Chayei Sarah: the shadow of the departed

Chayei Sarah: the shadow of the departed

This week's parsha is very special to me.  It is my yahrzeit , the anniversary of the death, of my mother.  The shadow of the memory of her life is evoked by the parsha. 

Sarah's name is mentioned to begin the parsha. It starts with her obituary. 

וַיִּהְיוּ֙ חַיֵּ֣י שָׂרָ֔ה מֵאָ֥ה שָׁנָ֛ה וְעֶשְׂרִ֥ים שָׁנָ֖ה וְשֶׁ֣בַע שָׁנִ֑ים שְׁנֵ֖י חַיֵּ֥י שָׂרָֽה׃ Sarah’s lifetime—the span of Sarah’s life—came to one hundredyears  and twentyyears  and seven years.

Rashi famously quotes the Midrash which explains the repeated use of the word שָׁנָ֖ה, years  to signify qualities of purity and beauty. I think that the repetition evokes phases of Sarah's life, and thus remind the reader that all lives can be divided into sections: childhood, youth, education, work, accumulation, decline, etc. Sarah  had been a girl, a wife, a commodity, a prophet, a mother. She was the guardian of the future legacy of her only child: Isaac. My mother was the protector of her children, an epic labor. 

The fist narrative in the parsha, the purchase of the burial cave for  Sarah's body, Abraham's first real estate acquisition in the Promised Land, is told in great detail. The recorded conversation is remarkable for the repeated use of the word "listen," Everyone wants to be heard, but feels misunderstood. The conversation ends with a demonstration of the hypocrisy of Efron, the seller of the cave. He offers to gift the plot to Abraham... and incidentally mentions it value at 400 shekel.  This offers Abraham the opportunity to perform the act of acquisition ( kinyan) , the transfer of funds. Buying the land makes the deal irrevocable.(?) 

By setting out the details of the negotiations, we are reminded of the process of recall of the departed. We can never again here that voice, that intonation, that unedited choice of words. What we recall is vague and edited by our memory. Detailed notes have a special value. 

The next account of the  acquisition of Rebecca as a wife for Isaac is also told with excessive detail and repeated (in part to emphasize the inconsistencies and hidden motives in the actions and recounting of the servant).  The story ends with 

וַיְבִאֶ֣הָ יִצְחָ֗ק הָאֹ֙הֱלָה֙ שָׂרָ֣ה אִמּ֔וֹ וַיִּקַּ֧ח אֶת־רִבְקָ֛ה וַתְּהִי־ל֥וֹ לְאִשָּׁ֖ה וַיֶּאֱהָבֶ֑הָ וַיִּנָּחֵ֥ם יִצְחָ֖ק אַחֲרֵ֥י אִמּֽוֹ׃ {פ}
Isaac then brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he took Rebekah as his wife. Isaac loved her, and thus found comfort after his mother’s death.

Sarah reappears, overarching the story. Rebecca is a comfort for the loss of Sarah.  Was it not possible for Isaac to marry before  his mother was gone? Did Isaac's attachment to Sarah keep him from marrying? We know that Isaac  was 37  ( 127-90) when Sarah died. The Torah does not generally tell us at what age people married. 

The death and burial  of Abraham is also recorded  in parsha(th) Chayei Sarah:

וַיִּקְבְּר֨וּ אֹת֜וֹ יִצְחָ֤ק וְיִשְׁמָעֵאל֙ בָּנָ֔יו אֶל־מְעָרַ֖ת הַמַּכְפֵּלָ֑ה אֶל־שְׂדֵ֞ה עֶפְרֹ֤ן בֶּן־צֹ֙חַר֙ הַֽחִתִּ֔י אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל־פְּנֵ֥י מַמְרֵֽא׃ His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron son of Zohar the Hittite, facing Mamre,

הַשָּׂדֶ֛ה אֲשֶׁר־קָנָ֥ה אַבְרָהָ֖ם מֵאֵ֣ת בְּנֵי־חֵ֑ת שָׁ֛מָּה קֻבַּ֥ר אַבְרָהָ֖ם וְשָׂרָ֥ה אִשְׁתּֽוֹ׃ the field that Abraham had bought from the Hittites; there Abraham was buried, and Sarah his wife. 

Ephron's name remains attached to the cave of the Machpelah. The transfer of title was incomplete... and the Torah documentation means that it will never be complete. It is written on parchment and its reading will always be corrected by the listeners. Abraham's purchase is similarly  recorded. Abraham has come to own Ephron's cave. An eternity of conflicting claims is established. . 

