Shame, Pride & Striving: the case of Reuben Jacob-son

There seems to be a little of Prince Charles in the Torah's Reuben, in that he is destined for greatness¹ but never seems to get there. 

He is conceived, not in an act of love between his father and mother, but in a case of mistaken identity² in which his father loved his aunt Rachel and thought his mother was her sister.

Just after he is born his mother named him Reuben, which literally means “look (in the plural) a son!” Because she said, “because God saw my pain, as now my husband will love me³”. There seems to be something tragic in the only comment a mother makes about her baby son is about his potential to help her with her loveless marriage. Her desperation for Jacob's love and deep sadness about this is expressed in the names of her 2^nd, 3^rd and 6^th children born in Reuben's formative years, Shimon: “because God heard that I was hated”, Levi “now, this time my husband will be attached to me”, Zebulun, “this time my husband will dwell with me”.

His name is also interpreted as his mother declaring 'look at the difference between my son and the son of my father in law (eg. Esau, the son of Isaac)'. Esau sold his birthright (status of being first-born) to Jacob but then hated him, whereas my son had his birthright taken from his against his will and given to Joseph yet he was not jealous of him and on the contrary he sought to save him from his brothers⁴. While Leah takes pride in her sons moral character, it is stated in relation to his being her son as he compares with that of her father in law.

Reuben is next encountered bringing some type of plant called “Dudaiim⁵” (mandrakes or Jasmin) for his mother. One reason given for this offering was that Reuben saw that his mother was upset that she stopped giving birth (after her fourth child) so he brought his mother this plant which was believed to be either a fertility drug or an aphrodisiac⁶. The Dudaim, are requested by his aunt Rachel and leads to an argument between his mother and her sister. “is it a small matter, your taking my husband, now you will take these Dudaiim of my son⁷?” A deal is struck in which Jacob will sleep with Leah that night instead of Rachel. At what point does Reuben leave the scene?

Reuben's next big moment as the oldest of his brothers, one would assume, would come in the brother's response to the rape and abduction of their sister Dina. Jacob, takes a back seat to his sons who violently deal with their outrage about it. Reuben is not mentioned in this story, instead it is Shimon & Levi who lead and drive the terrible drama.

Instead, Reuben appears in a cryptic incident following Rachel's death and Jacob moving his bed from its permanent place in Rachel's tent to his concubine Bilha's tent. “When his father lived in that land, Reuben went and slept with Bilhah, his father's concubine”. There are arguments about whether this is to be taken literally⁸,  one view being that he merely interfered in the sexual life of Bilhah, by removing his fathers bed from her tent and putting it in his mother's tent to claim his mothers embarrassment as being a secondary wife. Other views are the Reuben merely put egg white on her Bilha's bed to make it appear that something more happened, but Jacob saw through the lie or alternatively that he slept in Bilha's bed⁹.

Reuben was filled with great remorse about whatever happened with Bilhah and fasted many fasts. This well intentioned fasting, leads to one of the saddest cries of Reuben's life. Biblical, Reuben, intends to save Joseph but does not challenge the 'group-think' of his brothers that Joseph must die. He works within the consensus, suggests a compromise, hoping to fix it later. He then goes off, occupied with his sackcloth and his fasting for the his sin (relating to Bilha/his father). Only to return to see that Joseph is gone. “and I, where will I come?” He will never feel at home again, haunted by his timid choice. (For anyone who read The Kite Runner, think of the deep shame and guilt of the main character).

In later years Reuben offers his two children should be killed if he fails to protect, Benjamin who is Rachel and Jacobs only remaining son. His offer is rebuffed by Jacob. It is interpreted as if Jacob is saying “an idiot of an oldest son he is, he says to kill his sons, are his children not my children?!”

In his last 'speaking part' in his life's tragic drama, Reuben castigates his brothers for selling Joseph “did I not say to you, do not sin with the boy and you did not listen, and now his blood is being demanded (we are being held accountable for it)”. He might have wanted to say that, it seems clear that he certainly meant to say that, but he did not quite tell them that. Compare his record of what he told them with his actual words at the time, “let us not kill his soul, do not spill his blood, throw him into this pit in the desert (filled with snakes and scorpions¹⁰) but do not send send your hand against him”.

On his fathers death bed, he is criticized for his impulsiveness and the incident with Bilha.

