VaYetzeh: Leaving and Returning

Yaakov leaves Be’er Sheva and goes to (or toward) Charan.  He is running from Aisav’s anger; he is following his parents’ instructions to find a wife from among his kindred.  He is undoing Gd’s instructions to Abraham to settle in Canaan. We know the end of the story: he is going into a temporary exile, he will return and lead and follow his offspring into the more lasting Egyptian bondage. But when Yaakov leaves Be’er Sheva, this district that was ceded to  Abraham by the Philistines by a treaty; and was a refuge for Yitzchok in his conflict with the next generation of Philistines, Gd delivers the promise of return in his dream. By leaving Be’er Sheva, Yaakov had not ceded his claim to the land.

When Aisav marries the Canaanite women, he was moving to possess the land. Marrying into the local tribes is a way of acquiring rights and property. But it would come with compromise of the ancestral culture.  Aisov would bring some of the tradition of Abraham and Isaac to the place, but it would be serially diluted over the generations. There would be an assimilation.

Yaakov was going back to the place that Abraham, on Gd’s instructions, had rejected.  Abraham came to Canaan to establish his own way, not to adapt to the local customs.

When Yaakov left, when he went out, he could have abandoned this approach. He could have called Charan home. It was the place settled by his great grandfather Terach. The dream he had as he departed made it clear that he could return,that he should return.

Jacob in Charan is the model for young adulthood: marriage, children, career, the accumulation of wealth. Once these tasks are accomplished, he returns to the land of Abraham’s sojourn. Actually, he was also motivated by the growing resentment of his brothers-in-law, which was now impacting Lavan’s attititude:

וַיִּשְׁמַ֗ע אֶת־דִּבְרֵ֤י בְנֵֽי־לָבָן֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר לָקַ֣ח יַעֲקֹ֔ב אֵ֖ת כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר לְאָבִ֑ינוּ וּמֵאֲשֶׁ֣ר לְאָבִ֔ינוּ עָשָׂ֕ה אֵ֥ת כׇּל־הַכָּבֹ֖ד הַזֶּֽה׃

Now he heard the things that Laban’s sons were saying: “Jacob has taken all that was our father’s, and from that which was our father’s he has built up all this wealth.”

וַיַּ֥רְא יַעֲקֹ֖ב אֶת־פְּנֵ֣י לָבָ֑ן וְהִנֵּ֥ה אֵינֶ֛נּוּ עִמּ֖וֹ כִּתְמ֥וֹל שִׁלְשֽׁוֹם׃

Jacob also saw that Laban’s manner toward him was not as it had been in the past.

It is only after this that Gd tells Yaakov

שׁ֛וּב אֶל־אֶ֥רֶץ אֲבוֹתֶ֖יךָ וּלְמוֹלַדְתֶּ֑ךָ וְאֶֽהְיֶ֖ה עִמָּֽךְ׃

“Return to your ancestors’ land—where you were born—and I will be with you.”

Yaakov has a practical and a spiritual reason to move on.

Embedded in the conflict between Yaakov and Lavan ( and his sons) is the argument between the relative value of capital  and labor.

When Yaakov explains his leaving, he recounts the hardships of his labor as part of the justification for his reward. Lavan argues:

וַיַּ֨עַן לָבָ֜ן וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֶֽל־יַעֲקֹ֗ב הַבָּנ֨וֹת בְּנֹתַ֜י וְהַבָּנִ֤ים בָּנַי֙ וְהַצֹּ֣אן צֹאנִ֔י וְכֹ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֥ה רֹאֶ֖ה לִי־ה֑וּא וְלִבְנֹתַ֞י מָֽה־אֶעֱשֶׂ֤ה לָאֵ֙לֶּה֙ הַיּ֔וֹם א֥וֹ לִבְנֵיהֶ֖ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר יָלָֽדוּ׃

Then Laban spoke up and said to Jacob, “The daughters are my daughters, the children are my children, and the flocks are my flocks; all that you see is mine. Yet what can I do now about my daughters or the children they have borne?

Lavan argues: The owner of the capital keeps the produce. Is this a model for a duality that has colored modern Jewish history. The Jewish labor leader (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Gompers), the communist, the money lender, the landlord. The Jew hater could pick any of these (or other) targets, globalize and persecute.

