalom.

© Rabbi David Steinberg (Tevet 5773/ Dec. 2012)

---

[1] http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence/gunsinthehome

Thoughts on Vayishlach (Genesis 32:4 – 36:40)

(Dvar Torah given on Friday evening 11/30/12)

In this week’s Torah portion, Vayishlakh, Jacob and Esau reconcile – but it’s ambiguous how sincere that reconciliation is.  In the end Esau separates from Jacob and moves to another land (as it says in Genesis 36:7) כִּי-הָיָה רְכוּשָׁם רָב, מִשֶּׁבֶת יַחְדָּו (ki hayah rechusham rav mishevet yachdav) --- “for their possessions were too many for them to dwell together…”  just as Lot had separated from his uncle Abraham two generations earlier (as it says in Genesis 13:6) כִּי-הָיָה רְכוּשָׁם רָב, וְלֹא יָכְלוּ לָשֶׁבֶת יַחְדָּו.  (ki hayah rechusham rav vlo yachlu lashevet yachdav) --  ^“for their possessions were so great that they could not remain together.”

Those separations were peaceful.   With respect to Esau (also known as Edom) his descendants are identified in the Torah with the Edomite people living in the region of Mount Se’ir.

In the Book of Deuteronomy, we are reminded not to provoke the descendants of Esau, as Moses says in Deuteronomy chapter 2:   

¹ Then the Eternal said to me: ³ You have been skirting this hill country long enough; now turn north. ⁴ And charge the people as follows: You will be passing through the territory of your kinsmen, the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir. Though they will be afraid of you, be very careful ⁵ not to provoke them. For I will not give you of their land so much as a foot can tread on; I have given the hill country of Seir as a possession to Esau.

And later in Deuteronomy, we further are told:  “You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your kinsman.”  (Deut. 23:8)

This week, we have been witnessing another iteration of this age-old theme of two peoples trying to effectuate a peaceful separation:  Yesterday, on the 65^th anniversary of the United Nations General Assembly’s vote to divide the British Mandate of Palestine into two states --- one Jewish and one Arab --- the U.N. General Assembly voted to admit “Palestine” as an non-member observer state.”  Previously, Palestinian interests in the UN had been represented by the Palestinian Liberation Organization, having the lesser status of “non-member observer entity."   The new "non-member observer state" designation for Palestine now puts it in the same category vis-à-vis the United Nations as that of the Vatican.  

Israel (along with the United States, Canada, the Czech Republic and few small Pacific Ocean island states) opposed the measure.  However, it’s difficult to find rational explanations for this opposition.  Mahmoud Abbas is the best friend Israel has ever had among the Palestinian leadership.  He explicitly calls for a two-state solution with the State of Palestine to consist only of those territories captured by Israel in the West Bank and Gaza during the 1967 Six-Day War.  This is in itself a notable concession in that Israel’s territory just before the 1967 Six Day War was already significantly larger than the territory designated for the Jewish State in the 1947 United Nations partition vote 65 years ago yesterday. 

And rest assured that both Israel and the Palestinian Authority understand that ultimate borders would also involve adjusting those “just before the six day war” 1967 borders through mutually agreed land swaps.   

I strongly believe that the UN vote is a step in the right direction, and the Israeli government is just shooting itself in the foot by trying to undermine the Abbas government.  The more they undermine Abbas, the more they prop up the Gaza-based Hamas rejectionists who seek the destruction of Israel.

By contrast with Hamas, Abbas stated in his address to the General Assembly this week: 

"We did not come here seeking to delegitimize a State established years ago, and that is Israel; rather we came to affirm the legitimacy of the State that must now achieve its independence, and that is Palestine. We did not come here to add further complications to the peace process, which Israel's policies have thrown into the intensive care unit; rather we came to launch a final serious attempt to achieve peace."  http://www.voanews.com/content/mahmoud-abbas-speech-to-united-nations-general-assembly/1556084.html  

Abbas further said: 

"We will accept no less than the independence of the State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital, on all the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, to live in peace and security alongside the State of Israel, and a solution for the refugee issue on the basis of resolution 194 (III), as per the operative part of the Arab Peace Initiative." 

