Vayeitzei: Opportunity

The title of the parsha is "And Jacob left." Leaving the family was a good choice for Jacob.  His brother had vowed to kill him after the death of their father Isaac; and Isaac had begun to worry about his end; He had told Esau : וַיֹּ֕אמֶר הִנֵּה־נָ֖א זָקַ֑נְתִּי לֹ֥א יָדַ֖עְתִּי י֥וֹם מוֹתִֽי׃

And he said, “I am old now, and I do not know how soon I may die. 

Getting out of town was Jacob's best option.  His escape turned into a quest.  One Hebrew translation of quest is מסע בעקבות, a journey with akeiv, the root of Yaakov ( Jacob in Hebrew).  Perhaps the phrase sets Jacob's journey as the model for travel with great purpose.  The phrase draws on the many meanings of akeiv: tenaciousness ( as in the grabbing of Esau's heel), "consequence" as in עֵ֕קֶב אֲשֶׁר־שָׁמַ֥ע אַבְרָהָ֖ם בְּקֹלִ֑י וַיִּשְׁמֹר֙ מִשְׁמַרְתִּ֔י מִצְוֺתַ֖י חֻקּוֹתַ֥י וְתוֹרֹתָֽי׃

inasmuch as Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge: My commandments, My laws, and My teachings;

 ”craftiness, like the quality that Esau identifies when Jacob claims the blessing:

 ( וַיֹּ֡אמֶר הֲכִי֩ קָרָ֨א שְׁמ֜וֹ יַעֲקֹ֗ב וַֽיַּעְקְבֵ֙נִי֙ זֶ֣ה פַעֲמַ֔יִם [Esau] said, “Was he, then, named Yaakov  that he might supplant me these two times? ).

 Since the story tales place in Aram,perhaps the Aramaic meaning of "troubles" pertains.

The first thing that happens in the parsha is the dream of the ladder, Jacob's ladder.

 Jacob's ladder was  a star of old horror movies ( Bride of Frankenstein had some great ones). Jacob's ladder is the eponym for a travelling arc, a series of electrical sparks that travel up between two conductors.  The ladder in Jacob's dream and the that in the horror movies share some qualities. [1] The visible  entity that climbs the ladder has no mass. [2] The sight of the ladder evokes awe  at the power of the producer. [3] The impact of the illusion  depends upon what the observer does with the vision. 

In our parsha,   Jacob comes to realize the sanctity of this sacred place.   He vows to return. Importantly, he keeps the promise.  In the dream, The Lrd promised Jacob protection.  Jacob could have simply said, "Thank you," but , instead  he offered a tithe, a tenth of all he had,  in return.   With the dream, Jacob turned his flight into a quest. 

Odysseys are stories of adventure.  They include episodes of improbable  ( =miraculous) and timely victories for the hero.  This is what happens to Jacob. 

Jacob, the penniless, outcast nephew of Laban ( the father of Feudalism/capitalism) meets the (inefficient) economic system at the well of Haran.  For the sake of Rachel, his future wife, he  violates the local rules and opens the well.  He removes the stone* that blocks access to the water. This generates  a story  that Rachel tells Lavan.  Lavan understands that an opportunity has come to him.  A foreigner, a descendant of  Abraham, has come to town and he has an important quality: courage. Marrying him to his daughters will serve the estate well.  He ties him to both of his daughters, Leah and Rachel, throws in Bilha and Zilpah, and gets 14 years of servitude in the deal. Who won? Maybe everyone.  That can happen sometimes. 

Jacob then agrees to a 6 year contract to build his wealth.   He will supervise Laban's sheep  in exchange for the striped, speckled, ringed,  and brown (the non-lavan [white]) sheep that will be born from that point forward. The increase in kine  goes very much in Jacob's favor.  He becomes wealthy.  Wealth brings conflict. Now Jacob's wealth induces jealousy in his brothers-in-law.   Even Lavan no longer looks at his best producer in the same way - Jacob is becoming too powerful.  