The Haftarah is a commentary on the parsha. Both Ashkenazim and Sephardim read the latter part of Hosea. It talks about the rebelliousness of Ephraim, repentance and return to the land. Ashkenazim start with

וַיִּבְרַ֥ח יַעֲקֹ֖ב שְׂדֵ֣ה אֲרָ֑ם וַיַּעֲבֹ֤ד יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בְּאִשָּׁ֔ה וּבְאִשָּׁ֖ה שָׁמָֽר׃

Then Jacob had to flee to the land of Aram;

There Israel served for a wife,

For a wife he had to guard [sheep].

A clear reference to the end of our parsha; arguably the point of our parsha – the return. Jacob (unlike Esau) does not disappear into assimilation. He returns to try to re-establish the values and traditions of Avraham and Yitzchok.

Not long before my birth, the people of Germany,and Poland, and the world stopped looking at Jews as had been. The Jews had become too needy, too rebellious, too successful, too strange, too similar. They were intermarrying too much and too little. Too few Jews saw the faces change. The Jews had a practical reason to leave. Some saw a spiritual salvation that had, through millenia of time, become spectral (both in the ghostly and electromagnetic sense).  They went to Palestine.

Jews cannot tolerate Hamas’ murders and violations. There is no place left to go. There was never a place to go.

But the values must be kept.

This is a practicality that I do not know how to operationalize.

Toldoth: Competition

Competition is the overarching theme of this week’s parsha. The competition between Jacob and Esau dominates the parsha.  That story surrounds the interactions between father Isaac and Avimelach, the Philistine king.

Competition is a key part of the unstated American/Western ethos( religion). Competition generates the motivation for advancement. It is the force that generates new products and lowers prices. Competition is postulated as the basis for the diversity of life, it is the Darwinian origin of the species. The natural status of competition imbues it with inevitability.

We are brought back to the first competition: Cain and Hevel. What were they fighting over? The text says, they were talking… and Cain killed Abel:

וַיֹּ֥אמֶר קַ֖יִן אֶל־הֶ֣בֶל אָחִ֑יו וַֽיְהִי֙ בִּהְיוֹתָ֣ם בַּשָּׂדֶ֔ה וַיָּ֥קׇם קַ֛יִן אֶל־הֶ֥בֶל אָחִ֖יו וַיַּהַרְגֵֽהוּ׃

Cain said to his brother Abel … and when they were in the field, Cain set upon his brother Abel and killed him.

The topic of their conversation does not matter.  Cain’s overwhelming envy could only be satisfied by murder.

In this week’s parsha, Esau expresses murderous intentions against brother Jacob. Esau’s motives seem similar to Cain’s.  Esau feels cheated out of a blessing: words of approval.

It is strange that the blessing can work when delivered to someone other than the intended recipient. The blessing is all about intention; and misdirection should invalidate it.  Perhaps Isaac’s blessing incorporated a test of capability. The “blessing” was more a prophecy of which brother would rule, and Isaac saw Jacob’s guile; and he recognized that this quality would dominate…for a while.

Isaac lived by virtue of the unexpected. His birth to post-menopausal Sarah was a miracle. He was rescued from death at the hands of his father Abraham by the tears of the angels and a ram caught by its horns. Isaac was prepared to sincerely give the “blessing” to whomever it seemed appropriate.

When Esau arrives moments too late, the blessing acquires its balancing curse. Esau, in the Midrash, is imagined the forerunner of the Roman Empire, the [fr]enemy of Judea. The Romans subjugated Judea, a situation that could be projected upon the consolation promise made to Esau after clever Jacob had snatched it .

וְעַל־חַרְבְּךָ֣ תִֽחְיֶ֔ה וְאֶת־אָחִ֖יךָ תַּעֲבֹ֑ד וְהָיָה֙ כַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר תָּרִ֔יד וּפָרַקְתָּ֥ עֻלּ֖וֹ מֵעַ֥ל צַוָּארֶֽךָ׃

Yet by your sword you shall live,

And you shall serve your brother;

But when you grow restive,

You shall break his yoke from your neck.”

Isaac was suborning the murderous competition. Perhaps he was echoing Gd’s instruction to Cain, presumably meant to prevent this outcome:

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.”

Competition leads to murderous intent. The alternative of self-improvement does not always work. The parsha, once again, relates intense competition to envy, often over nothing more than a favorable attitude from an important entity.

