Toledoth: trickery

Toledoth: trickery

There are some aspects of the parsha that are hard to understand; they come from an unfamiliar perspective.

First thing: The text makes sure that we remember Rebecca’s background. She is the daughter of an Aramean and the sister of an Aramean and she came from Padan Aram. When viewed in the context of prior and subsequent history, this is an ambivalent designation; a frenemy. Aram was a refuge for Avaram’s clan when they left Ur. Most of the family settled there, including Nahor, Abraham’s brother. Abraham had specifically wanted a member of this clan to be the bride for his son, Isaac.  Rebecca fits the bill.

When I hear Aram, the hagaddah calls out to me:

צֵא וּלְמַד מַה בִּקֵּשׁ לָבָן הָאֲרַמִּי לַעֲשׂוֹת לְיַעֲקֹב אָבִינוּ: שֶׁפַּרְעֹה לֹא גָזַר אֶלָּא עַל הַזְּכָרִים, וְלָבָן בִּקֵּשׁ לַעֲקֹר אֶת־הַכֹּל.

צֵא וּלְמַד GO

AND LEARN

what Laban the Aramean

sought to do to our father Jacob:

Pharaoh condemned only the boys to death,

but Laban sought to uproot everything,

 

Laban the Aramean is the arch enemy of the Hebrew future: worse than Pharaoh.

From these texts, I come to think that Aram shared qualities with the land of its rearranged ( and extended) letters: America.  More generally, Aram is the paradigm of (imagined) Jewish refuge. Rome was Aram, Germany was Aram, the Soviet Union was Aram. It is a place of tolerance that eventually feels threatened by its Jewish guests. It is a place where assimilation is welcomed up to a point. Ultimately, it is a place of destruction. The tradition of Aram has always been a part of Jewish history and it continues.

Isaac loved Rebecca.  In this parsha we see that Rebecca maintained some of the Aramean cleverness. Did Isaac love her in spite of this? because of this? both? Did their relationship teach Isaac to respect the art of deception?

When I read the third verse of this week’s parsha, I hear a possible  second meaning  to the words  לְנֹ֣כַח אִשְׁתּ֔וֹ. Many commentators understand this to mean that Isaac was opposite his wife, perhaps in different corners ( Rashi). The Sforno hints at another meaning

he prayed to G’d that the mother of this child or children should be someone who was meritorious,

Perhaps he was praying that the corrupt guile that Rebecca had brought from her Aramean tradition would be straightened, corrected, brought to a truer path. It seems, from  the ensuing story that  it was only through this deviousness that events proceeded down the destined road.

It was Rebecca who convinced Jacob to come to Isaac, when Isaac would bestow his ultimate blessing, in the guise of Esau. She prepared the meal, she arranged the costume of goat skin and hunting garments, that would trick her loving husband into bestowing the best blessing ( perhaps the only blessing)  on her favorite son: Jacob.  Jacob, for fear of getting caught, was reluctant to put on the performance. His mother convinced him. He was convinced and he did it.

When the real Esau appeared, and the ruse was uncovered, Isaac says:

  וָאֲבָרְכֵ֑הוּ גַּם־בָּר֖וּךְ יִהְיֶֽה׃

and have blessed him? moreover, he shall be blessed.

 

The current daf yomi, the end of Bava Bathra, deals with the gifts of a person on his death bed. One of the major principles of such a gift  is that it is reversible.  If a person thought he was dying and gave away all his possessions, and then recovered, the gift(s) return to the giver because they were given under inaccurate suppositions. Further, if the gifts went to one person, and the dying person changed his mind, the gifts are transferrable to a new recipient.  Thus, the law may have allowed Isaac to transfer the blessing to the real Esau. He did not. Isaac confirmed the blessing to Jacob.