There is a confluence of forces.  Jacob has to leave ( again) ... and, conveniently,  Gd called him back home in a dream.   He runs away.  Lavan catches him.  Lavan had recognized that Yaakov  was an extraordinarily successful herder and businessman.  Yet, he makes the great Feudal/capitalist claim: 

 וַיַּ֨עַן לָבָ֜ן וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֶֽל־יַעֲקֹ֗ב הַבָּנ֨וֹת בְּנֹתַ֜י וְהַבָּנִ֤ים בָּנַי֙ וְהַצֹּ֣אן צֹאנִ֔י וְכֹ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֥ה רֹאֶ֖ה לִי־ה֑וּא 

 Then Laban spoke up and said to Jacob, “The daughters are my daughters, the children are my children, and the flocks are my flocks;

In Lavan's view, everything reverts to the source of its founding capital .  Labor and enterprise are dispensable and have no rights to what they produce. Jacob is not a socialist.  Jacob's view is that Heaven distributes wealth to whom it favors.  Their positions are not  distant.  They are separated by a boundry of stones.  At the well,  Jacob had demonstrated his willingness to violate and repurpose stone barriers. 

Jacob's sojourn in Haran could have led to his integration into the society that worshiped the god of Nachor.  He stuck with the Gd of Abraham . What  are we making  of our sojourns? 

Toladoth: choice

There is  a strange interaction when Esau discovers that "his" blessing has been conferred upon Jacob.  

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר לְאָבִ֔יו בָּרֲכֵ֥נִי גַם־אָ֖נִי אָבִֽי׃  and said to his father, “Bless me too, Father!”

וַיֹּ֕אמֶר בָּ֥א אָחִ֖יךָ בְּמִרְמָ֑ה וַיִּקַּ֖ח בִּרְכָתֶֽךָ׃

But he answered, “Your brother came with guile and took away your blessing.”...

יַּ֨עַן יִצְחָ֜ק וַיֹּ֣אמֶר לְעֵשָׂ֗ו הֵ֣ן גְּבִ֞יר שַׂמְתִּ֥יו לָךְ֙ וְאֶת־כָּל־אֶחָ֗יו נָתַ֤תִּי לוֹ֙ לַעֲבָדִ֔ים וְדָגָ֥ן וְתִירֹ֖שׁ סְמַכְתִּ֑יו וּלְכָ֣ה אֵפ֔וֹא מָ֥ה אֶֽעֱשֶׂ֖ה בְּנִֽי׃

Isaac answered, saying to Esau, “But I have made him master over you: I have given him all his brothers for servants, and sustained him with grain and wine. What, then, can I still do for you, my son?”

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר עֵשָׂ֜ו אֶל־אָבִ֗יו הַֽבְרָכָ֨ה אַחַ֤ת הִֽוא־לְךָ֙ אָבִ֔י בָּרֲכֵ֥נִי גַם־אָ֖נִי אָבִ֑י

And Esau said to his father, “Have you but one blessing, Father? Bless me too, Father!” 

Esau asks Isaac: Don't you have another blessing?  The answer is: no. 

Jacob knew that he had two sons. How could the blessing make one nation the master and the other slaves?  How could he give the grain and wine to only one of his sons? 

The textual precedent is clear.  Isaac himself was the favored son.  Abraham's servant  tells Rebecca's brother and father: 

וַתֵּ֡לֶד שָׂרָה֩ אֵ֨שֶׁת אֲדֹנִ֥י בֵן֙ לַֽאדֹנִ֔י אַחֲרֵ֖י זִקְנָתָ֑הּ וַיִּתֶּן־לּ֖וֹ אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־לֽוֹ׃

And Sarah, my master’s wife, bore my master a son in her old age, and he has assigned to him everything he owns. 

There appears to be no share for Ishamel ( or the children of Keturah).  It is all or nothing. This is primogeniture, keeping the estate intact.  This seems to be how things worked out for Adam.  Cain  had been banished ( to the city), Hevel was dead, Seth inherited it all.  Noah had established enslavement as a legacy for the disfavored.  But the immediacy of his experience with Ishmael is probably the most formative for Isaac.  I imagine that this episode also informed Yaakov's decision to divide the legacy among all of his sons. 

This relationship of enmity and dominance  between Jacob and Esau is foretold to Rebecca.  

שְׁנֵ֤י גיים [גוֹיִם֙] בְּבִטְנֵ֔ךְ וּשְׁנֵ֣י לְאֻמִּ֔ים מִמֵּעַ֖יִךְ יִפָּרֵ֑דוּ וּלְאֹם֙ מִלְאֹ֣ם יֶֽאֱמָ֔ץ

Two nations are in your womb, Two separate peoples shall issue from your body; One people shall be mightier than the other 

Had Rebecca ( daughter of Bituel, sister of Lavan)  informed Isaac of this prophecy?  The unfolding of these events mirror the naming of Ishmael and Isaac. Both parents seem to  independently come to the name. It is fated. 