And in the concluding paragraphs of his speech he said: 

"Sixty-five years ago on this day, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 181 (II), which partitioned the land of historic Palestine into two States and became the birth certificate for Israel.

"Sixty-five years later and on the same day, which your esteemed body has designated as the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, the General Assembly stands before a moral duty, which it must not hesitate to undertake, and stands before a historic duty, which cannot endure further delay, and before a practical duty to salvage the chances for peace, which is urgent and cannot be postponed.

[…]

"The General Assembly is called upon today to issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine."           

Israel complains that the PA has bypassed the Camp David accords' mechanism of direct negotiations by going to the United Nations.  But those Camp David Accords also said there would be a Palestinian state within 5 years, and that's now almost 20 years ago.

Israel says the PA should come back to the negotiating table without preconditions.  But it's hardly an unreasonable precondition for the PA to insist upon Israel freezing settlement expansion on the West Bank while negotiations proceed.

The future of the region should not be held hostage to the extremists on either side of the conflict.   

Abbas is no extremist and needs to be supported.

And what has the Israeli government done today, the day after the historic UN vote?  It has chosen today to approve additional settlement building in the area known as “E1” – an area of parkland that provides the last contiguous link between Ramallah and Bethlehem in any future Palestinian state on the West Bank.  I love Israel.  I want it to live and prosper in peace.  But, honestly, who is now provoking whom?  

Back in Parashat Vayishlakh, the separation of Jacob and Esau is followed by a set of genealogical tables of Esau’s descendants.  We find there the notice that Timna, a concubine of Esau’s son Eliphaz, was the mother of Amalek (Gen. 36:12).   Later in the chapter we also learn that Timna was Lotan’s sister, and that Lotan was a son of Seir, the original leader of the land before the arrival of Esau’s retinue when Esau separated from Jacob.  (Gen. 36: 20-22).

And later in the chapter, “Timna” is named as one of “shemot alufey Esav”/  “the names of the ‘alufs’ of Esau.” (Gen. 36:40).   What is an “aluf?”    Biblical scholars generally define “aluf” as “clan”, i.e., a subset of a tribe.  But there is also an old tradition that “aluf” is a title of nobility. 

And so we come to a striking passage from the Talmud that presents a midrash about this woman Timna:

אחות לוטן תמנע מאי היא תמנע בת מלכים הואי דכתיב אלוף לוטן אלוף תמנע וכל אלוף מלכותא בלא תאגא היא בעיא לאיגיורי באתה אצל אברהם יצחק ויעקב ולא קבלוה הלכה והיתה פילגש לאליפז בן עשו אמרה מוטב תהא שפחה לאומה זו ולא תהא גבירה לאומה אחרת נפק מינה עמלק דצערינהו לישראל מאי טעמא דלא איבעי להו לרחקה

“Lotan's sister was Timna”(Gen. 36:22)? — what [is the purpose of writing] this?  ---   Timna was a royal princess, as it is written, “aluf Lotan”  (Gen. 36:28), “aluf Timna;” (Gen. 36:40)  and by 'aluf' an uncrowned ruler is meant. Desiring to become a proselyte, she went to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but they did not accept her. So she went and became a concubine to Eliphaz the son of Esau, saying, “I had rather be a servant to this people than a mistress of another nation.” From her Amalek was descended who afflicted Israel. Why so? — Because they should not have repulsed her."  (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, page 99b)

What can we learn from this that can inform our contemporary situation? 

Who knows if the writers of the Talmud were simply making up imaginative tales when they told this one about Timna having been pushed away by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 

Frankly, like much in the Talmud or in the Torah itself, it sounds apocryphal and not historically factual. But I think the Talmudic sages did have a sensible intuition:

That sensible intuition is that hatred doesn’t simply arise out of the blue, even the vicious kind associated with Amalek – who Jewish tradition sees as the ancestor of Haman.

