A Muse: Toledot 2008

“But the children struggled in her womb…and the Lord answered her ‘two nations are in your womb / two separate peoples shall issue from your body; one shall be mightier than the other, and the older shall serve the younger.’…The first one emerged red, like a hairy mantle…so they named him Esau. Then his brother emerged holding on to the heel of Esau; so they named him Jacob.” (Genesis 25:23-26)

Jewish history and literature hasn’t been kind to Esau, Jacob’s twin brother. In fact however, the little we know of Esau from the text, presents a man who although is common is magnanimous in his later relationship with Jacob, in spite of the manner in which he was treated by his brother. (See Vayishlach) He is a man who is perhaps cunning, but not necessarily dishonest in his business dealings. He may be vulgar and not schooled, but isn’t necessarily greedy and selfish. Yet, it is Esau, the father of Edom, who is presented in Rabbinic literature as the symbol of corrupt Rome; the personification of moral degeneration. Why?

The typological characterization and vilification of Esau begins late, relative to our history. Prior to the Common Era there are no negative associations with Esau. However by the first and second centuries the vilification of Esau proliferates in rabbinic literature. Current events contributed to the tenor of the midrashic literature especially when seen on the backdrop of defining historical trends and events such as the destruction of the Temple, the Bar Cochba rebellion and all the death and destruction that accompanied these seminal events. In addition the rise of Christianity and the threat it posed certainly contributed to the demonization of Esau.

Throughout these defining periods of history scaling hundreds of years, the Roman Empire cast a giant, ominous shadow over Judea. Hatred of Rome was translated and given expression by a hatred and demonization of Esau. Antipathy towards Rome and the dismissal of Christianity was typified through the prism of Esau. Negative characterization of Esau such as lying, stealing, bloodshed, promiscuity, infidelity and godlessness was attributed to Esau. The negative picture of Esau as portrayed in rabbinic text can be seen at the three stages of Esau’s development and relationship with Jacob: Esau and Jacob in the womb; Esau and Jacob developing as youngsters; and Esau forfeiting his birthright to Jacob.

In discussing the gesticulation period of Jacob and Esau, midrashic sources site R’ Yochanan and Resh Lachish’s jostling as to what is to be understood by the biblical description of Jacob and Esau’s fighting. R’ Yochanan saw it as symbolic of a fight to the death between Jews and Gentiles while Resh Lachish saw it more as a kulturkampf – a cultural struggle that would continue “ad infinitum”, without resulting in a decisive outcome.

In their second phase, as they are growing into young men midrashic sources compare them to plant life, where initially it is difficult to distinguish between the shoots of the same plant until they are ready to flower. Either they will give off a pleasant scent and a flower or they will be thorny with no scent or one that is disagreeable. So, the midrash say was it destined to be with Jacob and Esau. One would think that two sons coming from the same home, identical parents and shared values would be similar. Only after maturation could the distinctions between them be understood. Esau characterized as an “ish sadeh” isn’t understood to be a noble man in harmony with nature. Sadeh, is understood by the midrash to represent chaos, dysfunction, lacking moral clarity, promiscuity, homosexuality equating all of this to Rome.

The last stage is when Esau comes in from the field famished, demanding the lentil soup and says “haleiteini”, signifying vulgarity and uncouth behavior more appropriate for a Roman. Here again R’ Yochanan comments on the word “haadom” which is repeated. According to R’ Yochanan the first “haadom” references the soup but the repeat usage symbolizes Edom or Rome.

A Muse: Vayera 2008

“Abraham came forward and said, ‘will You sweep away the innocent along with the guilty? What if there should be fifty innocent within the city; will You then wipe out the place and not forgive it for the sake of the innocent fifty who are in it? Far be it from You to do such a thing, to bring death upon the innocent as well as the guilty, so that innocent and guilty fare alike. Far be it from You. Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?’” (Genesis 18:23-25)

Parshat Vayera has two interesting episodes, each presenting a different ethical position to a moral dilemma, and each presenting the reader with a different portrait of God. The first deals with the threat of Sodom being eradicated, resulting in Abraham initiating a conversation with God, negotiating the safety of its inhabitants. In this scene Abraham is depicted as one who stands before God - he doesn’t prostrate himself. He doesn’t appear to be self effacing, obsequious, or servile, but confident and self assured in his position. The impression one gets is that Abraham’s ethical position, in principle, is acceptable to God, but the critical mass necessary to warrant his claim isn’t there. What becomes an acceptable number to save a city? When Abraham argues “will you sweep away the innocent along with the guilty” he really is making a statement against collective punishment and rejecting the rationale for collateral damage.

In this scenario God is depicted as One who is sympathetic with the issue at hand, a God that values morals and ethics. God is seen as transcendental, external, One who stands outside of time and history and is omnipotent. Since He stands outside of time and history He doesn’t have man’s sense of ethics and morals, since these are human qualities. Abraham is asking God to accept human norms, thus trying to remove the omnipotence, placing God into history.

