Imperfect Anti Racism - Today & Torah Portion Mishpatim

Used under Creative Commons License

My eyes are teary in seat 51C on a Qantas flight. I am reading the lawyers impassioned speech in “To Kill a Mocking Bird” (1). It is a good time for an Australian Jew from New York to shed a few tears about the flawed struggle against racism. This week Martin Luther King Jnr Day was observed in the US. In Australia advocates of Multiculturalism are concerned about the new conservative government’s review of the Curriculum. The review appears to be motivated at least in part by a concern that the current curriculum is insufficiently honouring of our “Judeo- Christian”-“Western”- English heritage. Our Torah reading, Mishpatim, can be read as either emphatically condemning discrimination or even condoning it.

I read about the lawyer Atticus defending Tom, an upstanding member of the local Black Church community, falsely accused of rape by people of questionable character. He argues to the jury that this case is “as simple as black and white”. He declares that the white witnesses against Tom testified with the “cynical confidence that their testimony would not be doubted, confident that you gentlemen would go along with them on the assumption, the evil assumption, that all Negroes lie… that all Negroes cannot be trusted around our women”. He pleads with them; “A jury is only as sound as the people who make it up…in the name of God, do your duty!”

I am moved by what I am reading. Yet, I have been told that the book has been criticized for not being pure enough, itself containing elements of prejudice.  I have not read the critics so I can’t judge the specific criticisms. Still, my first reaction is, “give me a break, this book was published in 1960! I have no doubt it moved people along on the journey, so what if it’s not perfect?!

This leads me back to the Torah, written thousands of years ago, but taken as the timeless word of God by many believers. It discusses slavery laws that are, thank God, no longer practiced. Instead these texts have a more symbolic message for people today.  It states that if a master beats his slave, either male or female, and “the slave dies under his hand then revenge must be prosecuted against the master” (2). This verse which is interpreted as relating to the Canaanite/non Jewish slave (3), teaches that murder of a slave by his master is a capital crime just as the killing of any other person. Beautiful! It teaches us about the equal value of humans, free man/woman or slave.

In the next verse it gets tricky. If the slave “stands” (after the beating) for a day or two days then the master is not punished. This is because “he (the slave) is his property (literally his money)” (4). Yikes! A human being, a non-Jewish slave, is merely someone’s property?!

In the first instance, some Torah scholars of our day have argued that the Torah’s tolerance for slavery was part of a gradual process to move people along a continuum from unrestricted practice of slavery, to one with safeguards and limitations, and ultimately to abandoning the disgusting practice entirely (5). The Torah’s approach is expressed well in the words of Job “"If I have despised the just cause of my slave… then what shall I do when God rises up… what shall I answer Him? Did He who created me in the belly not create him, and was it not the same One who fashioned us in the womb?" (6).

A gradual approach to discrimination is also suggested in To Kill a Mocking Bird.  When the jury declare Tom guilty Atticus is indignant, but he is also pleased that his efforts led the jury to deliberate for many hours rather than the few minutes it would normally take for a white Jury in the American South to convict a black man in the 1930s. Atticus believes in incremental progress, so do I. Perhaps a compromised approach to promoting diversity in the Australian Curriculum will ultimately bear greater fruit, I can only hope.

Returning to our “Slave as property” verse, some commentators understand it as justifying the beating (7). Another view is that being that the master has a financial interest in the slave’s wellbeing. Therefore, if there was some recovery between the beating and the death, there is a presumption that there was a different cause of death (8).  A key message from this section is that God warns the master against cruelty in disciplining his slaves, and that if he persists in violent beating that leads to the death of the slave he himself will be executed. This is because “the mercies of God is for all of those He created, as it is written regarding King David (that he was disqualified from building the house of God because) “much blood you have spilled (9)” and (those that David killed) were not of Israel (10). 