I think that Isaac knew that Jacob was impersonating Esau when he came to appropriate the primogeniture   blessing of the firstborn. Isaac keeps questioning and  testing.  He says: 

הַקֹּל֙ ק֣וֹל יַעֲקֹ֔ב וְהַיָּדַ֖יִם יְדֵ֥י עֵשָֽׂו׃

The voice is the voice of Jacob, yet the hands are the hands of Esau.”

Jacob had applied goatskin to his smoother skin to emulate the hairy Esau.  Was Isaac fooled by this?  I don't think so.  What he means  by  "the hands of Esau" is the willingness to deceive.  Whoever had come for the blessing had the beguiling quality required for this blessing of dominance. 

This goat of desperation threads through the Torah.  It is the blood of a goat that the brothers purport as evidence of the death of Joseph. Jacob was familiar with goat tricks.  Was he fooled? Perhaps he was comforted, suspecting that the animal blood meant that his son's blood had not been shed. 

Rebecca requires two goats to make Isaac special meal.  There are two goats in the strange Yom Kippur service of  expiation - kaparah in Hebrew, a word that means cover over.  Is this, in part, an annual expiation for Jacob's act of guile?

The parsha ends with Esau, recognizing his parents' disapproval of his Hittite wives,  marrying the daughter of Ishmael.  This can be read as an act of attempted conciliation.  But she is the daughter of Isaac's (disinherited) rival.  Maybe there  is a little spite here, and a search for an alternative route to the inheritance. 

Spare me from  the desperation of  rivalry. 

Chaya Sarah: Brothers

 

This week's parsha starts with the death of Sarah and ends with the descendants of Ishmael. The son that Sarah insisted on banishing spawns 12 princes.  This is the son that Sarah was supposed to raise after his birth to the surrogate Hagar.  After the birth of her miraculous biological son, Sarah insisted that Ishmael be exiled.  He becomes the symbol of the outcast, but resurgent child, the forefather of Mohamed. Call me Ishmael. It is comforting to me that Sarah's  command did  not result in the death of Ishmael.  Perhaps she was instrumental in his rise.  His banishment led to the angel of Lechi Roie who blessed him.  Those kinds of blessings, the ones that come through tolerating injustice, may have a better chance of coming true ( cf Chana).

Perhaps listing the descendants of Ishmael is a coda,  an addendum of left over facts, appended to the parsha for chronology.  In that case, the last story is the parsha is the burial of Abraham by Isaac... and Ishmael,  After listing the offspring his third wife, Keturah, all of whom are sent off with gifts, but no claim to the legacy, Abraham dies.  Isaac and Ishmael know where to bury him - in the cave, next to Sarah.  Sarah was Ishmael's mother, too. 

The bulk of the parsha ,between the burials of the founding couple,  is the story of finding Isaac's bride, Rebecca. In my family, when something unexpected and good happened, my father would exclaim: "das ist a gt zach" this is a thing from Gd. That is not a religious statement.  It is closest to the statement of Rebecca's brother and father, after they hear the servant's tale 

יַּ֨עַן לָבָ֤ן וּבְתוּאֵל֙ וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ מֵ   יָצָ֣א הַדָּבָ֑ר לֹ֥א נוּכַ֛ל דַּבֵּ֥ר אֵלֶ֖יךָ רַ֥ע אוֹ־טֽוֹב׃

Then Laban and Bethuel answered, “The matter was decreed by the LORD; we cannot speak to you bad or good.

They have heard how the servant concocted a "test" to identify the appropriate mate for Isaac , and along comes this girl, beautiful and from the right family, and immediately passes the test. Such a coincidence of events is taken as a sign from heaven.  This is the deity of pleasant surprises, and the recognition of divine intervention is used to ease momentous decisions.  It is most closely related to luck or fate. 

When Efron sells the Machpelah burial site to Abraham for the interment of Sarah ( and eventually Abraham, followed  by Isaac and Rebecca, etc.), the recognition of Abraham as a  נְשִׂ֨יא אֱ, a prince of E, facilitates the deal.  Abraham uses his status only to obtain an introduction to the Efron, the owner of the field and cave.  Abraham insists on buying the field with currency.  He wants to leave no doubt about ownership

The overarching theme of the parsha is legacy.  The haftarah for Chayei Sarah deals with the establishment of Shlomo as the royal heir to king David, over the attempted usurpation of Adonia.  Shlomo's mother, Bathsheva,  is crucial in driving David to the public declaration of Shlomo as his successor.   Sarah tried to assure that Ishmael would have no claim as Avraham's heir. Our tradition chooses  Isaac as the successor. 

