Ok Being Small and the Glory of Being Large

 Last Friday, I shifted from feeling “small” to the state of “largeness”. The great Hasidic master, the Baal Shem Tov, taught: “Each person exists in two modes, smallness and largeness, and we can shift into largeness through joy and laughter.”[i] I was feeling small on Friday because of a mistake I made that caused me to feel really flat. Then, after a Shabbat dinner that included laughter and joy, with my adult sons and daughters-in-law who I am visiting in New York, my spirits lifted. As pleasing as this shift was, it showed me that we need to embrace both smallness and greatness.

Jacob in the Torah is an example of the two modes. The very name, Jacob, is symbolic of smallness and “lowliness.”[ii] The name was given to him as a baby because of his desperate gesture during his birth of holding on to the heel of his older twin, Esau.[iii] This hanging on to his brother’s heel was symbolic of his desperate attempt to prevent his senior twin from getting the status of being the firstborn.

The name “Jacob” is linked to being in states of sadness, sighing, worry and powerlessness,[iv] or being prone to such feelings.

Jacob was frightened of meeting his brother Esau[v] who held a grudge against him. Jacob was distressed when his wives criticised him for his fear and lack of faith.[vi] The criticism stung Jacob as he was already distressed internally.[vii] He had a really bad feeling about the fact that he was afraid.[viii] This is often the case when we are feeling low; we feel bad about feeling bad. Jacob declared in his prayer: “I became small, because of all your kindnesses.”[ix]  When Jacob ruminated on his status, his possible deficiencies[x] and how much kindness God had given him, he felt qualitatively[xi] “small” and undeserving.

I am in “Jacob mode” when I am feeling cautious, guarded, self-conscious, self-critical and evaluating myself or feeling a little inferior. It is not a pleasant state.

Jacob was liberated from this mode by Esau’s angel[xii] with whom he wrestled and beat[xiii]. Unlike Jacob’s previous conflicts – with Esau[xiv] and Laban[xv]- when he fled, this time he stayed and faced it. The angel told Jacob that his name would change to Israel (which means “prevailed with God”) because of his victory over one of God’s angels.

It feels great to be an “Israel”. It is a state of confidence where achievement feels effortless[xvi] and it is tempting to think that being in that mode all the time is the right way to be. It is not.

To get to be in “Israel” mode, one must first be in a “Jacob” state[xvii].  One does not get to the “zone” without the prior hard work and struggle over time to grapple with many challenges, and only after much toil does one sail through, apparently effortlessly, to achieve great things.

According to the psychotherapist, Alfred Adler, feelings of inferiority are “stimulants to normal, healthy striving and growth. If it is not used in the wrong way.”[xviii] It is a feeling of wanting to be more and achieve more.  

Even once we get to that confident powerful place of being Israel, it does not last long. It is compared to being the Sabbath mode[xix], a beautiful state that lasts for one day per week before we return to the toil of the weekdays.

When I consider the fact that being in some form smallness/Jacob mode is a normal part of life, I realise that to be most effective in the struggles of life it helps to embrace them, rather than resist them. Count the blessings that are still present even in times of struggle, and find opportunities to be joyful and laugh to temporarily shift to the state of an enlarged spirit, before returning to the beautiful challenge of being a flawed human doing good. As the late Stella Cornelius used to say, “some great things were achieved by people who were not feeling so good that day" (xx). 

---

[i] Baal Shem Tov on the Torah, a collection of quotes of the Baal Shem Tov

[ii] Ohr Hachayim on Genesis 47:28 and others

[iii] Genesis 25:26

[iv] Ohr Hachayim on Genesis 47:28

[v] Genesis

[vi] Ner Hachschalim manuscript, cited in Torah Shlaima, on Beresheet, p. 1266, Midrash Yelamdenu,

[vii] Chemdat Hayamim, cited in Torah Shlaima, on Beresheet, p. 1267, Midrash Yelamdenu,

[viii] Ha’Emek Davar

[ix] Genesis 32:11

[x] Bamidbar Rabba, 19:32

[xi] Mizrahi, Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrahi, on Genesis 32:11

[xii] Midrash Rabba

[xiii] Gensis 32:25-30

[xiv] Genesis 28:7

[xv] Genesis 31:21

[xvi] Likutei Torah on Balak

[xvii] Likutei Torah ibid

[xviii] Kishimi, I, Koga, F. (2017), The Courage To Be Disliked, Allen and Unwin, p.59

[xix] Likutei Torah

Woman, Eve and Being Seen Genesis 2-5

Tilda Finch, a middle-aged woman, is treated as if she is invisible and this gradually manifests physically ̶ she begins to disappear. This is the provocative premise of the book Tilda is Visible[i], based on the reality that older women are often not noticed in the way that men or younger women are. Consider the statistic that only 2-4 per cent of total global venture capital funding goes towards women-led businesses[ii].  Jewish people will read Eve’s story in Genesis (2 and 3) on this coming Saturday, 26 October 2025. Here are some thoughts about Eve and Torah’s guidance about how we might represent and see or not see women.