For me, there are three elements. There is something here about the damaging effect of excess shame and guilt. Reuben would have been more use to Joseph, if he beat himself up a bit less, believed that God has forgiven him out of His abundant forgiveness and lived more joyously¹¹. Leah's almost tragic focus on her terrible situation makes me think more about Jacob's and men's responsibility than hers. I can barely imagine what it would be like for a woman in a polygamous relationship to feel unloved by her husband. There is clearly a message here about men communicating and nurturing a loving relationship, as our tradition warns men about the significance of the tears of a woman. How this would apply to women, I will leave for female scholars to articulate.

Finally the story is about Reuben's inherent decency in spite of his failures and flaws. Not all of us need to be the hero in some real life adaptation of a Hollywood movie, 'riding in to the town on horseback having shot up all the baddies'. Not every life, is about a man overcoming his inhibitions to find greatness and glory. What matters more is recognizing our own flaws and striving to correct them, but also manage and contain them and the sadness and shame they evoke within us and just be a decent human being. In this Reuben succeeds.

1Midrash Beresheet Rabba chap 99.

2Based on Rashi on Beresheet 49:2, Beresheet Rabbah, Zohar, Bereshith, Section 1, Page 176a, cited by Rabbi Ari Kahn, http://rabbiarikahn.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69:reuven&catid=41:vayishlach&Itemid=56 .

3Beresheet, 29:32

4Talmud, Berachot 7b.

5http://www.dudaim.org/ for more about this plant and opportunity to buy dried Dudaim seeds.

6Seforo

7Beresheet 30:15

8Talmud, Shabbat 55a.

9Tosaphot, Hadar Zekainim, quoting Midrash, and a manuscript of Rokeach both cited in Torah Shelaima, Beresheet p1360-1361.

10Rashi

11Tanya Chapter 1 & 26.

The Violence of Silence! v.s. Golden Silence - Rebuke in Vayetze

Ipswich, QLD has not always been known for its tolerance, this was the area that was represented in parliament by Pauline “we will be swamped by Asian's”- Hanson MP. It is argued that the fact that Hanson was not strongly repudiated by the Prime Minister of the day signalled to bigots that it was ok to discriminate and contributed to increased prejudice in the community. Yesterday I was in Ipswich for bridge building work alongside Mr. Shayne Neumann the local Member of Parliament, and while grabbing some Kosher lunch in the local supermarket I got a call about yet another Government decision that would limit religious freedom, mainly impact on Muslims and I fear will send another signal that the “real-White” Australians are taking back “their country.” How should I respond? More broadly, the following is a general (but incomplete) consideration of the issue of rebuke, especially as it relates to the section of the Torah being read this week.

Do not rebuke the scoffer, lest he hate you, rebuke a wise person and he will love you¹.

Problems with silence and with speaking out

If we are silent in the face of apparent injustice, we could seen as complicit in it. Talking about our grievances, might result in resolution, or at least give us the feeling that we did what we can. The negatives of silence, need to be considered against the problems arising out of speaking out. In some situations, our critique can be ill-informed, driven by unconscious and unsavoury motives, cause unnecessary embarrassment, or fail to achieve anything apart from defensiveness, hostility or even escalated offending behaviour and “push-back”. The Talmud comments about the people in it's own time², there was no longer anyone with either the ability to offer or accept criticism³.

Style. Wording, tone, privacy/audience etc.

“It's not what you say, but how you say it”- is a view that I don't think is true all the time, but it does have some merit. The commandment in Leviticus (19:17) to rebuke, rebuke your fellow⁴”, is followed with a caution “and do not bear sin because of him” which is interpreted as demanding concern, in some circumstances, about humiliating the person being criticised.

Motive- "uhn negl" (no fingernails) & Permission

Chassidim have a tradition of offering criticism to each other. This would usually be done in the context of a “Farbrengen”, an informal group sitting together, eating herring, pickles, drinking vodka (usually but not always in strict moderation), for the purpose of storytelling, singing and reflection. The setting and the fact of the participants sitting down together already provides implied permission for being given negative feedback. An important principle for the critic was to ensure he did not do it with “fingernails”, meaning he had to search his own heart to see if there were other motives at work, eg. Anger, hostility, desire to put the other down, rather than pure desire to help the listener improve.

