Rebecca mother to both Esau and Jacob, a reflection on violence

We have all seen the disturbing news coming from Israel and Gaza. I have just learned that two fellow Chabad Chasidim (the community I am part of) have been killed by a rocket. One of them was a 25-year-old mother who was involved in Chabad outreach work in New Delhi, India. What a tragic destruction of a life and a family.  The Palestinians who were killed also have names and stories, some of them are civilians and children. Also tragic. It is terrible to be witnessing all this destruction and violence.  I don’t believe all violence is wrong or equal, I believe violence can sometimes be the right thing, or a necessary evil. I will leave it to others to judge and blame. My brief post this week is on a related theme.

I am thinking about “us and them thinking”, an enabling ingredient in conflict. In our Torah reading we are presented with two iconic figures, the twin brothers Jacob “the good son who sits in tents[i]” and ancestor of the Jews and the wicked Esau “a man who understood hunting, a man of the field”. Esau’s hunting prowess is interpreted to be not just about finding food, but also about deceives others, hunting them with his mouth[ii].

The text tells us that after Jacob takes Esau’s paternal blessings, Esau plans to kill his brother. He thinks: "Let the days of mourning for my father draw near, I will then kill my brother Jacob[iii]".  This has been interpreted as Esau thinking ‘Cain was a fool, he killed his brother while his father was still alive, then his father went along and had another child, I will wait til my father dies and that way there will not be another sibling[iv]’. In this version, there is not complexity to Esau’s character, everything about him motivated by evil. Yet there is a more plausible explanation, “As its apparent meaning, “that I should not grieve my father[v]”.  We know from other sources that Esau is regarded as exemplary in his honouring of his father. If we consider that aspect, we have in Esau, a more complex character, a human being with virtues and flaws rather than a monster[vi].

There is seemingly superfluous comment at the end of the story.  At his mother’s instigation, Jacob runs away from his brother. The Torah states that “he went to Padan aram, to Laban the son of Bethuel …, the brother of Rebecca, the mother of Jacob and Esau”. The repetition of the fact that Rebecca was the mother of both her sons has a powerful lesson in it. The escape was not just to benefit Jacob by saving his life but also to benefit Esau to prevent him from the soul destroying impact of murder.  This could be what Rebecca meant when she said “Why should I be bereft of both of you on one day?[vii]" If either son was to kill the other, both would be dead to their mother, one literally and the other mentally as any son of hers who committed such a crime would be absolutely lost to her[viii].

Silence.

---

[i] Genesis 25:27

[ii] Rashi

[iii] Genesis 27:41

[iv] Midrash

[v] Rashi,.  

[vi] the contrast between the two interpretations and the discussion is taught by Nechama Liebovitz in her studies of Bereshit

[vii] Genesis 27:45

[viii] Em Lamikra, cited and discussed by Nechama Liebovitz in her studies of Bereshit

God: Frightening Father, Sweet Sister or Mystery

(Written 30 September), Note: This is a critical reflection on certain aspects of my tradition. It has been suggested to me that in highlighting these elements, I am reinforcing a misconception of Judaism as overly harsh. A balanced study of Judaism and the Yom Kippur service will show God as compassionate and an emphasis on love and kindness as well as themes of judgement). 

Last night I “worshipped” by clipping little branches off bamboos with my older four sons and putting these bamboos on top of our Pergola. These shorn bamboo poles combined with corflute walls constitute a temporary “home” called a Succa. It was great to be doing something Jewish that was so uncomplicated. This in contrast to Yom Kippur last week, our day of atonement, a day to be cleansed of sin and spent in communion with God.  But, what kind of God are we reconciling with? It seems to me that a lot of the prayers reflect a concept of God as a judgemental  punitive father and harsh ruler. This approach is both familiar to me but also a bit jarring. I think I may have at least partially absorbed a contemporary view of God which, at the risk of oversimplification, could be compared to a loving, friendly, older sister who provides guidance but is in no way overbearing.