There is enough hate and enough ill feelings and grudges going around to stymie any attempt at the peaceful settlement of differences, whether in the Middle East, or in other troubled regions of the world, or even, on a personal level, in many families.

But in Psalm 34 we are taught “bakesh shalom v’rodfeihu”/ “seek peace and pursue it.” (Ps. 34:15).  We should always strive to be “rodfei shalom”  --- “those who chase after opportunities for peace.”    The vote this week in the General Assembly provides such an opportunity.  Rather than spurn it, let us pray that Israel and its allies pursue it.

The Talmud says that Timna was spurned by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and gave birth to the viciousness of Amalek  ---  and that ---- לא איבעי להו לרחקה (lo iba’ey lehu lirchokah)  -- “They should not have repulsed her.” 

Similarly, the peaceful approach of Mahmoud Abbas and the not-yet-fully-birthed State of Palestine ought not to be repulsed by the State of Israel  -- the State that got its birth certificate 65 years ago this week – the State that sees its lineage as going back to the patriarchs and matriarchs. 

Nor should those who seek peace be spurned by we who count ourselves among the children of Israel.

Shabbat shalom.

(c) Rabbi David Steinberg 5773/2012

Thoughts on Vayetze (5773/2012)

(Dvar Torah given on Friday evening 11/23/12)

Jewish midrashic tradition credits Jacob with being the originator of the evening prayer service. That interpretation is based on a verse from the beginning of this week’s Torah portion, "Vayetze". In Genesis 28:11, the Torah states "Vayifga bamakom vayalen sham ki va ha-shemesh", which the Jewish Publication Society translation renders as "He came upon a certain place and stopped there for the night, for the sun had set."

However, the word "vayifga"/"He came upon" also can be accurately translated as "he prayed" or "he entreated", based on the use of that verb elsewhere in the Tanakh. Further, the Hebrew word "hamakom"/ "the Place", in later Rabbinic usage, is a name for God, often translated as "the Omnipresent." As for example in the traditional greeting to mourners: "Hamakom yinachem etchem b’tokh she’ar aveyley tziyon virushalayim"/ "May God comfort you along with the other mourners of Zion and Jerusalem."

So, these opening words, "vayfiga bamakom" have the midrashic meaning of "He prayed to God" in addition to the plain meaning of "He came upon a certain place."

The word "vayifga" has an additional sense to it. This verb, which we can translate as "he came upon" or "he prayed" has a sense in Hebrew of a dynamic, even violent encounter. Israeli bible scholar Aviva Zornberg translates "vayifga bamakom" as "He collided with a certain place" and she goes on to explain that "the word vayifga suggests a dynamic encounter with an object that is traveling toward oneself." (Zornberg, The Beginning of Desire: Reflections on Genesis, Doubleday, 1995, p. 187).

There are as many approaches to prayer as there are people. Based on the images we find in Torah and midrash, Abraham might be seen as the sort of person who relates to God as an abstract principle. Jewish tradition sees him as the inventor of the morning prayer, Shacharit.  

Isaac might be seen as the example of the person who connects to God by communing with nature, by feeling a deep connection with the miracles of the created world. Jewish tradition credits him with being the initiator of the late afternoon prayer, minchah, based on words of Genesis 24:63 --  "Vayetze Yitzchak lasuach basadeh lifnot arev"/ "Isaac went out to meditate in the field towards evening"

As for Jacob, who, as it were, collides with God, at the start of a scary journey, fleeing from his childhood home for fear of his life   ---  He represents a different, no less valid, kind of prayer. His is the prayer of the individual who struggles with difficult circumstances in life, who struggles with his own conscience, who struggles with God. Indeed, the next time Jacob will encounter God in a dream will be twenty years later, when he will wrestle with an Angel and be given the new name “ Yisrael”/” Israel” meaning, “he who wrestles with God.”  -- That’s in next week’s Torah portion, “Vayishlach.”