It is poignant  that Isaac and Ishmael bury father Abraham together. They cooperated for a common cause, they did an act that comforted each other.  Would that the progeny of Ishmael had welcomed the beleaguered children of Isaac in their moment of need... and they could live in harmony.  That is too much of an ask. All we can do is, like the servant of Abraham and Nathan the prophet,  repeat the story again and again. 

Vayerah: Rescue

Vayerah: Rescue

 

This week's parsha  is full of ambivalence.  Abraham begs the migrants to have a meal with him, he begs for the sparing of Sodom (the worst people in the world).  He then expels his firstborn son and his (maidservant) mother. He is ultimately willing to offer his  (remaining) beloved son as a human burnt offering! 

Abraham presses the wayfarers (who turn out to be Gd's representatives) to come and share a meal with him. Abraham is the model of generosity. Related to this visit, Gd reveals the plan to possibly destroy Sodom and environs, depending upon the findings of the scouts. Abraham takes the opportunity to negotiate for the protection of these cities.  Ultimately, 10 righteous people are enough to spare the city from destruction.

The argument begins with the statement הַאַ֣ף תִּסְפֶּ֔ה צַדִּ֖יק עִם־רָשָֽׁע׃  “Will You sweep away the innocent  along with the guilty ? This translation follows Onkelos ( the official translation).  צַדִּ֖יק has come to mean the righteous.  Reading צַדִּ֖יק as righteous implies that the small population of exceptional people support Gd's tolerance of a population.  Read as “innocents”, it means that perhaps Gd does not make the special effort needed to rescue people who have not participated in the evil, but have tolerated it. 

The rescue of Lot from Sodom does not clarify this.  It does demonstrate the feasibility of the individual rescue, but Lot's status: innocent, righteous ( he takes in the wayfarers and gives them matzoh and wine), guilty ( his later behavior in the caves)  is not clear enough.  I think that this is something that should be left ambiguous.  Ones should try to be righteous enough to save the city, but don't count on a rescue if you are merely tolerant. 

My existence may depend upon the story of  Lot and the strangers in Sodom.  Like Abraham, Lot invites the strangers into his home.  In Sodom, where Lot lives, keeping the travelers off the streets means saving them from xenophobic/xenophilic hordes who mean to abuse them.  When the Sodomites come to Lot's door to check the identity (papers) of the strangers ( הוֹצִיאֵ֣ם אֵלֵ֔ינו וְנֵדְעָ֖ה אֹתָֽם׃, there are various translations for נֵדְעָ֖ה), Lot desperately  (perhaps inappropriately) tries  to rescue them.  They end up rescuing him. Lex talionis; attempting to rescue others leads to his own salvation.  ( see  Baucis and Philemon.)

 The Stycz family, who took in my parents when they were hounded by the Nazis (and their  Polish neighbors) may have been inspired, in some small part by this story.  Was their righteousness enough to spare their nation from guilt? And what about the protectors of persecuted who were murdered for their goodness?

The end of the parsha, the banishment of Ishmael and Hagar, and the binding of Isaac seem to conflict with the beginning. The first stories are about welcoming and rescuing, the last about expulsion and killing. 

The drama of Hagar's dehydration is a diversion from the issue of Abraham alienating his other family.  The real problem was that the only solution for the blended family was to choose one of the two. The fluid that Hagar and Ishmael lacked was the love that brings protection. There just was not enough to go around. They were disenfranchised.

I have previously explained that Hagar’s  lack of water was based upon a misunderstanding.  Abraham had sent Hagar to the land of seven wells.  There should have no lack of water.  In the following story, we learn that the servants of Avielech had stolen the wells.  They were no longer available.  Fortunately, an angel intervened for Ishmael. 

The binding of Isaac is a testament to Abraham's (consistent) world-view : defer to the will of Gd.  Abraham does not understand the world well enough to contradict the decision of the entity that destroyed Sodom and gave him an heir at age 100. By keeping that deep humility, he could find the solution: a ram caught by its horns. Never abandon the hope for a solution.  This is a value that is deep in me (and I hope you)

 

“I love mankind, he said, "but I find to my amazement that the more I love mankind as a whole, the less I love man in particular.”

― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

Consider the author of these words.