Later in our reading this week, the text is emphatic in prohibiting discrimination against the foreigner. “And you shall not mistreat a foreigner, nor shall you oppress him, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt”. And again: “And you shall not oppress a foreigner, for you know the feelings of the foreigner, since you were foreigner in the land of Egypt” (11). Some commentaries assume that these laws apply to a person from a “foreign” ethnic background who converted to Judaism (12), the word for convert is the same as the one for foreigner. I have found sufficient basis to understand it as applying to any member of a minority (13). These instructions against mistreatment of the foreigner have been explained in terms of “your” power relative to the powerlessness of the newcomer (14). This is one of the key elements of modern racism. 

Some would argue that we must disregard these sacred texts because they don’t articulate a perfect, unambiguous, consistent message of absolute equality. In To Kill a Mocking Bird, Tom, the innocent black man is killed in jail, while waiting for incremental white progress! Going slow has a terrible price that must be considered. Still, I believe we need to work with what we have and both support and challenge people to move along their journey toward full acceptance and valuing of every fellow human in whatever way that will work.    

1.    Lee, H. (1960), To Kill a Mocking Bird
2.    Exodus 21:20
3.    Mechilta, Mechilta D’Rashbi cited in Torah Shlaima, p.109, Rashi and others
4.    Exodus 21:21
5.    I don’t remember the name of the scholar I first read who articulated this approach. However see Samet,  Rabbi E. http://www.vbm-torah.org/parsha.63/18mishpatim.htm
6.    Job 31:13-15, cited by Samet ibid.
7.    Seforno, Rashbam
8.    Ibn Ezra, Klei Yakar elaborates: “Certainly he (the master) would not have beaten him with cruel beatings that could result in killing the slave, because he is his property! Is there any person who destroys his property with his own hands?!” The term “cruel beatings” made me ask the obvious question: is there another kind of beating? While all violence is abhorrent, there are degrees of violence. Samson Raphael Hirsh argues that “This reason given cannot be taken to mean that he is in some way of a lower degree of humanity that ordinary man. For it only applies to the master, to everybody else the full ordinary laws of murder applies. The reason can only lie in the relationship of the master to his personal property…”
9.    Chronicles I 22:8
10.    Ibn Ezra on Exodus 21:21
11.    Exodus 22:20, and Exodus 23:9
12.    Mechilta, Midrash Aggada, Toras Kohanim Kedoshim 8:2, Chizkuni cited in Torah Shlaima p. 98-99, see notes 366-7.  Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Sefer Hachinuch Mitzva 63. For contemporary argument see http://vbm-torah.org/archive/chavero2/08chavero.htm
13.    One source for the narrow interpretation of the law as relating only to converts is in the Talmud Bava Metzia 59b. It states “Why did the Torah admonish us about the convert in thirty-six…places?  This is because “his turning is bad”.  Many people have understood this to mean that he has a strong inclination towards evil or his old habits regarding idol worship and if he is mistreated he will “turn back to evil and reject Judaism”. However the Beer Mayim Chayim understands the “bad turn” very differently. “it is bad and bitter for him, that he is removed (turned away) from his family”. This way of understanding the Talmud applies just as well to a non-Jewish migrant who left family, friends and colleagues behind as it does to a convert.
The Sefer Hachinuch The Chinnukh (Mitzva 431) expands this prohibition beyond converts: “It is incumbent upon us to learn from this precious commandment to take pity on any person who is in a town or city that is not his native ground and not his ancestral home.  Let us not maltreat him in any way, finding him alone, with those who would aid him quite far from him….
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch states “the rights of humanity and citizenship come not from race, descent, birth, country or property, nor from anything external or due to chance; they emanate simply and purely from the inner spiritual and moral worth of a human being.  This basic principle is further ensured against neglect by the additional motive “for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.”…  your whole misfortune in Egypt was that you were foreigners and aliens there.  As such, according to the views of other nations, you had no right to be there, had no claim to rights of settlement, home or property.  Accordingly, you had no equal rights to invoke against unfair or unjust treatment.  As aliens, you were without any rights in Egypt, and out of that grew all your slavery and wretchedness.  Thus, the Torah admonishes us to avoid making rights in our own state conditional on anything other than the simple humanity which every human being, as such, bears within him.  With any limitation of these human rights, the gate is opened to the whole horror of Egyptian human-rights abuses.
14.    Ibn Ezra on Exodus 22:20, he points out the link between the law of the foreigner alongside laws against the mistreatment of the orphan and widow, all of whom appear to lack protectors or networks.  Ramban also makes the link to mistreatment based on the difference of power.

