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

A Sermon for my Son, Negotiation of Emotions, Tasks and Relationships

Yesterday my son Nachman celebrated his Bar Mitzvah by being called to the Torah and reading from it. This is an edited version of the Sermon I delivered.

Nachman is still within the first week of being a commanded Jewish man, this is a special time. I remember my own Bar Mitzvah. It was a holy, almost magical moment, when I was acutely aware that everything I did mattered.

Doing Right

I cared a lot then, about doing the right thing then, I still do. This is something I learned from my parents, not from their words but from their example and I hope I can pass on to you. The idea that what matters most is not just to be happy but to do what is right.

Skilled Debater and Negotiator

Nachman, one of your many qualities is your ability to argue a point, whether in the Talmud or in day to day negotiations or debates. It is fitting that the Torah reading this week includes various negotiations. The affirmative argument I propose is that negotiation needs to be conducted in an assertive but gracious and principled, manner, even if you think the other party might not deserve it. In Hebrew this is called, Chein, in English it is called Grace. This sometimes includes searching our own hearts about our motives.  Nachman will need to negotiate at least three important matters as a commanded Jewish man. These include; emotions, tasks and relationships.

Missing/Shrunken Letters

In debating, one strategy is to make it easy for people to follow the arguments. In this talk there is a common thread in that many of my arguments will draw on hints in the Torah text, missing letters or even a shrunken letter in some words. These variations reduce the force of the particular word.

Negotiating Emotion

As you travel on life’s journey you will have many feelings. These will include feeling like taking a break when the task is particularly challenging or boring. Boredom for the 21^st century adolescent is of course a dreadful feeling that is only slightly worse than torture. Come’on, get a grip! Seriously, though managing emotions is not always easy.

Restrained Grief

In the Torah reading, we read about a far more serious emotion, grief. Abraham lost his wife and closest collaborator on a mission impossible of promoting belief in one God in a world of idol worship. Abraham cries for Sarah[i]. Yet, there are two strange things about the Hebrew word Livkota, לבכתה to cry for her. One of its letters is in much smaller size than the rest of the word and it is missing the letter Vav. These variations are hint that Abraham as a scholar was restrained in his crying[ii], at least publicly.

Was this a good thing? In this particular case, it is disputed, some opinions praise Abraham for his restraint[iii] while others criticize him for not crying enough to properly honour Sarah[iv]. These opinions teach us that there are times to express our emotions fully and not hold back, but in other situations it is useful to restrain ourselves. It is also not easy to decide when to express emotion and when to hold back. A central idea of Chabad teaching is the concept that the mind rules the heart. Our feelings are “the children” of our thoughts[v]. We are called to think in a disciplined way to guide our feelings, rather than allow our feelings to guide our thoughts.

Grace in Dealing with a Dishonourable Negotiator

With his dead wife still not even buried yet.  Abraham is a model of restraint and grace when he negotiates with the local people for a grave for his wife.  Again we find the theme of missing letters. The seller’s name, Efron עפרון, is spelled without the letter Vav עפרן  , so that it can be read as  Afrn[vi], related to the word for soil as if he was talking with dust in his mouth.  He talked as if he would give the grave away for free[vii], but in the end asked for an outrageous sum of money. 400 huge gold coins that could be used in any country, so it could be passed to any merchant[viii].

Abraham bows repeatedly, he does not show annoyance, or anger, he bows, and he pays without complaint. The opposite of grace, is to begrudge giving anything to another person unless there is absolutely no choice, and then it is given with a grouchy face. Abraham is said to have “a good eye[ix]”, he is generous, and is a class act. There a certainly times in our lives when this is correct approach.   

Assertiveness

In negotiating life’s challenges, there are few rules that apply to every situation. While in some cases it is best to bow and give in without complaining, there are other situations where we must stand our ground. We find the servant of Abraham, Eliezer on a mission to find a wife for his master’s son, even refuses to eat any food before speaking his words[x].  He also refuses to accept any delays to his agenda and insists on getting what he set out to get when he wants it. There are times when this is right, particularly when dealing with the untrustworthy Laban who our tradition calls Laban the swindler.