Punishment Ritual

The day leading up to the holy day began for my family just before 4 am. We piled into the car and arrived at a rural property where we were handed a chicken or rooster to hold and say a brief prayer. Many Jews have long ago substituted the bird for money, but my community does it the old way. Holding the chicken we recited,“this is my atonement, this is my exchange…this chicken will go to die but I will go on to a good life”. I then handed the chicken to a slaughterer and watched him slit its throat, for it to be donated to the poor.  I don’t particularly feel great resonance with this ritual, there was something worrying about the chickens, but it somehow felt like the right thing to do.

Judgement and Overwhelming Power

After a delicious meal with family and guests with traditional dumplings called Kreplach prior to the fast we gather for what will be a marathon of prayer. We plead to be written in the book of life, that our prayers be heard and confess to long list of sins ten times over the day. I am moved by the words to a song in which we compare ourselves to clay and God to the moulder  ourselves to a stone and God to the mason, iron and smith, glass and glass-blower etc.  Overall, there are some beautiful prayers and poetry, but there are also so many repetitive passages about the absolute greatness of God, judgement and punishment.

Angry God?

The punitive concept of God is also reflected in the Torah reading Haazinu. Heaven and earth[i] are called to be witnesses against the Jews[ii] in case they sin. In anticipation of sin, the Jews are called twisted and warped[iii], a “Naval[iv]” nation which is interpreted as stupid[v], and ingrates[vi]. God’s anger is described as “my anger has kindled a fire,   burning to the lowest depths, it shall consume the land…[vii]” God says he will use all his arrows against them. God is described as reflecting that “I thought I will exterminate them, I will make their memory vanish from among mankind”. The reason he would not do so is because “I was afraid[viii] that the enemies of the Jews would think that they achieved the destruction of the Jews themselves rather than recognising the calamity as being an act of God, thereby damaging God’s brand as the master of the universe. Wow! No “God is Love” here.

Beyond any Emotional expression

In Chasidic and Kabalistic teachings, the essence of God is understood to transcend any emotional or intellectual expressions or forms. God can only thought of as being kind or judgemental when he takes on such a role in order to connect with his creation. This process is referred to as Tzimtzum/ Contraction. I would compare this to the time that I had to wake up some Yeshiva students on the morning after some were drinking at the Purim feast. We were scheduled to put on a performance for school children at 8:30. Leib[ix] decided he was going to stay in bed, which was no big loss, his part in the play could be covered by one of the other actors. I knew that Getzl in the other room was probably overhearing our conversation and if Leib got away with this, he might also refuse to get up and I really needed Getzl. I put on a show of being absolutely furious with Leib I screamed and seemed to lose it. When I got to Getzl’s room, he gave me no argument. In a sense, God puts on an angry persona to relate to us as a strict parent.

God would like to be Liberated from the Current World Order

The Yom Kippur service begins with a solemn prayer about vows that might have been violated called Kol Nidre (which means all vows). The words are technical and legalistic, the tune moving. I find this prayer quite meaningful because of an interesting explanation[x]. A story is told in the Talmud[xi] about a sage overhearing a heavenly voice lamenting, “Woe is to me that I made a vow and I have no one to annul my vow”. Essentially God wishes he would never have promised to destroy his temple and exile the Jews from the holy land if they sin, and now would love to have someone to release him from this vow. For me, Kol Nidre this year was about asking God to “free Himself” and us from the world as it has developed. A world in which if western troops stay in Afghanistan innocent people will die, if they leave other death and terrible things will happen. A world in which, Iran is presumably seeking nuclear weapons and according the “rules” of the real world, there are some very scary and deadly choices. Please God, liberate us from all that. Do something magical.

God as Mother or Sibling?

It has become popular to talk about “mother nature” or mother earth. The idea of God as the force behind nature is authentically Jewish. I took a few minutes to wander outside during the service and admire the very tall majestic old trees that testify to God’s greatness. In our Torah reading God is discussed as delighting in finding the Jews in the desert[xii]. Protectively, carrying the Jews like an eagle carries it’s young on its wings[xiii], nursing him with honey from bedrock[xiv]. This is very nurturing, even maternal imagery. Even God as a sibling almost has a source in our holy books, when we imagine God as a lover calling on us to open our hearts to him. “Open for me, my sister, my friend, my dove…[xv]”. Perhaps what works best for me is God as Mystery, His essence utterly un-knowable and indescribable. We can pray “according to the mind of the young child[xvi]. Still, I need to accept that my tradition still has a strong patriarchal idea of God as well. For today, the conceptualisation of God is less important, there are a few more bamboos to throw on to the Pergola. Ah, what joy!