Sarah's role in all this is recalled. It is her burial that led to the negotiation  with the children of Chaith and the purchase of a burial site that will inter not only Abraham, but all three patriarchs and wives. The need to bury Sarah was a pretext for establishing a foothold in the Promised Land.  When Abraham was haggling with Ephron and the Hittites, the land had already been promised to his offspring  by Gd.  Abraham had an agenda.  I do not know what the Hittites thought and believed.

My mother was buried in Israel.Her first 20 years and 7 years were in Europe. Seven of those years included a struggle to remain alive under systematic persecution, in the worst antisemitic  system in history.  Her 50 years in America were easier, only by comparison.  Her last will was to buried in Israel. She established the burial place for her husband, my father. That established the plots reserved for me and my wife. 

The story repeats... but not exactly

 

Vayera: Near death experience

 

Vayera: Near death experience

 

The theme of rescue from (near) death by angels runs through this week’s parsha.  Lot is saved from the fire and brimstone that destroyed the four cities of the Jordan Valley, Hagar and Ishmael are saved from dying of thirst as they wander in the desert of their banishment. Isaac is saved, at the last moment, from his father, Abraham’s, religious zeal.

 

Rescue from death is a revelation.  It is related to the name of the parsha: Vayerah: and he appeared. Gd appeared to Abraham.  Abraham had a revelation. He is informed that Sarah will bear his heir. The impending inspection and probable destruction of Sodom and it neighbors is revealed to him.

 Abraham has nothing to do with Sodom.  When offered its riches, he turned them down, he divested.  His nephew (and ward) Lot now lived in Sodom, but Abraham does not plead for Lot’s life. Abraham asks for justice. This justice consists of the power of the righteous.  The righteous not only justify their own life, but they should also have the power to save the city - if their concentration is high enough, of there are enough of them.  Does this place an obligation on the righteous to redirect the city away from its evil ways; or does their very existence protect a broader population by virtue of their tolerance?

 

The requisite number of righteous is not found and Sodom is destroyed. But Lot and a portion of his family are saved, despite their ambivalence.  וַֽיִּתְמַהְמָ֓הּ  Still he delayed. With a shalsheleth cantillation. Lot manages to save one of the five cities scheduled for destruction… at least temporarily. Lot and his daughters become the founders of the Moab and Ammon nations.

 

When Sarah has her long-awaited son, Isaac, she insists that his rival half-brother, Ishmael be banished. Her nephew, Lot, had been banished and had kept the Divine protection through his connection with Abraham. Presumably Ishmael would also survive and flourish in his own way after he was sent away. That is what happens, but first Hagar and Ishmael nearly die of thirst because of their expulsion and, perhaps, because the well Abraham expected to be available to them had been destroyed by the Philistines. The water of rescue is revealed to them by an angel. Another rescue leading to the founding of a great people.

The story of Hagar in the desert may have weighed on the Israelites as they emerged from Egypt into that desert.  They would be relying on Divine guidance for life-sustaining water.  People had ides of thirst in that desert.

 

The life-threatening experience seems to be required for founding a nation. Ishmael and Lot had theirs, could Isaac become a link in the chain without one?  The necessity is fulfilled by the instruction to offer a sacrifice on the mountain of revelation, the place I will show you  הַמֹּרִיָּ֑ה .  The sacrificial knife is coming down upon Isaac’s throat when the angel calls out and saves his life … and the replacement ram is revealed.

וַיִּשָּׂ֨א אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֶת־עֵינָ֗יו וַיַּרְא֙ וְהִנֵּה־אַ֔יִל אַחַ֕ר נֶאֱחַ֥ז בַּסְּבַ֖ךְ

When Abraham looked up, his eye fell upon a ram, caught in the thicket by its horns.

The subsequent passage, naming the descendants of Milcah and Nachor, Abraham’s brother, culminates in Rivkah, the future wife of Isaac.  This juxtaposition reinforces the near-death experience as an element of nation founding.

 

The experience of mortal threat can reveal a person’s potential destiny. Special people move forward and fulfill that destiny. There is no easy way

Lech Lecha: migration

This week’s parsha deals with the movements of people. It opens with Gd instructing Avram to go. Go to a place that I will show you.  Just go. It will be good for you ( Rashi). 

 Traveling involves risk.

You leave your land.

 You leave the place where you can claim you belong, go to new place where people can say: “you don’t belong here.”

There is a loss of possession, a loss of enfranchisement, a loss of protection.