Being wrong – asking a question

If we approach what appears to be a problematic situation with a recognition that we might not have all the facts, we can carry our responsibility to stand up for justice without judging other unfairly. Jacob, sets a friendly tone and uses the approach of asking a question of a group of shepherds that seems to be workers, idle on the job. “My brothers, where are you from?” Jacob begins, after some small talk he observes “The day is still long, it is not time to gather the flocks, give your sheep some drink and go take your sheep to pasture⁵.” They explain explain that they are unable to carry out their next task without more help because there is a big stone on top of the well, that can only be moved when their colleagues arrive so they can all give water to their sheep. No harm done.

Unresolved issues- One cost of silence

A sad, but rarely discussed episode in the lives of the biblical Rachel and Leah occurs when their brothers and father (Laban) become resentful of Jacob's prosperity. Their brothers are heard saying to anyone, but the accused party “Jacob took (stole) everything that belonged to our father , and from what belonged to our father he created all this honour⁶”. Jacob notices, Laban's face, “and it is clearly not the same as it was yesterday, and the day before that”. He had accepted the slander (Lashon Harah- evil tongue) against Jacob⁷ without bothering to check with Jacob about his side of the story. The opposite of “when a man sins against another man, he should not hate him and be silent...it is a Mitzvah to notify him and say, why did you do this to me?”⁸

Jacob and his wives, Rachel and Leah discuss the need to leave the employ and town of Laban over his on-going financial mistreatment on the part of their father. The two daughters/wives reply, “Do we still have any part or inheritance in our fathers house? Did he not consider us as strangers to him, selling us and eating our money”. I find it very significant, that neither sister ever said anything to Laban about their hurt feelings or anger about being sold to Jacob. Jacob also does not talk to Laban about his complains about the financial dealings, instead explaining only to his wives that Laban changed “my wages, 10 times”.

Unlikely to be heard

To rebuke someone involves some hope that it might help. The Talmud states that just as we should say words of rebuke that will be heard, it is a Mitzvah (Commandment) not to say that which will not be heard⁹. As Shayne Neummann pointed out to me yesterday in Ipswich, it is hard to imagine Jacob having any confidence in talking to Laban after he substituted his beloved Rachel with Leah. Especially, considering that when Jacob first protests to Laban “Why did you deceive me”, instead of an apology, Laban attacks Jacob cleverly saying “it is not done thus in our place, the younger before the older”, implying like you who usurped the right of your older brother Esau. Clearly, Laban's rebuke of Jacob is driven by an ulterior motive, seeking to justify his own wrong doing. On the other hand, in cases where our silence can be seen as acquiescence, we need to consider the wider audience, not just the perpetrator.

Judging too favourably

While avoiding a rush to judgement is generally admirable. There are times when there is a need to speak out in defence of justice. As the saying goes, “If someone is spitting in your face, don't say it's raining”. A talmudic story about the gangster-turned sage Resh Lakish travelling with two rabbis to see the process for deciding whether to add an extra month to a particular Jewish Sabbatical year, when the land was not meant to be worked. On their way, they repeatedly see members of the priestly clan, the Cohanim, first ploughing, then working in a vineyard. Resh Lakish is outraged but his companions, rationalise it with various excuses. When they arrive to the attic where the meeting was to be held, they offered Resh Lakish to go up the ladder first, then promptly removed the ladder stranding him upstairs. They held the meeting downstairs without him, obviously frustrated with his unwillingness to turn a blind eye¹⁰. The funny thing is that the two other sages have been forgotten, while Resh Lakish is still greatly respected today.

Conclusion

There are more sources and further evidence that I have not included in this. I think on balance, there are times for speaking out and times for silence, in the case of the Government decision today, the right thing to do is to speak out about religious freedom and the need for responsible leadership giving no support to bigotry. Anyone who could have stopped another person from committing a sin by rebuking but failed to do so is held accountable for that sin.¹¹

1Proverbs 9:8

2The content of the Talmud was developed between approximately 100 bc to the year 300 CE.

3Arachin 16b. Also discussed on www.chaburas.org/rebuke.html

4The commandment in Leviticus (19:17) to rebuke, rebuke your fellow, and do not bear sin because of him

5Genesis 29:7

6Genesis 31:1

7Seforno

8Mimonedes, Yad, hilchot Deot, 6:6

9Talmud, Yevamot 65b)

10Talmud Sanhedrin, 26a. For the rest of this story, http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_26.html

11Maimonedes, Yad, Laws of Deot, 6:7.