Compromise

I am sitting on a plane from Perth to Sydney feeling grateful for an amazing week. On Sunday evening, for the first time in the 10 years of seeking to build a partnership between Muslims, Jews and Christians I co-hosted a program in a Mosque with a Shia Muslim Imam. It was a triumph. After so many years needing to respond to the doubts of others, and even my own doubts, about how strongly Muslims favoured this partnership idea we had 600 Muslims show up to an event co-hosted by a Jewish-Christian-Muslim organisation.  I also ran professional development days for over 100 educators in Adelaide and Perth. Walked on a beautiful Indian Ocean coast beach at 5:30 this morning and heard nothing but the waves. Yet, just outside this wonderful silver lining is a little cloud called “Compromise”.

Don’t mention the war

The context is important. The situation in the land called both Israel and Palestine is extremely important. The issues are matters of life and death, terrible loss, humiliation, fear, justice and peace, and a lot more that is beyond the scope of this post. At the same time, there are significant prejudices against both Muslims and Jews in Australia and there is an opportunity to address this prejudice by working together on diversity in general. The event on Sunday night chose to focus on the latter issue rather than the former. It included speakers from various faiths, MP’s and quite a few Jewish, Christian and other non-Muslim guests. Being the end of a major Jewish fast day (9^th of Av) as well as an evening during Ramadan both Jews and Muslims present broke their fasts together after dark sitting on the floor together. Participants loved it, the vibe in the room and the chatter on Facebook afterwards was overflowing with positive sentiment.

Socialising with Evil

People on both sides of the Arab Israeli conflict have been concerned about interacting with people they saw as justifying evil. One accomplished writer wrote this week about an event like ours (or perhaps it was ours) that she felt compromised by sharing polite conversation with people who advocated on behalf of one side in the conflict. Others chose to avoid the event altogether rather than be in the company or imply approval of people whose views they saw as abhorrent.

While I personally would prioritise the benefit that could be created in Australia through interaction, there are people I would not be prepared to associate with either. I respect the view of people who don’t want to compromise themselves by associating with those they see as evil[i] and appreciate they might have different views to me about who should be avoided.

Heartbreaking Compromise

The theme of Compromise appears in our Torah reading this week, when God warns the people of Israel that if they develop hubris[ii] “and become religiously corrupted, creating an image… then God will scatter you among the nations and there you will worship Gods which are the handiwork of people, wood and stone[iii]”. This outcome is a very severe punishment for a people who passionately advocated Monotheism.  “As a result of their terrible suffering, many Jews, the Torah foretells, will be brought to forced conversions, worshipping idols but knowing full well that they are made of wood and stone…this would constitute the climax of their suffering – to be inwardly aware of their true faith and have to pay lip service to idols…[iv]”. This is a powerful articulation of the soul destroying nature of being compromised.  

Intention

The road to hell might be paved with good intentions, yet I think intent still matters. When a person kills another by accident, the Torah is concerned about whether or not the killer hated the victim[v]. If there was no hatred the killer can escape to the safety of a city of refuge. I think the sincerity of people who hold views other find abhorrent should be taken into account. In some cases it is not a callous indifference to the rights of the victims but a belief in a set of arguments that mitigate the severity of the harmful acts of those they support.