 You lose the connection to the familiar: your birthplace, the ancestral home, the ancestral cemetery, the ancestral sky.

You lose your comfort with the language: communication becomes harder and less welcome. 

You lose your inheritance and (parts of) your heritage.

 

Avram was told that his descendants would receive the land of Canaan. Terach, Avram’s father, had begun the journey. He had taken the family out of Ur and Canaan was the stated destination.  But Terach did not make it all the way, he settled in Charan. There, an important branch of the family, that becomes the matriarchy, flourishes. It is  led by Lavan. Return to Charan is characterized as a disastrous alternative for  Jacob and his descendants. The Passover Hagada says:

 

וְלָבָן בִּקֵּשׁ לַעֲקֹר אֶת־הַכֹּל. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: אֲרַמִּי אֹבֵד אָבִי, וַיֵּרֶד מִצְרַיְמָה וַיָּגָר שָׁם

but Lavan sought to uproot the whole [people]. As it is stated (Deuteronomy 26:5), "An Aramean was destroying my father and he went down to Egypt, and he resided there

Perhaps this informs Avram’s decision, when faced with the famine in Canaan (the Promised Land), to go to Egypt, rather than return to Charan… a choice that must have been tempting. The people’s destiny could tolerate the extreme compromises and sacrifices involved in going to Egypt, but not a return to Charan where it would be assimilated into the local idolatry.  In Egypt, Avram and his group would be foreigners. His life would not be valued, he could be killed to make his wife available; but he would not blend into the local culture, his mission would not disappear. The Avram group go to Egypt and have a taste of slave life, the master takes what he wants, and Avram ( and his descendants)  deal(s) with it.

 

Avram had another choice to escape the famine: The valley of Sodom is closer; it does not require crossing the desert.  In the next parsha, Hagar and Ishmael will nearly die of thirst in that same desert! When Lot, Abraham's nephew and ward sees the valley, it is described: 

וַיַּרְא֙ אֶת־כׇּל־כִּכַּ֣ר הַיַּרְדֵּ֔ן כִּ֥י כֻלָּ֖הּ מַשְׁקֶ֑ה.... כְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם בֹּאֲכָ֖ה צֹֽעַר׃  

Lot looked about him and saw how well watered was the whole plain of the Jordan, all of it...all the way to Zoar, like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt.

The region was rich enough to attract the invading armies of Persia and Babylon. Why did Abraham choose Egypt?

 Abraham recognized that a migrant to Egypt might be killed to make his beautiful wife available, but the Pharaoh could allow him to live and even offer protection. Sodom may have been worse. In the next parsha, it seems worse. When the angels visit Lot, the people of Sodom insist upon access to “the strangers." Lot’s offer of his virgin daughters does not deter the lust of these people. 

Avram clearly abhors the Sodomites.  After he rescues Lot (and the captured of Sodom) from the four Assyrian kings,  and he is offered all the booty, he tells the king of Sodom: 

אִם־מִחוּט֙ וְעַ֣ד שְׂרֽוֹךְ־נַ֔עַל וְאִם־אֶקַּ֖ח מִכׇּל־אֲשֶׁר־לָ֑ךְ וְלֹ֣א תֹאמַ֔ר אֲנִ֖י הֶעֱשַׁ֥רְתִּי אֶת־אַבְרָֽם׃ 

I will not take so much as a thread or a sandal strap of what is yours; you shall not say, ‘It is I who made Abram rich.’

The treasure that he received from Egypt does not seem to have this problem... despite the circumstances. 

The invasion of the army of the five kings, the attempt to incorporate the region into the empire, is a contrasting population movement…military conquest. Although Avram demonstrates his ability to defeat this invading army, he does not choose this approach to stake a claim to the land.  Without an heir, his conquest would be transitory and probably constantly under challenge.

My life has been deeply influenced by migration decisions. My distant ancestors migrated to Poland.  My parents, forced out of Poland, chose to come to America.  I chose to live in Seattle.  All these Charans. All these Egypts.

All people descended from migrants.  Does coming to the land earlier constitute a meaningful claim? Every migration is an invasion and an escape.  It is a threat to the prevailing system and culture.  It is an opportunity for the new immigrant and the current inhabitant – who is the descendant of a previous immigrant.

 

 

 

Noach: Survivorism

Noach: Survivorism

The Judaism I grew up with emphasizes survival.  My parents survived the holocaust.  The great Jewish question of my time was whether Judaism could survive assimilation in the new, tolerant environment. In school, I was taught that survival (of the fittest?)  is the basis of biology.  Parshath Noach deals with survival and selection. 