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

Men diminished by their motives. Being Good, or just Looking Good? (Chaye Sarah)

This week I enjoyed a 7 minute report on National TV about my work and friendship with a Sheik. It seems inappropriate to admit this, I am supposed to pretend that I dislike publicity, but I think being aware of our less noble motives is the first step to keeping them in check.

This leads me to wonder about the ways that people act “nice”, satirized in this joke.

Mother in Law shows up at the door of her son in law.

Son in law: Hi, what a nice surprise, how long are you staying?

Mother in Law: Oh, I don't want to trouble you, as long as you are happy for me to stay.

Son in law: What?! You won't even come inside for a cup of tea?!

There are dances of repeatedly insisting on giving and refusing to take that are common to many cultures. I have a vague idea of an Arabic custom of a prospective host offering three times, initially the guest insists on not wanting to trouble him/her and on the third bounce the offer is accepted. Is this inspired social glue, or dishonest game playing?

We see this playing out in a negotiation over a burial plot between Efron, the Hitites & Abraham¹. In response to Abraham's request for a “a possession (of land for a) grave”, the Hitities say; listen my master, you are a prince of God among us, in the choices of our graves you can bury your dead. None of us will withhold their grave from you.

Subtext: As a prince you can take whatever you want, the flip side is that in the future your right to it can be contested, they can say that you used your position to take it and not one could refuse you, but it is not yours by right². 2) You can just have one of our graves, but not a burial plot³.

Abraham then argues with Efron, who insists that he would be happy to give the land away for free, while Abraham insists on paying the full price. In the end Efron nonchalantly⁴ says; “a land of 400 silver Shekels, between you and me, what is it?!” Abraham then pays him the equivalent of up to a million silver shekels⁵ and Efron is condemned in our tradition for talking a big generous game in front of all the people of his city, but then naming a high price in the end. In fact his name is spelled with a letter missing from his name (the letter Vav is missing) which makes his name sound like Afrn, related to earth as if he was talking with dust in his mouth⁶.

The missing letter theme plays out in the Servant Eliezer's negotiation with Abraham about finding a wife for his son. Abraham wants his servant to bring a foreign wife from the home country and tribe, not a local “from the people among who I live⁷”.

But, “Oolai” what if she will not want to come? He asks. The spelling here again, is missing a Vav, so the word can be read a Alai, - to me- and is interpreted as his hoping that his mission will be a failure, and instead the match will come to him and his daughter. Interestingly, although the story is told twice in the Torah⁸ the variation of the spelling only appears in the text when he retells the story after finding Rebeccah and his conflict of interest is not longer a practical issue. This demonstrates that ulterior motives are very difficult to spot in the moment, although, they could be easier to spot once the situation is no longer practical.

The final grand dance, is when Eliezer devises a test of generosity to see which girl should be a wife for his master's son. He notices a beautiful girl, and asks her for “a little bit of water from his jug” when what really wants is to see if she will offer water not just for him but also for his camels. She modestly, says drink my master and says nothing more but goes on to bring water for all his camels.

It is proper for the asker to ask for less than s/he needs so as not to trouble (the other person), but it is proper for the giver to give more and do for the asker, enough (to supply that which s/he) lacks or more⁹.

There is a logic to the game, it helps if it is played sincerely by all the players.

1Genesis 23:3-16.

2Oh Hachayim.

3Malbim

4As explained by R. Arye Kaplan in Living Torah.

5Rashi.

6Bartinura quoted in ArtScroll Bereshis book 3, page 882.

7Genesin 24:3.

8Genesis 24:5 & 24:39.

9Seforno, on Genesis 24:14

The SCREAM! Sodom, Australia & Gib'ah – degrees of similarity re: treatment of “Strangers”. Vayera

A wind of national assertiveness is blowing, Angela Merkel declares that Multiculturalism has failed in Germany, Marco  Rubio, a rising star in the US “Tea Party” asserts “American Exceptionalism” and in Australia there is resistance to ending the imprisonment of 738 children who are imprisoned for arriving here as part of “Irregular people movement”.