Impact

It would seem to me that the benefits of interaction outweigh the downside. If things will ever change, surely interaction can also help that happen. Certainly in my experience my view of the conflict has become far better informed, my understanding of and concern about the perspective of the other side greatly developed through interaction.

Inspiration from people in the conflict itself

Another factor to consider is the amazing example set by people living with the conflict. Most inspiringly, there is a group of bereaved parents from both sides of the conflict who come together.  If they can do it there, surely people thousands of kilometres away can also interact.

Compromise as a positive

I think we also need to consider the positive connotations of the word ‘compromise’ which can be very helpful in creating peace. We are taught, “A person should always be as soft as a reed and not as hard as a cedar[vi]”. The Torah teaches us to “do that which is upright and good in eyes of God[vii]”. This interpreted as advocating for going beyond the letter of the law and insisting on rights, instead going with compromise[viii].

---

[i] This principle is reflected in the verse, “one who justifies the wicked, or condemns the righteous-both are an abomination to the Lord (Proverbs 17:15). In Jewish law this principle is expressed in the prohibition against flattery of evil doers (Chanifa). If someone violates certain prohibitions it is forbidden to give them honour or do anything that might imply approval of their deeds. An example of this is a wealthy donor who is involved in domestic violence. An organisation that would give him honour at their fundraising event would be in breach of the laws against Chanifa/flattery. (Ehrman Rabbi A (2002), the Laws of Interpersonal Relations, Artscroll Brooklyn, NY, based on Shaarei Teshuva 3:187-199). One who justifies the wicked, or condemns the righteous-both are an abomination to the Lord.

[ii] The word in the text is “vnoshantem” which is translated by Unkelus as “you will become old in the land” which interpreted by Daat Zekainim Mbaalei Hatosafot as “you will say we have already been settled in the land, there will not be more anger (from God) or destruction, I hereby set heaven and earth which last for ever as witnesses against you that you will indeed be destroyed

[iii] Deuteronomy 4:25-28

[iv] Abarbanel, cited in Lebovitz, N, Studies in Devarim Deuteronomy p.53

[v] Deuteronomy 4:42

[vi] Talmud, Taanis 20b

[vii] Deuteronomy 6:18

[viii] Rashi

Appeasement

I hate confrontation.

I have no desire to argue with the airline that left my suitcase in Perth two days ago, now containing stinking spoiled Kosher hotdogs and “off” yoghurt that I bought for a Chabad Rabbi living in Adelaide. Or course, I should pluck up the courage and demand compensation for the damage caused by their incompetence.  It is surely problematic, in the grand scheme of things, to support the fight against the most evil but be too squeamish to fight ourselves[1]. I wonder what our tradition teaches us about appeasement vs. standing up and fighting. Some Jewish teachings for and against appeasement can be found in the case of Jacob’s humble or humiliating approach to his brother Esau[2], twenty years after having tricked their father to give him the blessings originally intended for Esau[3].

The Scene

Jacob had escaped to Haran when Easu’s thoughts turned to murdering him as soon as Isaac died[4]. Despite twenty years passing. Jacob was still afraid of Esau’s anger. He send messengers telling them exactly what to say to my master Esau. He is so keen to flatter Esau’s ego that he models subservience to his messengers[5], to be sure that the posture is absolutely clear to them[6]. By custom the first born was treated almost like a parent, when Jacob repeatedly refers to Esau as “my master” he implies that he completely relinquishes his claims to the right of the first born that Esau had sold him for a pot of lentils[7]. It brings to mind a snide comment about Jewish-Palestinian dialogue, “they accuse, we apologise”. My limited observations and experience of this dialogue is that it is about seeking to understand each others stories and experiences, yet the comment reflects the reluctance to give any ground in pursuit of positive relationships.