Eve as archetype?

It has been suggested that Eve “is an archetype of women in general”[iii]. I am not convinced. However, I agree with Dr Tamar Frankiel’s idea that “as we retell the stories of the beginnings of humanity, we shape our own lives anew”[iv]. Let us consider a retelling of Eve’s story that sees her as having intrinsic value, wisdom, imagination and playing a role in moving Adam to a more relational way of being. 

A negative story

One reading of Eve’s story has three parts. 1) Helper: Eve is created to solve man’s loneliness and need for a helper[v]. 2) Temptress: The woman falls short in her role as companion[vi]. In leading Adam to eat the forbidden fruit[vii], she is cast in the role of “arch-temptress”[viii]. 3) Mother: She is named Eve because she is the mother of all life and she gives birth to sons[ix].

Intrinsic value

An alternative interpretation of Genesis begins with the creation of Eve at the same time as Adam.  “God created the person, in his image … male and female he created them”[x]. They were attached to each other, back-to-back, one side being male and the other being female[xi]. Eve was not created from Adam’s rib, but from his side[xii], as the Hebrew word “tzela” can mean either rib or side. It is this double person whom “God called their name Adam”[xiii], and it is this double person who has intrinsic value, having been created in the image of God.

 

Imagination

Eve engages her imagination to “see” how delicious the forbidden fruit would be, she notices how it was desirable for the eye and how delightful it would be for knowledge[xiv].  The imagining and the eating result in a loss of innocence, as “their eyes were opened”[xv] and they experienced sexual lust[xvi]. Eating the forbidden fruit was certainly a sin, but its consequences were mixed. Before eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve could “distinguish between true and the false” as a way of navigating right and wrong, but they lacked a sense of beautiful or repulsive, or of subjective good and bad[xvii]. 

The significance of a personal name

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks[xviii] points out the way that Adam refers to Eve before eating the fruit. He calls her either “woman”[xix] or “the woman”[xx]. It was only after the eating and its aftermath that Adam “turned to her [Eve], and for the first time saw her as a person and gave her a personal name, Eve. The significance of this moment cannot be sufficiently emphasised. With the appearance of proper names, the concept of the individual person is born. A noun such as ‘woman’ designates a group of things and does not designate a specific individual. A name is different. It refers not to a class or group but to an individual”. Furthermore, it is only at this point in the story[xxi] that Adam gets the dignity of a name himself. Prior to this point, Adam is generally referred to as “the human”[xxii] – Ha’Adam[H1] , rather than Adam[xxiii].

Eve the communicator

The common translation of Eve is that she is the one who gives life. But another meaning of Eve is the one who speaks.[xxiv] In the Psalms we read, “The heavens declare the glory of God, the sky proclaims His handiwork. …night to night it speaks knowledge.”[xxv] The word for “speaks” is Yeh-Chaveh, which is etymologically linked to Chava, the Hebrew version of Eve. Eve was such a skilled communicator that she could even understand “the language of animals.”[xxvi] When animals made noises, Adam turned to Eve to translate and teach him how to understand the animals.[xxvii] It is this quality that Adam celebrates by using the name “Eve” when he sees her as a full human being.

Eve the mother

After Adam saw and named Eve, he “knew”[xxviii] her, that is, he was intimate with her. This resulted in the birth of Cain. Eve became a mother and exuberantly exclaimed, “I have acquired or created a man with God.”[xxix]

A Brief Biography of Eve

Instead of the three-part tale above we have a more complex story, as follows: 1) Eve was created in the image of God, attached to her future husband, Adam. 2) Eve and her future husband are called, Ha’Adam, the human. 3) God acknowledges the need of humans for companionship wherein they can see each other, “to receive light in light, face to face”[xxx] and separates the two sides into two distinct people. 4) Eve’s exceptional communication skills enable her to understand the animals. She acts as translator between the animals and Adam, eventually teaching him to understand them. 5) Eve communicates with a snake, which is attracted to her, a beautiful woman.[xxxi] 6) She eats of the forbidden fruit and gives some to her husband. 7) Eve and Adam’s senses are heightened and tuned in to the pleasant and the ugly and to feel shame about their nakedness. 8) Eve gets feedback from God about the negative consequences of eating the fruit. 9) Adam sees Eve as a person and names her. 10) Adam knows Eve intimately. 11) Eve becomes a glorious mother and names her first son Cain (to acquire or create) for this astonishing feat of giving birth.  