Australia has positives too regarding diversity. I declare an interest, the diversity education organization that I lead as National Director has recently received a grant of over one Million dollars from the Commonwealth Government to foster respect for diversity. But, regardless of my interests, the evidence is in for both sides of the argument, with a WA farmer named Mr. Cox speaking plainly and beautifully about his having no problem with refugees moving in next to his farm[1] and wandering on to his property, at the same time as the arguments for throwing our visitors in the slammer continue.    

How do 3 societies compare, ours, Sodom's and the macabre story of an ancient Israelite town called Givea.  The most striking parallel has been averted, at least for now,  with the fortunate failure to implement the proposed policy of the alternative government of Australia of Automatic jail terms for Australians harbouring Illegal immigrants [2].  In all three cases, there are failures of hospitality, what are parallels and the significant differences.

Case 1- Sodom.

Exhibit A. The SCREAM!

The people of Sodom were cruel to visitors as a deterrence policy to protect their wealth from the rabble of other nations. Instead of detention centres, they had other ways to scream em away.   Locals approached by a poor traveller for money would write their name on their coin before giving it to the visitor, a strict policy declared that no one was to sell or give food to the visitor. Eventually, the visitor would starve to death, the Sodomites would then collect their money. One girl felt compassion for a particular visitor and broke the law, she smuggled food to him in a water jug on the way to the well. When she was caught, she was covered in honey and tied up on a roof, bees stung her and she screamed in agony[3].

Her scream is offered as one meaning of God's statement. “I will go down and see if, like her scream, they have done”[4].

Exhibit B. The Mob and the bystanders.

One newcomer to Sodom, a very wealthy migrant named Lot dared to defy the inhospitable custom and invited 3 guest to his home. It was soon surrounded by a mob who demanded that the men be handed over to be “so that we will know them” in a biblical sense of the word “know”. Lot offers his two daughters to the mob but they reject the offer. While not all of Sodom could possibly fit around the house of Lot, the fact that no one protested against this behaviour is considered as if  they all personally surrounded the house[5]. 

Case 2 Gib'ah

Inhospitable city, a migrant, an accomplice, a mob and bystanders again.

A Levite, a beautiful woman who is sort of the wife of the Levite man (his Pilegesh- Concubine[6]”) and a servant arrive  in the ancient Israelite town of Gib'ah in the tribal land of Benjamin. He is not invited by any of the locals, and seems set to spend the night in the street. Again, a migrant  an old man from Mt. Efrayim (a different tribe to the local Banjaminites) returning from work invites the travellers into his home. They are enjoying themselves, when a mob surrounded the house, knocking on the door, seeking “knowledge” of the man visiting.

Gang Rape, the macabre reaction and catastrophic aftermath 

The old man offered his daughter and the visiting lady, instead of the male guest. The mob is not keen, but the Levite grabs his “concubine” and takes her out the door to the mob. They gang raped her and did other “humiliating” things to her all night and sent her off at day break. She dies soon after. The story ends with the Master/husband cutting the dead woman's body up into 12 parts, sends it to the 12 tribes of Israel, makes a stirring speech telling a selective account of the outrage of Gib'ah, the criminals and the silent majority of Benajminites and sparks a civil war where tens of   thousands die.

Comparing Sodom and Gib'ah.

One factor that is worse about Sodom in comparison to Gib'ah is that in Sodom it was a premeditated policy to “remove the feet (of travellers) from amongst them”, however in Gib'ah it was simply lust[7]. Another difference was that in Sodom the Government established anti-traveller policies as law, in Gib'ah it was lawless men[8].

Case 3 - Australia

I will not canvass all the arguments, the statistics and facts and I acknowledge that these are important and worthy of serious consideration.  My purpose here is to raise questions about how these traditions can inform our moral thinking on a terrible situation. In spite of our welcoming many refugees here, in the case of boat people it seems that the two redeeming factors of Gib'ah are not at play. On the other hand, some of the gruesome torture described in relation to Sodom and the savagery  of Gib'ah are not part of the Australian situation and there is all the other complicated stuff to think about.  

Close

It is indeed a sad day when Government whose primary function is to protect the innocent as well as its citizens, fails in that responsibility. To what extent are all Australians complicit in this?

---

[1]    730 Report 19-10-2010

[2]   http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/labor-and-libs-key-election-policies/story-e6frg12c-12259083510

[3]    Talmud, Sanhedrin.

[4]    Genesis 18:21.