Trust

In contrast to Laban, Eliezer himself enjoys the absolute trust of his master, who allowed him to rule all that he owned[xi] and even trusted him with organising the marriage of his son. This is particularly impressive when we consider that Eliezer was a Canaanite who Abraham would have thought of as a cursed people[xii] based on the deeds of his ancestor Canaan the son of Ham.  Abraham clearly puts those matters aside and develops absolute trust in his Canaanite slave.

Negotiation about Tasks

One issue that tests the degree to which young men are trusted relates to negotiating tasks and timing, especially those tasks they would like to avoid. Abraham’s Servant Eliezer's negotiated with him about the task of finding a wife for his son Isaac. Abraham wants his servant to bring a foreign wife from his home country and tribe[xiii]”. Again, we have another missing letter in the servant Eliezer’s response to the request. “Oolai”  אוליwhat if she will not want to come? Eliezer asks, but the word is spelled without the letter Vav, so the word can be read as Alai, אלי- to me[xiv]. This interpreted as a hint that Eliezer was hoping that his mission will be a failure, and instead the match with his master’s son will come to him by marrying Eliezer’s own daughter. This demonstrates the need to be aware of our own motives when taking a position or making an argument in a negotiation. Because Eliezer had such a high level of personal integrity which according to this teaching included introspection, he earns the trust of his master. Abraham gives in to Eliezer and modifies the agreement about the task he assigned Eliezer, which further reflects Abraham’s trust in Eliezer and his flexibility with a person he trusts.

Love Built Over time

Isaac, Abraham’s son and the wife found for him by his father’s servant, Rebecca also needed to negotiate their emotions.  In their case the Torah tells us the sequence of events. First it tells us that Isaac brought Rebecca into his tent and married her and only after that does it tell us that loved her[xv].

They did not fall in love. Rebecca fell alright, off the camel she was riding. One explanation for the fall was that she saw him, a tall confident man walking in a field off the beaten path and she thought he was a gangster[xvi]. She fell of the camel in fright! Not exactly love at first sight. But the Torah teaches us that they actively developed their love for each other by the things they did, said and did not say over many years.

So Nachman, you have been blessed to be surrounded by a loving family, friends and community. If you think about the love you feel for your cute little baby brother Tuvia, and handsome brother Levi, you might notice that your love grows through the loving things you do, the imaginative play, or other ways you help both of them.   The choices you make in doing the right thing by all of them and all the people you will have the opportunity to interact with will determine whether you win or lose the main game of negotiating life as a commanded Jewish man.

---

[i] Genesis 23:2

[ii] Ner Haskalim manuscript, Pirush R. Y of Vienna, cited in Torah shlaima p. 922,  point 22

[iii] Drashas Even Shuiv, cited in Torah shlaima

[iv] Pirush R. Y of Vienna, cited in Torah shlaima

[v] Tanya

[vi] Genesis 23:16

[vii] Genesis 23:11

[viii] Genesis 23:15-16

[ix] Pirkey Avot 5:19

[x] Genesis 24:33

[xi] Genesis 24:2

[xii] See Rashi to 24:39

[xiii] Genesin 24:3-4

[xiv] Rashi 24:39. Interestingly, although the story is told twice in the Torah (Genesis 24:5 & 24:39), the variation of the spelling only appears in the text when he retells the story after finding Rebecca (24:39) and his conflict of interest is no longer a practical issue. This demonstrates that ulterior motives are very difficult to spot in the moment, but, they could be easier to spot once the situation is no longer practical. (this insight is from Rabbi Mendel of Kotzk)

[xv] Genesis 24:67

[xvi] Chizkuni

“We are the Good Ones”, Lot/Lut & Abraham – & the Jewish Muslim Relationship

Today, Oct 26, Muslims will be celebrating Eid Al Adha. The first religious conflict I ever became aware of between Jews and Muslims relates to this commemoration of Abraham’s nearly sacrificing his son. The Torah states that the son was Isaac, while Muslims insist it was Ishmael. Hasidic bridge builder, Lee Weisman demonstrates an impressive ability to find commonality within difference by focusing on the core meaning of this ultimate expression of devotion by Abraham and God’s mercy in preventing the sacrifice from going ahead. He also acknowledges the difference respectfully[i]. His blog www.abrahamstent.com is an impressive example of a journey in respect and coexistence.