In the story of Abimelech and Isaac, envy leads to pure destruction. The Philistines fill the wells, and then fight over the wells dug by Isaac. Isaac simply moves on. Ironically, he settles in the lands to which his brother, Ishmael, had his miracle.

These stories of competition become a context for the Jews understanding of antisemitism. The Jew must be clever to survive; but some are  so clever that they thrive; that evokes the envy of the host; the cruel power of the host is unleashed against the Jew. The host feels cheated. How can cleverness outdo indigenousness? The Jew either moves on, or has the wells filled, or goes to the next exile.

 

Chaye Sarah: Twice Told Tales

I once wrote a letter that was published in the  New York Times book review. The letter corrected a comment about the disguise that Jacob wore when he obtained the blessing of his father, Isaac.  Esau, Isaac’s  preferred recipient, was out hunting for a feast to celebrate his selection. The article attributed the idea of appropriating the blessing by guile to Jacob.  My letter corrected that misconception.  It was Rebecca, their mother (who favored Jacob) who hatched the ruse. I generally do not have the courage to write such letters.  But it was just after I had returned from burying my mother in Israel. [Tomorrow, Shabbat, is her Yahrzeit].  The grief cancelled my inhibitions.  Unfortunately, that sorrow-bravery faded. Now, I can just remember the story.

I think that Abraham may have used some of this sorrow-induced boldness when he purchased the cave of the Machpela, the burial plot, for Sarah.  Her death necessitated and facilitated the procurement.

Abraham  identified a burial plot. Cemeteries are usually on land that has little utility. Perhaps that is why the people of the place, who did not own the desired area, invite Abraham to simply take it. Abraham insists on negotiating with the owner, Efron the Hitite.  The root of this man’s name is efer – dry earth, dust. This is the stuff of the body and what it becomes in death.  As Gd said to Adam

כִּֽי־עָפָ֣ר אַ֔תָּה וְאֶל־עָפָ֖ר תָּשֽׁוּב׃

 

For you are dust (efer) and to dust ( efer) you will return.

Efron states an asking price. Abraham publicly gives him every penny in certified currency. He buries Sarah.  This is the first land purchase recorded in the Torah. It is  the  title deed to  a small piece of the Promised Land. A deed claimed by all who assert their heritage as  Abrahamic.

At the end of the parsha, Isaac and Ishmael, the acknowledged sons, bury Abraham together, next to Sarah, in the cave of the Machpela. The text reiterates:

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.

 

Rav Hirch addressed the repetition

The title of purchase is repeated over and over again because in this purchase, humanly speaking, the children were given the only guarantee that their fathers recognized this country as their country and had therefore made their permanent resting place there. ( translation from German by Google)

 

I am not sure what  Rav Hirch means, but I take away the idea that despite the publicly recorded valid transaction, the world at large was not certain about who owned the land. Abraham’s purchase must be repeated.

It is not clear to me that land can ever be purchased. I live on land that was taken from an indigenous people.  Everyone does. The trades and valuations (true and fraudulent) are a game played on legal sand that can give way.

The Talmud looks at land as the ultimate entity of lasting value.  Land is always incumbered to debts. The sale of land does not relieve that piece of earth from its role as ultimate collateral for any loans made prior to its sale.

The story of the sale must be repeated for all the trouble that it causes. There is no end to forgetting or re-interpreting.

The other repeated story is the identification of Rebecca as the bride for Isaac. The loyal servant concocts a “test.” The woman who, when asked for some water, delivers the water and then volunteers to water the camels too – she will be the choice. Rebecca does just that.

One can interpret Rebecca’s actions.  She may have been showing kindness. It would have been excessive kindness. She sees this servant heading a caravan with a retinue of men asking her for water.  Why can’t they get their own water? Why does she volunteer to water the camels, too? This is radical acceptance. A wonderful quality. She does not make a judgement based upon the situation.  

Alternatively, she fully expected to be rewarded. Her services were delivered on credit.  In fact, she was rewarded with gold and a wedding proposal.

Or maybe, Rebecca’s angel spoke with the servant’s angel and she just knew to do what she did. The story had to happen.

The servant had to tell Lavan and the rest of Rebecca’s family the story.  The story turns an accidental meeting into a Divine intervention:

וַיַּ֨עַן לָבָ֤ן וּבְתוּאֵל֙ וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ מֵיְ יָצָ֣א הַדָּבָ֑ר לֹ֥א נוּכַ֛ל דַּבֵּ֥ר אֵלֶ֖יךָ רַ֥ע אוֹ־טֽוֹב׃

Then Lavan and Betu᾽el answered and said, The thing comes from the Lrd: we cannot speak to thee bad or good.