The first story in Noach involves the selection of representatives of the land animals of the world for survival from the great flood that would wipe out every other representative of the species. The survivors are selected by Gd as mating pairs.  Darwin's Origin of Species begins with observations about species that are selected by the intelligent overseer: the human. Selection determines the future. 

There is an understory in the Flood: the feelings of. and toward, the unselected. Perhaps they were cynical when Noach built the ark, but once the rains came did they not feel  that they were treated cruelly by this conspiracy between Gd and Noach?  Perhaps a person had done some small misdemeanor; should that keep her from admission onto the ark? 

How did Noach feel about excluding his father, brothers, friends from rescue? When the rains came and the fountains opened, did they not claw at the ark? Did Noach and his family not hear them scratching at every surface? 

The holocaust survivor won the selection process. It was not just the cruel left or right of the concentration camp; it was the work permit given to some Jews and not others; it was the Judenrat selections; it was finding a section of a room in the ghetto. These struggles for survival make Divine grace a banal process.  ( Hannah Arendt)

The structure of parshath Noach emphasizes selection.  It begins with the selection of Noach and ends with the genealogy and early travels of Abraham. This genealogy which identifies a single descendent in each generation - who was a necessary link to the ultimate hero - reflects a basic biological principle: all intermediate states must be viable. A person's role in history may be defined by her descendants. 

The penultimate story in the parsha, the tower of Babel, illuminates the beginning of the parsha. Presumably, in the antediluvian ( pre- flood) world, everyone spoke the same language.  

 הֵ֣ן עַ֤ם אֶחָד֙ וְשָׂפָ֤ה אַחַת֙ לְכֻלָּ֔ם וְזֶ֖ה הַחִלָּ֣ם לַעֲשׂ֑וֹת וְעַתָּה֙ לֹֽא־יִבָּצֵ֣ר מֵהֶ֔ם כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר יָזְמ֖וּ לַֽעֲשֽׂוֹת׃ 

and the LORD said, “If, as one people with one language for all, this is how they have begun to act, then nothing that they may propose to do will be out of their reach   

Their power will be too great. Presumably  the flood disposed of any threat they may have posed.  Now the survivors needed to be hampered from overwhelming collaboration ( world communism?), so they were dispersed; and the idea of the foreign was instilled, limiting their ability to conspire, יָזְמ֖וּ , since they would now redirect their projects  against each other. (Esperanto did not work to reverse this edict.)  The flood had not been  an adequate adverse  selection. This communal destructive trait needed more work. 

Doing the math, it seems that Abraham had lived through the dispersion in the aftermath of Babel. He had survived the cataclysm of his generation and was selected to be the hero of his age.  He made the decisions that showed a path in this new world of separate nations... nations that would conquer and enslave one another. 

The curse of slavery by the hungover Noah is another selection.  Destiny would be assigned at birth: to comfort  or to oppression. The hierarchy of slave and master is the prequel to  Jacob and Esau. Isaac's blessing to the disguised Jacob included: 

יַֽעַבְד֣וּךָ עַמִּ֗ים (וישתחו) [וְיִֽשְׁתַּחֲו֤וּ] לְךָ֙ לְאֻמִּ֔ים הֱוֵ֤ה גְבִיר֙ לְאַחֶ֔יךָ וְיִשְׁתַּחֲו֥וּ לְךָ֖ בְּנֵ֣י אִמֶּ֑ךָ ...׃

Let peoples serve you,
And nations bow to you;
Be master over your brothers,
And let your mother’s sons bow to you.

 

 It may also be the motivation for the sale of Joseph which leads to the enslavement in Egypt. Joseph's brothers may have  imagined that they would be relegated to a  servile relationship. 

                -------------------------

After the waters recede, Noah sends birds to determine whether or not it is safe to open the ark. The raven never returns.  It has plenty of carrion to eat and treasures freedom over his mate.  The dove always returns. She is faithful to her community and ultimately brings back a signal of safety: the olive branch. It is a reminder of the mating pair, the unit of selection. We notice the monogamy of Noah and Abraham ( Hagar comes later; for now we see Abraham staying with his wife despite their childlessness.) 

Since Noah is an origin  story, it is an opportunity to ask why.  Why is  mating  a prerequisite for reproduction in almost all multicellular organisms?   I asked this question of Dr. Ilan Rubin, a student of evolutionary biology.  He sent me two scholarly papers and an erudite summary.  The answer is blowing in the wind.  There is little clarity, alternatives to mating  exist in nature, and they are mathematically superior. Mating was selected. 