---

[i] Deuteronomy 32:1

[ii] Rashi

[iii] Deuteronomy 32:5

[iv] Deuteronomy 32:6

[v] Bchor Shor,

[vi] Ramban

[vii] Deuteronomy 32:22

[viii] Translation of Ibn Ezra of the word “Agur” in Deuteronomy 32:6

[ix] Names changed to protect privacy

[x] Munk, Rabbi E, (1963) The world of Prayer Vol 2.

[xi] Talmud Bava Basra chapter 5

[xii] Deuteronomy 32:10

[xiii] Deuteronomy 32:11

[xiv] Deuteronomy 32:13

[xv] Song of Songs 5:2

[xvi] Derech Mitzvosecha

Limitations of the Legal

A buck brazenly flaunts the law of the land
photo & title by Jason Molenda http://www.molenda.com/
used under creative commons license

I read some parenting advice from a psychotherapist in a Jewish newspaper column[i] that really annoyed me. A mother is driving her 10 year old daughter who has fallen asleep in the front seat of the car. Three minutes from her home she stops to pick up her 11 year old son. He is furious when he sees his sister in the front seat. Their family has a rule that the oldest child sits in the front seat. He hits his sister and begins shouting “you’re sitting in my seat! You’re sitting in my seat!” The mother shouts at him and he finally gets into the back.   

The advice given is that although the violence of the son was wrong, the situation could have been avoided if the mother was “more sensitive to the dynamics of sibling rivalry…you could have woken your daughter shortly before arriving at your son’s friend’s house…” and ask the daughter to move to the back because she would have to wake up in a few minutes anyway.

Follow the rules?

The question of how much importance we should give to rules is a difficult one. On one hand there are times when the law needs to be the primary consideration.  Laws are one great way to pursue justice. Disregarding laws out of compassion for one side of a dispute is unjust toward people on the other side[ii]. Despite the importance of laws, we are taught that thinking; “what is mine is mine, what is yours is yours”… is the attitude of the people of the wicked selfish city of Sodom[iii]. Failure to go beyond the letter of the law is given as one of the causes of the destruction of the Jewish temple[iv]. In the case of the “oldest in the front seat rule”, I would not be telling the mother to be more sensitive to the sense of entitlement her older son feels. I would be more concerned about his rigid insistence on getting everything he is entitled to under “the rules” and helping him work on developing a more flexible attitude.

Challenging the rules from within– the first feminists

An important variable is the option not to challenge the system of laws but instead seek “clarification” or reinterpretation for an equitable outcome. This was the case with a woman named Noa and her four sisters known as the daughters of Zelophehad who challenged the position of the inheritance law that only men could inherit a portion in the land of Canaan[v]. Initially, the sisters were given the run-around, first going to Moses to be told to speak to leaders of hundreds, only to be told that this is a difficult matter that only Moses can deal with. Eventually they approached them all at the same time. Moses is so taken with their argument that he wished to advocate for them before God but he is told that they are right and don’t need an advocate[vi].

The sisters don’t challenge the legitimacy of the system of law. According to commentary Noa et al. displayed great tactical and legal wisdom. “Their petition followed a razor-sharp line of reasoning that incorporated all the relevant laws and principles, and even formulated the proper decision. This is why Scripture says, “And Moses brought their judgment before G‑d”—their judgment, not their question, for their petition included the legal argument and its ruling[vii]”.  This approach assumed that they did not overcome the law but that in response to their complaint the existing but not yet revealed law was uncovered. “The daughters of Zelophehad speak rightly” is explained as God saying: “[As they spoke it,] so is this section of Torah written before Me on high[viii].” This approach could be applied to divine laws, when it comes to man-made laws, of course they can be wrong and often are, it is then a question of the principle and value of the rule of law vs. a particular poor law.

Parallel in Islam?