Mother Eve ̶ Chava ̶ all of us, your descendants, regardless of gender, see you, and we all will ensure that your daughters of whatever age are seen as well, as the full beings that they are.

---

[i] Tara, J. (2024) Tilda Is Visible: A novel about women, life and being seen, Hachette

[ii] https://www.missingperspectives.com/posts/whats-the-deal-behind-these-deals-only-2-4-per-cent-of-total-venture-capital-goes-to-women-led-companies-and-we-want-to-talk-about-it/, for an Australian perspective look at https://scaleinvestors.com.au/

[iii] Steinzaltz, A. (1984), Biblical Images, Basic Books, p.3

[iv] Frankiel, T, (1990), The Voice of Sara, Feminine Spirituality & Traditional Judaism, Harper Collins, p. 128

[v] Genesis 2:18

[vi] Arama, Y, in Akedat Yitzchak, gate 9, p 95 and others

[vii] Genesis 3:1-6 and 16

[viii] Steinzaltz, A. (1984), Biblical Images, Basic Books, p.7

[ix] Genesis 3:20, 4:1

[x] Genesis 1:27

[xi] Talmud, Brachot 61a, based on Genesis 1:27 and referencing (Psalms 139:5); Bereshit Rabba 8, Midrash Aggada, cited in Rashi on Genesis 1:27

[xii] Rashi to Genesis 2:22c

[xiii] Genesis 5:2

[xiv] Genesis 3:7

[xv] Genesis 3:8

[xvi] Radak – Rabbi David Kimchi, on Genesis 3:7a

[xvii] Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, Part 1 2:5, Nachshoni, Y, Studies in the Weekly Parasha

[xviii] Sacks, J. https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/bereishit/the-garments-of-light/

[xix] Genesis 2:23 Eve, is named woman – Isha in Hebrew, reflecting her derivation from man, Ish

[xx] Genesis 3:12,

[xxi] Genesis 3:17

[xxii] See Genesis 2:15, 2:16, 2:18, 2:19, 2:20 (where he is referred to in both ways), 2:21, 2:22, 2:23, 3:8, 3:9, 3:12,

[xxiii] Sacks, J.

[xxiv] Abarbanel

[xxv] Psalms 19:2-3

[xxvi] Meam Loez, Ibn Ezra based on Genesis 3:1-5

[xxvii] Imre Noam, in Meam Loez,

[xxviii] Genesis 4:1

[xxix] Genesis 4:1

[xxx] Zohar part 3, 44b

[xxxi] Rashi on Genesis 3:1

---

 [H1]Should this not be ‘ha’adam’?

Crushing or talking with? Chukat

I retaliated. I really didn’t mean to, but X aggressively pressured me to do something and without thinking, I verbally fought back. X was a little hurt. It didn’t need to play out that way. My starting point for this reflection is concern about excessive harshness and punishment.

Author, Dr. Richard Schwartz observed that we treat others the same way that we treat those parts of ourselves that challenge us. “In our attempts to control what we consider to be disturbing thoughts and emotions, we just end up fighting, disciplining … or feeling ashamed of those impulses …[i]” Religious teachings, including some in the Torah, seem to be designed to crush parts of ourselves. I want to examine these and consider alternative ways of reading them.

In this week’s Torah reading we have the strange ritual of burning a dead red cow[ii] to purify anyone who has come in contact with a dead person. It is introduced as a “Chuka”, a statute that God commanded. Commentary elaborates on the idea of a Chuka, which has also been translated as decree[iii]. “It is a decree from before Me; you have no permission to ruminate about it[iv]”. We are forbidden to ever question this divine command. That is harsh! It seems like the purpose of the Chuka, with no logical explanation, is about a process designed to beat us into submission[v].

The idea that crushing that part in us that thinks for itself or lusts after permitted or forbidden pleasures also comes up in one attempt to explain the mystery of the red cow. The animal is seen as a symbol of the material aspects of life. The burning of the cow represents a person who subjugates the material elements within him or herself. This is hinted at by the fact that the ashes of the cow – now crushed and defeated – when mixed with water, causes the person sprinkled with the mixture to be regarded as spiritually pure and clean[vi].  To kill the “animal soul” is seen as a virtue[vii].