   

Debating whose ancestor was ‘the great one’ is not useful, and I am pleased not to have noticed any arguments about this recently.  One of the least useful dynamics in interpersonal relationships is the attempt to position oneself as “the good one”, this often but not always also involves positioning the other as the bad one. The fight to be positioned on the pedestal can be bitter and intense. It is as if our value as human beings depends on it.

Sure, we all are happy to say that we are not perfect. Still, some of us seem extremely determined to deny certain flaws, or to attribute a large portion of blame to others. Our willingness to acknowledge our own faults and manage them makes us better people. Yet, to be focused on negativity can make us depressed and lose hope[ii]. We must balance honest self-criticism with fully appreciating our positive points[iii] and there is little value in berating ourselves. Similarly, we can take a dual approach to our iconic figures, preserve a positive image of them, even considering some generous explanations of their faults but not deny them. A generous approach is also useful when portraying the “representative” figure of the “other”.

Portrayals of Biblical Figures: “ours good”?

Within my “ultra-orthodox” environment there is a pattern of interpretation which portrays Abraham as perfect or nearly perfect, in sharp contrast to his nephew Lot who is denigrated and to an extent his eldest son Ishmael. This becomes more interesting when considering the fact that while Abraham is considered Jewish, the others are classified as not being Jewish[iv]. I must strongly quality and contextualize the issue, there is plenty of criticism of Jewish biblical figures in the Torah and even Moses is harshly reprimanded. Yet, the contrast between some portrayals of Abraham and others around his time interests me.

Lot/Lut Sinner or Prophet?

Let us begin with Lot (Lut in Arabic) the nephew of Abraham, who I was surprised to learn is considered a completely righteous prophet in Islam, calling the people of Sodom to repent[v]. While the Torah sees the sins of Sodom primarily about hostility to outsiders and cruelty to travellers partly motivated by greed[vi], Jewish sources see Lot prioritising financial opportunity over morality in his choice to live in Sodom. “And Lot raised his eyes, and he saw the entire plain of the Jordan, that it was entirely watered… Lot dwelt in the cities of the plain, and he pitched his tents until Sodom… And the people of Sodom were very evil and sinful against the Lord[vii]”. Despite the evil of the people, Lot did not desist from living with them[viii].

Inner Strength and Loyalty

I was delighted when I found an alternative view in the commentary of Rabbi David Kimchi, known as Radak (which had been hidden away for 600 years then found among manuscripts in the royal French library in Paris)[ix]. In his view Lot was not concerned about the nature of the people because he was “so strong in his faith and decency that he did not learn from their ways[x]”. In fact, Lot goes on to eagerly welcome strangers[xi] if defiance of the sodomite xenophobic sentiment and policies. Radak also highlights Lot’s loyalty to Abraham and God when he leaves his grandfather to go with Abraham on his journey from their ‘land, birthplace and family’[xii] and again when he leaves the plenty of Egypt to return to the famine afflicted Canaan because  he did not want to part from Abraham[xiii].

Offering daughter for Rape?

One of the most shocking moments in the life of Lot is when he offers his daughters to a mob to be raped, when they demand he hand over his guests. Lot pleads: “Behold now I have two daughters who were not intimate with a man. I will bring them out to you, and do to them as you see fit; only to these men do nothing, because they have come under the shadow of my roof[xiv]." One source ridicules Lot, “It is customary that a man would allow himself to be killed for his daughters and his wife, he would either kill or be killed and this one hands over his daughters to be toyed with, the Holy One Blessed Be He said to him, by your life (I swear), for himself he is keeping them, and in the end children at school will laugh when they read Lot’s daughters became pregnant from their father[xv]”.   