Noach is a foundational parsha. It emphasizes choice and selection.  In my mind,I can choose the chooser; it need not be random.

Bereshith: good

 Bereshith: good

וַיַּ֧רְא אֱ אֶת־הָא֖וֹר כִּי־ט֑וֹב וַיַּבְדֵּ֣ל אֱ בֵּ֥ין הָא֖וֹר וּבֵ֥ין הַחֹֽשֶׁךְ׃  

God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness.

Genesis 1

וְרָאִ֣יתִי אָ֔נִי שֶׁיֵּ֥שׁ יִתְר֛וֹן לַֽחׇכְמָ֖ה מִן־הַסִּכְל֑וּת כִּֽיתְר֥וֹן הָא֖וֹר מִן־הַחֹֽשֶׁךְ׃ 

I found that
Wisdom is superior to folly
As light is superior to darkness; 

Ecclesiastes 2, read last week on Shmini Atzereth

Good and bad, I define these terms
Quite clear, no doubt, somehow

Bob Dylan, My Back Pages  verse 6 ( the last)

The declaration of good and,  its separation from the alternative,  has evolved. Genesis, this week's parsha is an opportunity to look at a this process. 

Light is the alternative to darkness, light allows vision,  the ability to sense at a distance.  It is an incomparable knowledge, a great enabler. The creation of light leads to the invention of good.  The discovery of good reveals bad. This is the forerunner to  eating from the tree of knowledge. 

וַתֵּ֣רֶא הָֽאִשָּׁ֡ה כִּ֣י טוֹב֩ הָעֵ֨ץ לְמַאֲכָ֜ל  

When the woman saw that the tree was good for eating and a delight to the eyes

It gets all mixed up. Does this good mean the same thing as the first good, the good that Gd declares about the newly created light?  This good that the woman saw leads to the violation of the only rule, the death sentence, and expulsion from Eden. It seems to be a bad good.  But it is only because of the light , and its accompanying concept of good that sin occurs.  How much of this drama is  inevitable?

This good and bad operate in the next great drama: 

In the course of time, Cain brought an offering to the LORD from the fruit of the soil;

and Abel, for his part, brought the choicest of the firstlings of his flock. The LORD paid heed to Abel and his offering,

but to Cain and his offering He paid no heed. Cain was much distressed and his face fell.

And the LORD said to Cain,
“Why are you distressed,
And why is your face fallen?

הֲל֤וֹא אִם־תֵּיטִיב֙ שְׂאֵ֔ת וְאִם֙ לֹ֣א תֵיטִ֔יב לַפֶּ֖תַח חַטָּ֣את רֹבֵ֑ץ וְאֵלֶ֙יךָ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָת֔וֹ וְאַתָּ֖ה תִּמְשׇׁל־בּֽוֹ׃

.Surely, if you do right,
There is uplift.
But if you do not do right
Sin couches at the door;
Its urge is toward you,
Yet you can be its master.”

Now we have the idea of improvement, moving toward the good. 

This passage reminds me of a story Allen Mansfield told me when we were  about 11.  Allen shared many stories, this one stuck with me: 

The Vilna Gaon said that the greatest sin is not  as a sin at all.  It is ...

and now I cannot remember the Hebrew word accurately.

  It may either be עַצְבוּת (atzvuth) sadness or עַצלָנוּת (atzluth) laziness. Both work. In the story of Cain, it is his sadness that brings him to murder. Failure to follow Gd's advice is the origin of laziness.  If I do not strive to always improve, sin crouches at my door. 

The humans learned to control light. They made fire which shed light in the darkness. They made light from electricity (Edison)  and electricity from light ( the photoelectric effect [Einstein's Nobel Prize]) Knowledge had brought great gain ( יִתְר֛וֹן).  Knowledge brought light. 

The darkness has a role. It is a time to rest and it is romantic. In high school I wrote a poem for our magazine.  I remember only two lines

    The light makes us see clearly

    that which is so beautiful in the night. 

The ambivalence sticks with me. Lighting makes a difference and ,maybe, it is not always for the best. 

In our age, the cynical lines of Bob Dylan prevail. It is all relative. there is no clarity, no absolute light, no absolute darkness. How can one ( or many) judge. We do not understand  ( or stand under?) Gd's judgement anymore. 

It is all good.