An intriguing idea in Islam that seems related to this is the principle of Maqasid[ix] (Maqasid at Shari’ah). My understanding of this approach is that it considers the broad purposes of the law alongside the letter of the law. Key purposes are compassion and benefit. “A mere conformity to rules that went against the purpose and vision of the Shari’ah was therefore generally unacceptable”. An Imam I know suggested that the Malaysians liberal approach to a widow’s rights to the family home might be following Maqasid[x].

Justice seen to be done

Perhaps what is most challenging is when law appears legalistic and out of touch with “common sense”. Insisting on following the rule about who sits in the front seat when another child is half asleep, I think would qualify. Either way, legalistic or “common sense” the losing party is likely to feel resentful. With self-interest bias, there is the danger that justice will not appear to have been done to those who have lost and may result in conflict. The Truth and Reconciliation process in South Africa is one example that appears to have transcended the normal legal process and whatever its imperfections, South Africa seems to be in a much better place than many have feared it would be when the blacks came to power.

Laundered land? Perfectly legal

This dilemma is the background to the dramatic story of Balaam and his donkey. He is recruited by the king of Moab and ends up blessing the Israelites instead of cursing them. Prior to this we have a brief battle in which an area in present day Jordan between the rivers Jabbok and Arnon, thought to be the modern Wady Mojib[xi], is conquered from an Emorite king[xii]. This area was originally Moabite land and the Israelites had kinship ties [xiii]and strict instructions from God not to distress or provoke them to war[xiv]. Despite these ties the Israelites feel justified in holding on to the land because it has been conquered from them by the Amorites and so he “purified it for Israel”[xv]. It has been described as “theft that is without wrongdoing[xvi]”. What a fascinating phrase!

The Israelites saw this as Kosher but the text does not tell us how the people of Moab-Amon felt about it[xvii]. A midrash suggests that they felt afraid because they saw the Israelites have conquered “our land”[xviii]. A few verses later, their king hires Balaam the sorcerer to try to harm the Israelites. 300 years later, the king of Amon refers to this conquest “Because Israel took away my land, when they came out of Egypt, from Arnon and up to the Jabbok…and now restore them peacefully [xix]”. Jephthah, the Israelites’ leader, counter this claim, “Israel did not take the land of Moab and the land of the children of Ammon… the God of Israel, delivered Sichon (King of the Amorites) and all his people into the hand of Israel, … and Israel possessed all the land of the Amorites…from the Arnon up to the Jabbok…when Israel dwelt in Heshbon and its towns…and in all the cities that are along Arnon, three hundred years; why did you not recover them at that time”? In Jewish law about land quarrels, undisputed occupation for three years is seen as proof of ownership[xx].  This argument does not persuade the Amonites, instead they go to war.

Conclusion

The informed view in my community is that going even to a religious court to resolve a dispute is a very bad outcome.  Laws are great things, but in the real world their value is sometimes, somewhat limited.

[i] Wikler, Dr. M, Hamodia 28 June 2012, p. C14

[ii] While Jewish tradition encourages charity, mediation and compromise it warns against “glorifying the poor” in legal disputes, which means that if a very rich person is legally correct in a dispute with a poor person the judge would still decide in favour of the rich person and cannot change the ruling out of compassion.

[iii] Pirkei Avot 5:13

[iv] Talmud Bava Metzia 30b

[v] Numbers 27:1-7

[vi] Abarbanel

[vii] Anaf Yosef commentary on Ein Yaakov, Bava Batra 119b, cited by Schneider, S, http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2222/jewish/A-Daughter-of-Zelophehad-Speaks.htm

[viii] Rashi to Numbers 27:7; Targum Yonatan ibid.; Yalkut Shimoni ibid.; Sifri ibid cited in Schneider

[ix] Kamali, Mohammed Hashim (2010), He is Professor of Law at the International Islamic University Malaysia. He is author of numerous articles published in learned journals and many works including Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, Criminal Law in Islam and Freedom of Expression in Islam.  http://www.faithinallah.org/higher-objectives-of-islamic-law-maqasid-ash-sharia/

[x] http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/inheritance-laws-gender-sharia-halacha.html