One View. “God: Jacob was wrong”

One classic source has God saying to Jacob “you lowered yourself by referring to Esau as my master eight times, by your life!, I will raise up 8 kings among the descendents of Esaue before your children will have any kings[8]. In another source[9]

 God is upset about Jacob’s submissiveness, because “I said the older will serve the younger”[10].  

Long Term Damage of Appeasement or Is that of Assertiveness?

A later commentary sees a sign of things to come in Jacobs’ deference to Esau for what would happen in subsequent generations. We began our own defeat by the Edom/Rome because of the Hasmonean kings seeking a pact with the Romans[11].

While seeking the favour of the Romans might have started our defeat. It was in fact the reckless, extremist, pedantic standing up to Rome that sealer our fate. One case related to the custom that when a boy was born they would plant a cedar tree and when a girl was born to plant a pine tree, and when they married, the tree was cut down and a canopy made of the branches. One day the daughter of the Emperor was passing when the shaft of her litter broke, so they lopped some branches off a cedar tree and brought it to her. The Jews thereupon fell upon them and beat them[12]. In another case, a sacrifice offering from the emperor was rejected on a technicality. In the end when the Romans laid siege to Jerusalem the guidance of the sage Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai was ignored, instead a desperate and futile battle was fought by tiny Judea against Rome[13].  

Alternative View

The same source that  brings us critical views of Jacob also offers an opposite perspective[14]. Rabbi Judah the President[15], said to his secretary Rabbi Efes, “write a letter from me to the master, the King Antoninus (Pius?[16]). So Efes wrote a letter and signed it from Judah the President to the Master King Antoninus. Rabbi Judah took the letter, read it and tore it up. “Write to the master, King Antoninus from Judah your servant”. Effes replied ,but Rabbi, why are you degrading your honour. Rabbi Judah told him, “how am I better than my grandfather (Jacob) who said so shall you say to my master Esau. Another source also praised Jacob’s humility[17].

The Argument continues in the Aftermath of a Bloodbath

The merits of assertiveness and even aggression vs. appeasement plays out even more dramatically after Jacob’s sons kill the whole city of Shchem in revenge for the rape of their sister Dina. Jacob is concerned about the repercussions of this violence, but his sons assert, “Should they make our sister into a prostitute?![18]”  Jacob is silent in the face of this emotive, battle cry retort. What was he supposed to say, “yes, I think it doesn’t matter that my daughter and your sister was raped”. Only years later at the end of Jacobs life does he curse their anger and show disapproval again about this episode[19].

Conclusion

The wisdom of the ages tells us that there are pitfalls with appeasement, yet there is also great wisdom in it. Neville Chamberlain’s portrait can hang on the walls of all war enthusiasts because of his role in discrediting appeasement. Yet, I would argue that not every trigger happy, evil, despotic nut-job is a Hitler. I guess, I should fight with the airline for my money, but more broadly, careful consideration of the pros and cons of each choice is needed.

“Everything has an appointed season, and there is a time for every matter under the heaven… A time to kill and a time to heal; a time to break and a time to build… a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing... a time to keep and a time to cast away… a time to be silent and a time to speak…A time to love and a time to hate; a time for war and a time for peace[20].

---

[1] Judah L Magnes, a leading Pacifist during WWI. Wrote to Ghandi in 1939, “ I know I would pray with all my heart for the defeat of the Hitler inhumanity; and am I then to stand aside and let others do the fighting? During the last war I prayed for a peace without defeat or victory. The answer given by Romain Rolland in his little book Par la revolution la paix (1935), seems to be, that while he himself as an individual continues to refuse to bear arms, he will do everything he can to help his side (in this case, Russia) to win the war. That is hardly a satisfying answer.” http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/writings_online/articles/gandhi_jews_palestine.html#Letter from Judah L. Magnes to Gandhi, February 26, 1939

[2] Genesis 32:4-33:15

[3] Genesis 27

[4] Genesis 27:41, Esau either delayed his plan to kill Jacob out of his respect for his father, or perhaps did not want to repeat the mistake of Cain, who still had to split his inheritance despite the murder of Abel because their father had another son Seth. (Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel)