[5]    Sifsei Chachamim 3 on Genesis 19:4.

[6]    The text refers to the Levite as both her husband and Master. It was an irregular form of marriage.

[7]    Ramban, on Genesis 19:8

[8]    Implied by Ramban, more explicit in another source, that is not handy at the moment. 

Prioritising People Over Engaging God – Hospitality and Pleading for Sodom Vayera 1 5771

Putting God on hold for a person?!

“If only they would leave me and keep my Torah”[1] , says God. While this could be explained as being almost a trick in that keeping the Torah would lead people right back to God, it can surely be understood to be about God being more interested in the way we treat each other and our living by the Torah's teachings than our show of devotion to Him. An uncontested variation of this can be seen in Abraham's running out to greet guests in middle of an appearance to him by God. According to one reading of it he says to God, “God, if I find favour in your eyes, do not leave your servant[2]” while he attends to his guests. This is because “Hospitality to guests is greater than receiving the Shechina/divine presence”[3].  Of course this is God's will, so it is not really putting people ahead of God but it does suggest that in compassion vs. religiosity, the divine will would put a high priority on the compassion side of the argument.

Hassling God

Abraham's bargaining with God about Sodom is another example of the appropriateness of putting people first. After God has told Abraham of his intention to destroy the wicked cities of Sodom and Amorah (I never understood, why the Hebrew Amora become Gemorah in English), Abraham pleads, argues and bargains with God about saving the city. “Would you destroy the righteous with the wicked[4]? Abraham, makes his request five times and speaks 93 words to try to save the city. In contrast the shortest prayer in the Torah is by Moses on behalf of his sister where he speak 4 words “Please, heal her please”. Abraham's reaction is contrasted favourably in the commentaries with Noah's who simply did as God instructed and did not argue or plead for his generation. It is Noah's failure to pray is seen so critically, that the flood is referred to as the waters of Noah[5].

Looking past the person you are talking to

One of the awkward things about networking events or even stand around social occasions is when you are talking to someone and they are looking past you to see who else is around that might  be more interesting. I wonder how similar that is to Abraham looking up at the visitors (“and he lifted his eyes and saw behold three men are standing upon him[6]”) and then runs off toward them, leaving God standing there.

Standing over him?

We might suggest that this is entirely different, because it says “they were standing upon him”, its a bit like being fully present in a conversation but then there is someone on a lower rung of the the social ladder who is hovering almost desperate for your ear or attention. This might be a reasonable parallel, although the meaning of “standing upon him” seems not to mean standing close to him because he runs toward them! Standing upon him could mean that Abraham realised that they were standing there for Abraham's needs, as visitors turned out to be Angels, Raphael to heal Abraham, another to bring the news that he and Sarah will have a son, and a 3^rd on his way to destroy the wicked city of Sodom, but paying his respect to Abraham by delaying his mission until God discusses it with Abraham first[7]. 

Been and Gone
An alternative explanation by Rashi of the standing upon him and running, is that they first were standing close, but then saw him busy with bandages so the walked away as not to trouble him, at that point he got up and ran after his prospective guests in his eagerness to offer them hospitality. 

A good tactic by the visitors. I used a similar tactic with one of my quite prickly Lecturers at Yeshivah[8]. If I needed to ask him something, I could usually wait for ages while he happily continued with whoever was there before me. So I would stand around for two minutes and then pretend to lose interest or patience and walk away, as soon as I did, he would call me.

More, importantly, Rashi makes a beautiful point about Abraham's compassion, by noting the repetition of the words Vayar and he saw. The first time he merely saw them, but the second time he really looked and understood their hesitation which motivated him to persist in his efforts to offer them hospitality.   

---

[1]    Yerushalmi, Hagiga 1:7, quoted in Insights: A Talmudic Treasury.

[2]    Genesis 18:3, following Rashi's 2^nd interpretation.

[3]    Talmud, Shabbat 127a.

[4]    Genesis 18:23

[5]    In defence of Noah, there is a midrash that says that many of the righteous people prayed for the generation and died, leaving Noah as the only righteous one. Also, in Noah's case there was no suggestion by God of openness (“an opening of a door) to discussion, the flood was going to happen, but in the case of Abraham God decision is more tentative. 

[6]    Genesis 18:2.

[7]    Ohr Hachayim.

[8]    An institution of Torah study for young men.