[xi] “A river and wady of eastern Palestine, the modern Wady Mojib (or Wady el-Mojib). The name means perhaps "noisy," a term which well describes the latter part of the course of the river. Its length is about 45 miles, from its rise in the desert to its entrance into the Dead Sea. It spreads out to a breadth of 100 feet here and there, but for the most part is narrow; and though low in summer, in the winter season it is in places 8 or 10 feet deep. It runs at first north-westerly, but afterward its course becomes westerly. Its striking feature is the steepness and narrowness of the ravine through which it passes shortly before it empties into the lake, opposite Engedi. Between the lofty limestone hills, which cause this precipitous descent, and the lake, the river expands into a shallow estuary nearly 100 feet wide. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1799-arnon

[xii] Numbers 21:25

[xiii] Moab and Amon were descendants of Abraham’s nephew Lot

[xiv] Deuteronomy 2:9

[xv] Talmud Hulin 60b, Rashi to Numbers 21:26, I found it interesting to read that Rabbi Shimon Ben Lakish states that there are many verses that are fit to be burned but they are in fact the body of the Torah such as the verse explaining the legal basis for the annexation of these lands

[xvi] Midrash Tanchuma Balak 2

[xvii] A midrash states that Balak saw Israel sitting calmly, surrounded by the clouds of glory, Manna falls on them, the Slav birds rise, a well (in a rock) goes with them… (cited in Torah Shlaima Vol. 42, p.6)

[xviii] Midrash Tanchuma Balak 2

[xix] Judges 11:13

[xx] Talmud Bava Batra chapter 3

A shrug, a Serpent and Embracing Uncertainty

Our challenge is to embrace uncertainty. There are some things we can’t understand or control that we need to accept and run with. In coming days a cancer survivor and former student of mine is heading to the London Paralympics to play wheelchair tennis, a barely imaginable dream come true. A devout Muslim Arabic friend shares his worries about what the Muslim Brotherhood will mean for Egypt. The organisation I lead is preparing to launch an on-line diversity education resource for every school in the country with events in seven cities. I trust the work of our excellent team over the last two years will pay off, but I wish I could predict exactly how it will be received.  

Beyond Logic

The unknown is a theme that runs through our reading this week of the Sidra Chukat[i], which begins with the least understandable commandment, concerning a red cow’s ashes mixed with water that spiritually cleanses one person but contaminates the one who prepares it[ii]. The name of the portion, Chukat, means a law that we cannot understand. Some would assume that the logic is absolutely clear but simply hidden from us. The Lubavitcher Rebbe goes further; “these commands have no rational explanation; (emphasis mine) moreover, they defy reason… the Divine Will has not clothed itself in the garments of rationality[iii]”.

A copper serpent and letting go

The incident with the copper snake also sits outside common sense. The people had spoken against Moses, "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in this desert, for there is no bread and no water, and we are disgusted with this rotten bread[iv] [v]”. It seems the people craved the solid certainty of degradation of Egypt in comparison to the uncertainty of freedom in the desert and the still unseen “promised land”. (So) “God sent the venomous snakes against the people, and they bit the people, and many people of Israel died”. After the people sought forgiveness, “Moses made a copper snake and put it on a pole, and whenever a snake bit a man, he would gaze upon the copper snake and live[vi]”. The object that brought healing was symbolic of the one that brought illness[vii].

The serpent had no magical powers, when the Israelites looked at it they were also looking upward (to God) and committing their hearts to their father in heaven and they were healed[viii].  The choice of the Serpent specifically as symbol reinforces the point, as if to say “surely you realise it is not the object that is the active ingredient”, because the snake is the problem, yet it is the solution[ix].Centuries later, Elisha puts salt in the ‘bad water’ of Jericho which fixes the problem[x]. The very counter-intuitiveness of it is a lesson that there are times when we need to let go, and for believers this means to trust God.

From rigidity and domination to Persuasion and consensus building

A variation of this theme is when Moses is told a second time to make a miracle to get water from a stone, but to do it differently this time. The first time just after the exodus from Egypt Moses was told to hit the rock, now leading a new generation he was told explicitly to take his staff[xi] but to talk to the rock. Moses became very angry with the people and their complaints, and this led him to make a mistake[xii]. He hit the rock instead of talking to it. Because of this seemingly small error Moses is told he will not be the leader[xiii] to take the people into the Promised Land.