[5] Ramban

[6] Ibn Ezra

[7] Ramban

[8] Beresheet Rabba 75:2

[9] Daat Zekainim Mebaalei Hatosafot

[10] Genesis 25:23

[11] Ramban

[12] Talmud Gittin 57a

[13] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/ben_zakkai.html

[14] Beresheet Rabba 75

[15] often referred to as Rabbi Judah the prince, in Hebrew it is Rabbi Judah Hanasi, probably better translated as president than prince.

[16] “A. Mischcon, Abodah Zara, p.10a Soncino, 1988. Mischcon cites various sources, "SJ Rappaport... is of opinion that our Antoninus is Antoninus Pius." Other opinions cited suggest "Antoninus" was Caracalla, Lucius Verus or Alexander Severus”. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoninus_Pius#cite_note-30

[17] Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer parsha 10, 182

[18] Genesis 34

[19] Genesis 49:5

[20] Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

Purity is over-rated! On leaving “moral home”: Vayetze

I found the Australian Peter Slipper drama really interesting but I am not game to comment on that. More broadly it is an opportunity to discuss  questions about integrity. Here are my thoughts.

To compromise my beliefs and values, even for a good aim is wrong, is dangerous and would destroy me. Keeping faith with those who trust me is a matter of the highest priority and a religious obligation. Yet, there are low-priority spiritual preferences and ideals that I  think I should sacrifice. I was raised on the Chabad² idea of leaving our spiritual home neighbourhood to reach out to less religious Jews. In my current role, I had a school principal tell me that  she would be more impressed with our message of harmony³  if “it wasn't a business”, clearly if no money was involved our moral message would be purer, for the small number of people who hear it. However, by accepting money for my educational work, I am able to devote all the time I would need to spend on feeding my family to the noble cause I care about. Less pure, but more practical and more benefit created.

Jacob, the wholesome man, dragged “crying and bent” by his mother into his first act of deception, leaves the holy land, his holy parents' home and ventures out to badlands of Aram. First he stops and prays⁴. He surrounds his head with rocks, either to protect himself practically, or it is suggested to set hard boundaries around his mind, to protect it from getting too involved with matters threatening his spiritual purity⁵. Then he dreams, of divine angels, and wakes up to declare, wow! God was in this place, and I did not know it. He learns to find God in this most unlikely of places⁶. He further tries to protect himself, making a deal with God and erecting a tangible rock monument of his commitment. Then he plunges in.

His step is light, he is said to be carrying his legs⁷, confident in God's protection, clear in his purpose, spirit in the pilots seat, unlike people facing uncertainty where their “legs carry them”.

He puts up a good fight. On arrival he speaks out against shepherds who seem to be cheating their employer, “the day is still long, it is not time to gather the flocks, give your sheep some drink and go take your sheep to pasture⁸.” Overflowing with enthusiasm, he works for 7 years for the right to marry the beautiful woman he loves, but it feels like a few days in his love for her⁹. The shine starts to come off, when he is duped by his uncle Laban into marrying Leah, the sister of his beloved. He is then given a verbal kick by his cruel uncle/now father-in-law, “it is not done this way in our place, to give the younger before the older”. Laban's implication is that 'we are not like you, the younger brother, who usurps his older brothers Esau's blessings', we are better than that ¹⁰. Jacob must work another 7 years to marry Rachel in addition to Leah.

We are told that Leah was “hated¹¹” by Jacob, perhaps he suspected her motives in deceiving him when he saw signs of barrenness in her.¹² His anger, eventually flares up with Rachel after she is jealous of her sister having children, and she demands “give me children, otherwise I will die”. A 13^th century commentator, suggests that Rachel talked “in the way of longing of beloved women to scare him with her death¹³”. Jacob tells his wives, Laban's daughters, that he was swindled by their father Laban “changing the work agreement ten times”. He engages in creative practices to try get a fair deal, and eventually runs away from Laban, who pursues him and heaps more criticism on Jacob, “what did you do?!...leading my daughters as captives of the sword¹⁴”.