An alternative approach to the red cow is offered by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, of blessed memory. The symbolism of mixing the ashes of a dead animal with “living water” is a reminder that although we are all individually mortal, life continues after we die[viii]. He infers this from the fact that the law of the red cow is followed in the Torah[ix] by the deaths of Moses’ siblings. Rabbi Sacks wrote: “with great subtlety the Torah mixes law and narrative together.” We all die, “... yet life goes on, and what we began, others will continue.”

Sacks insists that Judaism is not a matter of blind obedience[x]”.  Some laws are not explained because they are meant to move us at a sub-conscious level. The ritual of the red cow is directed at what Sigmund Freud called thanatos, the death instinct[xi]. According to Freud, “a portion of the [death] instinct is diverted towards the external world and comes to light as an instinct of aggressiveness.”

Sacks insists that the red cow ritual “is a powerful statement that the holy is to be found in life, not death. Anyone who had been in contact with a dead body needed purification. Judaism contains no cult of worship of dead ancestors. Death defiles”.

Countering manifestation of the death instinct, Sacks explains, “cannot be achieved by reason alone”. Instead, he argues, rituals enable the learning to reach “into our unconscious mind and alter our instinctual responses. The result is a personality trained to see death and holiness as two utterly opposed states.”

What we have is not a ritual to beat us into submission and encourage us to berate and crush ourselves but something far more dignified. It is an invitation to engage with the text as intelligent people grappling with the great challenges of life.

Sacks has a similar approach to one of the saddest stories in the Torah. Moses was deprived of his dream to lead his people in to the Promised Land. This was due to the seemingly petty offence of using a stick to hit, rather than talking to, a rock to miraculously draw water from it[xii]. This seems excessively punitive. But to Sacks[xiii], the symbolic meaning of “hitting” at a moment that required “talking” was no small matter.

At the end of his life, Moses was leading a new generation, born in freedom in the wilderness. They were different to their parents who had spent much of their lives as slaves. Slaves understand that a stick is used for striking, which is how slave-masters compel obedience. Free people, by contrast, must be educated, informed and taught.

To put it another way, public administration academic, Holli Vah Seliskar, PHD, wrote, “people benefit most when things are done with them rather than something being done to them[xiv]”. Human beings are happier, more cooperative and productive and more likely to make positive changes in their behaviour when those in positions of authority do things with them[xv]”.

Moses using a stick instead of words was symbolic of his failure to work with the people, rather than berate[xvi] or order them around. Free human beings respond not to power but persuasion. They need to be spoken to. What Moses failed to understand was that the difference between God's command to "speak to the rock" and "strike the rock" was of the essence.

Next time I am confronted with a situation like the one with X, I hope both I and the person with whom I am talking can focus on trying to find a mutually acceptable resolution to our divergent views and needs. Hopefully, this will involve a collaborative conversation rather than punishment. Failing that, I will go with a firm but fair withdrawal from a situation that is not working, but without speaking harsh words that detract from the sacred dignity of all humans.

---

[i] Schwartz, R. C., (2021) No Bad Parts, Sounds True publishers, Boulder Colorado, p. 8

[ii] Numbers, 19:2-12

[iii] Targum Yonasan Ben Uziel of 19:2 דָא גְזֵירַת אַחְוָיַת אוֹרַיְיתָא

[iv] Rashi to Number 19:2, based on Talmud Yoma 67b; Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 7, I translated the word as ruminate

[v] See Kedushas Levi at the beginning of Parshas Chukas

[vi] Rabbi Chaim Yosef David Auzulai, (The Chidoh), Nachal Kedominm in Toras Chido, p. 130

[vii] Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, Tanya chapter 1

[viii] https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/chukat/healing-trauma-loss/

[ix] The red cow is discussed in Number 19, the death of Mirram and Aaron are recorded in the following chapter in 20:1 and 20:28

[x] Sacks, J. Covenant and Conversation, Number, p. 239

[xi] https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/chukat/descartes-error/ See commentary by Rabbi Yosef Bechor Shor 

[xii] Numbers 20:7-12

[xiii] https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/chukat/why-was-moses-not-destined-to-enter-the-land/

[xiv] Seliskar, H. V. https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/doing-with-not-to-or-for/253464

[xv] Watchel, T. in Seliskar

[xvi] Numbers 20:10