This portrayal of Lot is quite disturbing. Again there are alternative approaches. One praises him for this terrible sacrifice. Lot is compared to Moses who was prepared to sacrifice himself and Lot is prepared to sacrifice his precious daughters to protect his guests[xvi]. Perhaps more satisfying is the view that Lot was bluffing, with a preposterous offer, that the mob would have known was not serious. Like a person who says ‘my house is open, take whatever you want’…knowing that he won’t do it[xvii]”.

Perfect Abraham & Sarah?

The virtues of Abraham are strongly present in the Torah. He is even called to be “Tamim[xviii]” which could be translated as complete.  Yet, some commentaries criticise him and Sarah for the way they dealt with the conflict between Sarah and Abraham’s second wife. Hagar loses respect for her former mistress Sarah, when Hagar becomes pregnant[xix], while Sarah remains childless. Hagar claims that Sarah could not possibly be as good as she portrays herself to be, because if she was so good she would be rewarded with a child[xx].  “Sarah afflicted Hagar, and both her deeds and Abrahams complicity with them as deemed sinful[xxi].

Conclusion

Rabbi Mendel of Kotzk said: “there is nothing as whole as a broken heart”, in that same spirit we could say there is nothing as beautiful as an imperfect human being who makes ethical choices and do some decent things despite their human frailties. There is no need to denigrate the iconic figures representing the other to make our heroes look greater in contrast to them. We have options in the way we interpret out texts and the portrayal of its characters, which includes seeing them in a more positive light as well acknowledging their flaws and faults. We need to resist the temptation to focus on the negatives in the other, and instead focus much more on that which brings us together.

---

[i] http://www.abrahamstent.com/2012/10/22/jewish-thoughts-on-eid-al-adha/

[ii] Tanya Chapter 1 explores this dilemma

[iii] Rabbi Y. Y. Schneerson, the 6^th Lubavitcher Rebbe teaches that just as it is wrong to deny our faults, it is equally wrong to deny our positive abilities.

[iv] This theme was brought to my attention by a Dvar Torah by Suart Klamen, on http://www.facebook.com/groups/120282318015774/permalink/456404577736878/

[v] “Behold, their brother Lut said to them: “Will ye not fear (Allah)? I am to you a messenger worthy of all trust. So fear Allah and obey me… Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!”

They said: “If thou desist not, O Lut! thou wilt assuredly be cast out!”

He said: “I do detest your doings.” (Surat ash-Shuara: 160-168)
We also (sent) Lut: He said to his people: “Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.”

And his people gave no answer but this: they said, “Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!” (Surat al-Araf: 80-82)
Translation from ww.islamicity.com/science/QuranAndScience/destruction/GeneratedFilesnoframe/ThePeopleofLutandTheCitywhichwasTurnedUpsideDown.htm

[vi] http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/search?q=Sodom my post about the sin of Sodom in its treatment of outsiders

[vii] Genesis 13:10-13

[viii] Rashi

[ix] Title page of Pressburg Edition 1842, reprinted 2006

[x] Radak

[xi] Genesis 19:1-3

[xii] Genesis 12:1-5

[xiii] Genesis 13:1 and Radak commentary, these views also plays out in the different views of Lot in the commentary about a quarrel between the shepherds of Abraham and Lot (Genesis 13:5-7). The Midrash explains that there was a major argument about grazing their animals on private Canaanite lands, with Lot’s people justifying it and Abraham’s staff strict about avoiding theft and this argument also involving Lot and Abraham themselves (Bereshit Rabba 41).  Another view is that this was really about Lot abandoning his faith in God to return to the idol worship practiced by the Canaanite and Perizite people (Zohar 84a and other sources).  Radak again has a more positive view of Lot. He explains that the dispute was simply about finding sufficient grazing for their ample livestock. 

[xiv] Genesis 19:7

[xv] Midrash Tanchuma, Vayera 12, in fact he does sleep with them when they are convinced they are the only survivors after the apocalyptic destruction of Sodom

[xvi] Pirkey Drabbi Eliezer 25

[xvii] Rabbenu Chananel, quoted in Drashat Even Shuiv, cited in Torah Shlaima p.794, note 44

[xviii] Genesis 17:1

[xix] Genesis 16:4-6

[xx] Rashi

[xxi] Ramban to Genesis 16:6