Yet, Jacob, later named Israel, succeeds in the end, raising a family with 13 children loyal to his values and way of life, he even keeps faith with Laban whom he serves loyally and with great integrity, as he tells Laban "by day scorching heat consumed me, and frost by night; my sleep drifted from my eyes" in his work caring for Laban's sheep. Jacob ends his life with his best days surrounded by great grandchildren and his descendants are known as the “children of Israel”.

"It is not the critic who counts:

not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles

or where the doer of deeds could have done better.

The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena,

whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood,

who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again,

because there is no effort without error or shortcoming,

but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions,

who spends himself for a worthy cause;

who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement,

and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly,

so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls

who knew neither victory nor defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

2 Chabad, is a Jewish religious movement and tradition that encourages adherents to leave religious enclaves for the purpose of promoting Torah generally, it's spiritual teachings and related practices.

3 www.togetherforhumanity.org.au

4 Rashi on Genesis 28:11

5 The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi MM Schneerson (1964), Likutei Sichot Volume 1, Vayetze p.61.

6 Michelle, M. Parent of a girl with Cerebral Palsy, in remarks celebrating her daughters successful Bat Mitzvah.

7 Genesis 29:1, Rashi and Seforno

8 Genesis 29:7

9 Genesis 29:18

10 Nechama Lebovitz

11 Genesis 29:31, following literal text, Oonkelus, Ohr Hachayim, Seforno, Targum Yonatan “she was not loved”

12 Seforno

13 Ramban (born 1194- 1270) on Genesis 30:1

14 Genesis 31:26

“Being Labelled” and Choice. Blood Red Esau & Truthful/Underhanded Jacob

Labels and roles

Growing up as a Chasidic Rabbi's middle child eager to be a good boy and a good student as well as being a bit more in my head than my body led me to think of myself in this way. Perhaps this helped me do the right thing or it made me timid. An example of this is the fact that I would always play black in chess, preferring to react to the other player rather than take the lead. I also remember the hurt, when my sweet Grandfather casually observed that it was easy to find me in a crowded synagogue, because I was the one with my shirt not tucked into my pants. I was the spiritual-Torah-oriented-unworldly good guy, to some extent I still am. What follows is an exploration of the interplay between labels, roles and the lives we live. 

Taciturn-Hunter-Outdoors-man and the Truthful-Wholesome-Indoors-man

Isaac's twin boys, get bigger (turn 13) and their identities emerge strongly. The red haired and/or skinned Esau, becomes “a man who is a knower of trapping/hunting, a man of the field”, Jacob, “a man, Tam, simple¹/wholesome, sitting in tents²”. The knowing-trapping, can mean simply a hunter, but is also associated with deceiving his father³, trapping women from their husbands through seduction or by force⁴, and strangely a quiet man⁵ while his being a man of the field is even interpreted to hint at his being a “killer of souls (in the field) as he killed king Nimrod and his son”⁶. The word Tam which describes Jacob, is the same word that describes the simple son at the Passover Seder. It can mean “One not expert in all these things, as is in his heart so is his mouth”, one who is complete, unable to lie and even monogamous⁷.

The labels are jarring for those of us immersed in a world view that values self esteem, frowns on typecasting children and seeks to see good in everyone.

Jacobs “truth”?

Jacob's Mr. Truth identity, sits uncomfortably with his impersonation of his brother and deception of his father to score blessings, his unusual deal making and breeding practices with Laban's sheep⁸ and finally setting up an arrangement with his brother to travel slowly then to see him in Seir⁹ which he had no intention of following through with in his life time.

Esau – good potential?