Jacob’s earlier dream in this week’s parasha is a vision of security and comfort.  He dreams of angels ascending and descending a ladder that goes to Heaven, with God promising to Jacob that he will inherit the land, beget numerous flourishing descendants, and be a blessing to the entire world – and that God will accompany and protect him throughout his journeys.  When Jacob wakes up from his dream, he is awestruck at what he has experienced, exclaiming:  אָכֵן יֵשׁ יְהוָה בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה; וְאָנֹכִי, לֹא יָדָעְתִּי / Achen! Yesh Adonai bamakom hazeh, v’anochi? ---   lo yadati!/  “WOW! Adonai was present in this place -- And I? – I did not know!” (Gen. 28:16)

But right after that, Jacob makes a conditional vow, in which he comes across as mistrustful and materialistic.   IF God will remain with him, and IF God protects him on his journey, and IF God gives him bread and clothing, and IF God allows him to return safely to his father’s house ---  only THEN will Jacob acknowledge Adonai as his God.  It might appear that what he really means is --- “God, you want to have a relationship with me?  Give me what I want first.”  And, indeed, we have already encountered Jacob as a calculating, manipulative sort of person.  Remember, this is the same youth who pressured his starving brother to sell his birthright for a bowl of stew.  And this is the same young man who resorted to subterfuge to trick his father into bestowing upon him the blessing intended for that brother.

Where’s the trust?  Where’s the gratitude?

Various Talmudic and Medieval era Jewish commentaries try to get around this ethical concern by treating the phrase “vehayah Adonai li Elohim” (“Adonai will be God for me”) (end of verse 21) as one more “IF” clause in Jacob’s prayer   --- and not as part of Jacob’s vow as to what he’ll do if his prayer is granted. (The Hebrew prefix “ve--” can be translated in a variety of ways depending on the context – It’s much broader in scope than the English word “and.”).  And so according to this alternative translation approach, Jacob’s vow can be understood to read:   "…If God remains with me, and protects me on this journey that I am making, and gives me bread to eat and clothing to wear, and if I return safe to my father's house, and if Adonai shall be God to me ---  Then this stone, which I have set up as a pillar, shall be God's abode; and of all that You give me, I will set aside a tithe for You."  (Gen. 28: 20-22, as per  Rashi and Gur Aryeh commentaries).   In other words, Jacob is not conditioning his relationship with God on his material rewards.  Rather, Jacob is saying that certain types of gifts require the material ability to be able to offer them.  (Nachmanides, on the other hand – says Jacob is indeed bargaining for material benefit before he will acknowledge Adonai as his God.)

In our own lives, we face similar challenges.  It can be difficult, especially in the all-encompassing commercialism of “Black Friday” and the Christmas and Chanukah shopping season --- to focus on gratitude for what we have rather than on yearning to possess more and more material stuff.  And it can be challenging to remember that the relationships we have with our loved ones are what counts – and that they shouldn’t depend on the extent of our ability to participate in holiday gift giving. 

“Black Friday” in most parts of the United States has already bled backwards into “Black Thursday Evening”  -- but I hope you were able to celebrate Thanksgiving in the company of friends and loved ones without rushing out to the mall  -- and I hope we can all resist (or at least limit) the extent to which we might find ourselves diving full speed ahead into the commercial maelstrom on Shabbat during this season (and indeed throughout the year). There’s still plenty of time for that on Saturday night (Shabbat ends early this time of year) or the other six days of the week.

Pirke Avot teaches:  “Azehu ashir, hamesame’ach bchelko?”/ “Who is rich – The one who is happy with his or her lot.”  While it’s important that the economy hums along healthily, we always know in our hearts that it’s our relationships, not our possessions, that center us and open us up to God’s presence in our lives.    Along with our classic commentators, we might debate where Jacob is in Genesis 28 on that materialism versus gratitude spectrum.  As for us, may the love we give and receive to and from God and to and from one another give us Shalom/Peace/Wholeness/Fulfillment now and always – with or without the Black Friday sales.

Shabbat shalom.

(c) Rabbi David Steinberg 5773/2012