The verdict is Divine, human reasoning has no role. Lavan tries to control the details, but the ultimate decision is left to Rebecca. She either wants to leave her current circumstances, or she does not want to delay her fate, or she sees a brighter future in leaving … and she goes immediately. Rebecca and Isaac will spawn another eternal conflict: between the clever and the deceived; between Jacob and Esau.

It is all in how you tell the story.

How do I tell myself the story of Oct 7, 2023 and the aftermath? Antonio Guterres said that the events did not occur in a vacuum. What filled the space? Which tradition is continued? Is it the 20^th century Nazi goal of death to all Jews? The medieval idea that Jews are disposable aliens everywhere? Are Jews in Israel European invaders on Islamic land? Are the Jews mercilessly imposing their religious fantasy on an indigenous people with deadly force? Are the Israelis purposely, or carelessly, murdering civilians, especially children? Did the people who remained in Gaza, after being informed that it would become a battle ground, vote for murderous antisemitism with their feet and become collaborators? What am I supporting with my silence?

 

 

 

Vayera: collective punishment

The parsha is hard to figure. Abraham tries to rescue Sodom, yet he banishes Ismael and Hagar into the desert - where they would die of thirst had not an angel pointed them to water. Abraham prays that Avimelech be healed from the illness created to prevent him from being with his wife, Sarah – and then brings their son, Isaac to be a burnt offering on the altar.  Things do not evolve as expected.

When Gd appears, a challenge looms. The conversation between Gd and Abraham, Abraham’s attempt to save the five towns ( Sodom, Amorah, Admah, Tzevaim and Tzoar) is presented as incidental, a tribute to Abraham’s future.

אָמָ֑ר הַֽמְכַסֶּ֤ה אֲנִי֙ מֵֽאַבְרָהָ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֖ר אֲנִ֥י עֹשֶֽׂה׃

And the Lord said, Shall I hide from Avraham that thing which I intend to do;

The plea that ensues is a model for those who call themselves the descendants and disciples of Abraham

חָלִ֨לָה לְּךָ֜ מֵעֲשֹׂ֣ת ׀ כַּדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֗ה לְהָמִ֤ית צַדִּיק֙ עִם־רָשָׁ֔ע וְהָיָ֥ה כַצַּדִּ֖יק כָּרָשָׁ֑ע חָלִ֣לָה לָּ֔ךְ הֲשֹׁפֵט֙ כׇּל־הָאָ֔רֶץ לֹ֥א יַעֲשֶׂ֖ה מִשְׁפָּֽט׃

Far be it from Thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, far be it from Thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

Onkelos translates the word for righteous, Tzadik, as zacai – innocent. I am not sure if that clarifies or confuses the issues.

Abraham invokes an unwritten principle. I could easily simplify it to: Each individual must be judged, not the collective. That is not how it turns out.  Abraham argues that a critical mass, a sufficient number of righteous (or innocent) people should save the collective. This is a less appealing, but more practical position.

This year, I remembered that these five towns were the same kingdoms defeated by emperors of Babylon and Persia in last week’s parsha.  Abraham had saved them previously from a military conquest, another circumstance in which the innocent suffer. The capture of nephew Lot had motivated Abraham’s successful military operation. I imagine Lot’s choice to stay in Sodom was part of the reason for Abraham’s plea to save the residual righteous of Sodom from fire and sulfur. Lot is indeed saved, and Lot’s pleading saves one of the five duchies, Tzoar. Lot is saved from obscurity by the incestuous plot of his daughter, perhaps a residual from living in Sodom (or being offered as a replacement for the wayfarers lodging at Lot’s house). Relationships and the designation of righteous are complex.

In the end, in the parsha, all the named characters: Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Sarah, Hagar, Lot, Avimelech – are all rescued. They confront dangers, they face destruction, but they are rescued by angels. Sodom and Amorah and Adama and Tzevoim are destroyed. There are no names to remember there. The too few innocents are swept away in the punishment for overwhelming evil. That seems to be how the world works. There were innocent Germans under the Nazis, righteous Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar, good Romans under Hadrian. Etc.

I must, at least, recognize the injustice wrought by retribution.  It is a  cruel addendum to crime.