The following episode, the Akeda is very different. Unlike Sodom, Abraham is servile and self effacing, reticent and willing to obey without an argument. All Abraham can say is “Hineini”, and passively accepts the command to slaughter his son, Isaac. Here God is presented in the total opposite image of the God in the story of Sodom. There He is involved. In the Akeda He is removed, estranged and not approachable. In Sodom, Abraham brings God down to accept the ethics of the mortals. In the Akeda, Abram doesn’t even try to bring God down and involved in history, but resigned to perform what is commanded of him.

Thus, there are two models of the God head presented in Vayera. The model presented in Sodom where God is willing to be involved in human history, adapting to man’s morals and ethical concerns, willing to meet man on man’s terms and dialogue wit him. The God of the Akeda is transcendental, omnipotent demanding more than He is ready to give.

A Muse: Re'eh

“At the end of seven years you shall institute a remission. This is the matter of the remission: Every creditor shall remit his authority over what he has lent his fellow…If there shall be a destitute person among you, any of your brethren in any of your cities…you shall not harden your heart or close your hand against your destitute brother…” (Deuteronomy 15:1-11)

The issue of social justice which is dealt with in this week’s portion has been addressed in previous chapters. In previous chapters the question of ownership of the land and the implications of it are referenced: “But the land must not be sold beyond reclaim, for the land is mine; you are but “strangers” resident with me”. (Leviticus 25:23). This principle can be understood either as a theological concept - that the land belongs to God and thus there is a social connotation; or it is in essence a social concept and the land has to be divided up, because none of us own the land; we are merely its stewards. Either way, if this principal is to be applied it has far reaching application regarding the social and economic landscape of the “land”.

Does this principal relate only to the real estate or does it also encompass property as well. This weeks portion deals with this question. The text speaks in the second person singular, which is unusual. For example it refers to “achicha”, “shearecha”, “arzecha”, “levavecha”, and “evyonecha”. What this seems to infer is not a general sociological description of the economic status of the community, but rather a description of “your” social issues. The text is referencing on a personal level the obligation of the individual. “You can’t escape your responsibilities”. The destitute isn’t in the abstract, but happens to be the destitute in “your” community.

Another observation regarding the unusual grammatical structure of the text are the multiple occurrences of the root and its conjugated verb being used together. “ha-avet ta-aveteinu”(verse 8), “patoach tiftach” (verse 8), and “natone teetein” (verse 10). The text is being forceful in its determination to set a tone of social concern and justice as well as the appropriate means of relating to ones neighbor as though he were your brother. Support for the destitute is not only to be given by the largesse of your hand, but also from the largesse of your heart.

Many of us have difficulty with this text because of the economic chaos that would ensue if these principles were applied. In essence the text is setting up a blueprint for a society modeled on socialism which doesn’t seem to work in 21^st century industrial societies whether it is in Israel or any where else. There was a time when Israel set up kibbutzim on the model of socialism, but ultimately it failed as evident today of the growing capitalism on the very same kibbutzim which were founded on socialistic principals.

There are others who believe in the virtue of capitalism, not as a default system, but one which extols the productivity of man when in competition with others. The text presents a model by which it believes man is to live. Perhaps this was referring to an agrarian society, but wouldn’t necessarily be applicable to other models? On the other hand there are those that would maintain that it matters nor whether it was an agrarian community or an industrial one because the text is immutable and for all times!

A Muse: Ekev 2008

“If, then, you obey the commandments that I enjoin upon you today, loving the Lord our God and serving Him with all your heart and soul, I will grant he rain for your land in season…” (Deuteronomy 11:13)

This sedra offers us the second paragraph of the Shema; the first paragraph having appeared in Deuteronomy chapter 6 verse 5. Apart from the obvious difference between the two paragraphs there appears to be a significant difference in the grammatical structure. The first paragraph is in the singular however the second paragraph is in the plural.

The first paragraph references love of God and indeed the fundamental principal in the first paragraph is “kabbalat ol malkhut shamayim” – “acceptance of the kingdom of heaven” through the love of God. What is love and how it is expressed is a very personal and private matter. Thus, the first paragraph is written in the singular. It speaks to the individual engaging him in the challenge of expressing his/her love of/for God.

Whereas the first paragraph enjoins us to “kabbalat ol malkut shamayim”, the “acceptance of the yoke of heaven”, the second paragraph refers to the “kabbalat ol mitzvoth”, accepting the commandments. The performance of mitzvoth, unlike expressing love of God, is performed within the framework of society, thus the language of the text is expressed in the plural. Whether or not a Jew can live as a Jew fulfilling mitzvoth living an isolated existence, alone, is debatable.

The mitzvoth are given to us so that we can form a more just society. The practice of the mitzvoth is not an end unto themselves but to make us better humans, more sensitive people in the service of God. Thus it is the application of the mitzvoth which become important; not just the practice. It is for this reason that our prophets were so preoccupied and concerned that while mitzvoth may have been practiced, the application of the mitzvoth was ignored.