Esau, would seem to have no chance. His characterization as being born red, is understood to be astrologically related to “Mazal Maadim”, literally red-luck, relating to the planet Mars, which is a strong predictor for blood shed. In fact our sages tell us that if someone is born under that star they should become a Shochet – ritual slaughterer to channel their blood spilling nature. There is the rub, while there are elements of our nature that could be bad, they don't need to be. Esau is encouraged by his father to hunt for food and channel the harsher elements of his nature. In fact our tradition sees Esau as being outstanding in his honoring his father, Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel going so far as “all my days I would serve my father, but I have not served even 1/100^th as well as Esau served his father¹⁰. R. Shimon explains that while he would serve his parents in dirty clothes but change into clean clothes when going to the market, Esau would put on his nicest clothes to serve his father as a mark of respect. 

Strange Love?- like father like son

Esau who seen as a villain in Jewish tradition, manages to earn at least one of his parents' love, Isaac loved Esau, because he brought game to his mouth, and Rebbecca loves Jacob. Going beyond the simple meaning that Esau simply bribed his father, we are told that “every type loves his type”^11. I wonder if this similarity can be partly explained by their both being men of few words, following the commentary above that Esau was a “quiet man”, the word count for Isaac's “speaking parts” is 29 words for his life, except for his dying day (compared to Abraham's 436 words – apart from the last episode in his life story). This fits with the idea that Isaac represented “Gevura” which literally means strength but relates to judgment, harshness but also restraint. This essential nature could have been channeled to positive ends, Esau could not be a Jacob but he could be a brilliant Esau.

Straight shooter learns new tricks

Jacob the man of truth, does a fair bit of deception when he deals with the real world. In fact, he learns the skills of cheating to the extent that he declares, “if Laban comes for swindling than I am also his brother in swindling, but if he is a Kosher man...”

Reluctant Deceiver- hoping to get caught

The puzzle of why Jacob pretends to be Esau is dealt with Brilliantly by S.R. Hirsh. Still, how could Jacob be held up as representing truth? Curiously, when Jacob says to his mother perhaps my father will discover my ruse¹², the word is used is Ulai, the more obvious word would be Pen which means lest. This is interpreted as Jacob hoping he would be caught¹³. The Midrash comments on the fact that Jacob is dressed by his mother with the hairy costume¹⁴ (Jacob) went, took and brought it to his mother, forced, bowed and crying”.¹⁵ Perhaps Jacob is the man of the truth, because he fought to maintain truth and integrity like no other, with the result not always pretty.

Liberation in surrender?

I think the key here is about choice, while we do not choose the essential elements of our character which perhaps we are born with and that we absorb from our surroundings, we choose how to manage these elements. As Jacob later wrestles with Esau's guardian angel, the angel asks him what is your name?- what is your nature? “Jacob”, he replies. He owns up to the truth about himself 'I am the supplanter, the underhanded one'¹⁶. The angel tells him his name is no longer Jacob, but Israel. The champion who strives and struggles with men and the Godly and wins. By recognizing his own nature and admitting it, he is able to transcend it, at least for that moment, only to fall back into old patterns, and rise again. Oh, and more recently I have begun to play the white side in chess, at least some of the time.

1Rashi.

2Genesis 25:27

3Rashi, Midrash Tanchuma

4Klai Yakar

5Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel as interpreted by Pirush Yonatan in Mikraot Gedolot, Genesis 25:27

6Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel

7Rashi, Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel, Klai Yakar respectively.

8Genesis 30:29

9Genesis 33:14

10Devarim Rabba 1, Yalkut Shimoni

11Zohar- in Artscroll Genesis VolII, page 1011

12Genesis 27:12

13Haksav Vkaballa in Artscroll Genesis VolII, page 1025

14Genesis 27:17

15Beresheet Rabba, Toldot, 65

16Insight taught to be by Donna Jacobs Sife, also in Nechama Liebowitz who cites unnamed others