One interpretation of the problem in hitting the stone (which was previously the right thing to do) is that it was a different time, the people had changed and Moses failed to change his style accordingly[xiv]. It was appropriate for Moses to use rigidity, symbolised by hitting with a stick, as a leadership approach at the time he was leading recently freed slaves who were not yet ready for ambiguity and responsibility. For the generation that grew up free in the desert, they needed a leader whose style was one of persuasion of thinking independent people, this style would be symbolised by talking rather than striking, a much more murky process with far less control or certainty.

Conclusion

It is amazing to see Adam Kellerman who was diagnosed with Cancer in his right hip not long after I taught him for his Bar Mitzvah in 2003. It was an extremely difficult road, longs stints in hospital, hope, disappointments, chemo, infections, and 25 operations at the end of which he had difficulty walking and could never play his beloved soccer again. Somehow out of it all, Adam has created a stellar wheelchair tennis career[xv] and is soon heading off to the Paralympics. A scenario we would never have imagined in those difficult days. I am now keen to help him reach 500 likes on his Facebook page[xvi] (he has 359).  In Egypt, there are now promises of Coptic and female vice presidents. Who knows what will really happen there? In terms of our diversity education resource, we will make our best effort and then I need to trust teachers to make the right decision. There is much that is out of our hands, there is not much point worrying about it. It is not for us to complete the work, nor are we free to desist from it[xvii].

If the Lord will not build a house, its builders have toiled at it in vain; if the Lord will not guard a city, [its] watcher keeps his vigil in vain.

It is futile for you who rise early, who sit up late, who eat the bread of tension, Indeed the Lord will give sleep to his beloved [xviii].

---

[i] Numbers 19:1 – 22:1

[ii] Numbers 19:10

[iii] Schneerson, Rabbi MM, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, based on Likkutei Sichos, Vol. IV, pp. 1056-1057 as adapted  http://www.chabadworld.net/page.asp?pageID={2F39F577-95B6-40DA-BFCD-81DC8BAECB5B}

[iv] referring to the Manna

[v] Numbers 21:5-6

[vi] Numbers 21:9

[vii] An explanation of the serpent offered in the Zohar is that it reminded people of the punishment like a child who sees his father’s strap if afraid and behaves (Sehlach 175)

[viii] Talmud, Mishna Rosh Hashanah 3:5

[ix] Bchor Shor

[x] Kings II, 2:19-22

[xi] Numbers 20:8

[xii] Sifre Matot 157

[xiii] I find the situation with Moses in this reading really interesting. Moses, the great leader who defied Pharaoh, bargained with God, and successfully argued with angels tragically cannot see the completion of the journey of his people from Egypt to the Promised Land.  Moses faces complaints, loses his cool, both his siblings; Miriam and Aaron die. He approaches the king of Edom requesting passage for his people through that land, but this initiative falls flat, Moses’ polite request is met with a threat about which he can do nothing. Strangely, when his people are attacked by the king of Arad, Moses seems missing in action, his name is not mentioned. Instead the people themselves make a wow and pray to God (Numbers 21:1-3) without Moses playing any role (Aviya Hacohen, http://www.vbm-torah.org/parsha/37shelah.htm. Yet, despite Moses’ disappointment and bereavement he ends our reading in triumph. The Israelites sing a song of praise (Numbers 21:17) . There is a victory in a battle against Sichon the king of the Emorites. They then confront the giant Og. God tells Moses not to be afraid and again the Israelites are victorious. Moses himself is credited with personally slaying the giant (Talmud Brachot 54b)

[xiv] Sacks, Rabbi J, http://www.ou.org/index.php/torah/article/14695/#.T-wh2LWdmvY

[xv] http://www.adamkellerman.com/my-story.html

[xvi] http://www.facebook.com/adamkellermanwheelchairtennis

[xvii] Pirkei Avot

[xviii] Psalm 127:1-2, my translation follows Targum, Radak and Ibn Ezra which seem to be more in line with the simple meaning of the Hebrew and the flow of the content from verse 1, Rashi, Metzudat David, Metzudat Zion and Minchat Shai render is as “so will the Lord give sustenance/pleasure in the world to come, to one who banishes sleep from his eyes to occupy himself with Torah/service of heaven”.