I think it is possible that Jacob had come to admire and respect a certain level of guile. The text attributes Isaac’s special love for Esau to  צַ֣יִד

וַיֶּאֱהַ֥ב יִצְחָ֛ק אֶת־עֵשָׂ֖ו כִּי־צַ֣יִד בְּפִ֑יו

Isaac favored Esau because he had a taste for game;

 

Rashi points us to the Midrash here:

its Midrashic explanation is: there was hunting in Esau’s mouth, meaning that he used to entrap and deceive him by his words (Genesis Rabbah 63:10).

 

The simple understanding of this midrash is that Isaac was taken in, ensnared, by Esau’s mouth ( his words).  It can also mean that he loved the fact that Esau could ensnare others. Perhaps Isaac had come to admire this skill of guile: communication, propaganda. Now he saw that Jacob is capable of these arts

 

  וָאֲבָרְכֵ֑הוּ גַּם־בָּר֖וּךְ יִהְיֶֽה׃

and have blessed him? moreover, he shall be blessed.

 

 

Cleverness, solving most difficult problems, guile when needed: these are qualities attributed to Jews as bases for antisemitism. I recognize them. They have a place. They are the behaviors of the desperate and not necessarily Jewish. Jews have been desperate too many times.

 

Chaye Sarah: Repetition

 

Chaye Sarah: Repetition

My understanding of large language models, what is popularly called artificial intelligence, is that it is based on the enormous amount of information available on the internet.  All of the communications that can be accessed by computers that are programmed to recognize patterns, and can then reproduce the patterns that have been used most often. The parsha affords an insight into a fundamental flaw in that process.

A large part of the parsha is dedicated to the story of Abraham’s servant identifying Rebecca as the appropriate bride for his master’s son, Isaac. Although preserving anything in writing was difficult and expensive in the era before the invention of printing and paper, so every word counted, the details are reported three times. Once, as the servant’s plan: The young woman who exceeds my request for a drink of water and also waters the camels will be the chosen one.  The second time , the story is related as it transpires. The third time, the servant relates the story to Rebecca’s family.

Each repetition serves a purpose. The first establishes the plan. We can consider the demand that the servant is making: The chosen woman must be kind, ambitious, capable, blind to status, generous. These are excellent qualities, but not the one Abraham demanded: that she be from his family in Haran. In the plan and the record of the events, her family is an afterthought. When the servant retells the story, he does not bestow the gifts until she identifies herself as  Abraham’s great niece, the daughter of Bethuel.  The small, but significant variation is pointed out by Rashi.

The servant’s public statement is only a slight variation from the events as recorded in the text. The statement is what would now be recorded on the internet, which would not have access to the thoughts nor a record of the  events.  Like Lavan and Bethuel, we would only have the stated  version, how it should have been.  That is a fundamental problem in large language models.  They are based upon human statements that contain an element of should. That bias helps explain why Large language model answers sound so appealing. They reflect the way we wish the world worked.

The last repetition  of the story  serves the mission. The servant tells Rebeccas' family, whom, he presumes, control her availability as a bride, about a selection process that was outside of human control. The retelling of the story is necessary so that Lavan hears the details and is rendered powerless to object. Rebecca's family have the hoped-for response:

 

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 Lord: we cannot speak to you bad or good.

I do not know if this realization leads to giving Rebecca, herself, the final say in when and whether she would be brought back to Canaan to be Isaac's bride. Perhaps, once the men recognize their powerlessness in the situation, they are shocked into giving the woman what is rightfully hers: the right of acceptance or rejection.  The servants story seems to have convinced her close male relatives. 

The story emphasizes that Gd can have a role in human actions. We, who read the text accept that it was Divine intervention that brought Rebecca at that moment to the well. 

The haftara, a reflection of the parsha, also makes use of repetition

The haftarah describes the problem of succession for king David. Adoniyahu, David's son by Hagith, assembles a coalition and has rallies to build support. He has announced that he is planning to assume the throne after David dies.  Adoniahu's coalition excludes Shlomo and Nathan the prophet, among others. Nathan informs Bath Sheva, Shlomo's mother, of the plot and offers her advice. He stages how Bath Sheva will reveal Adoniyahu’s plan to David and, immediately thereafter, Nathan will say almost the same. One difference between them is that Bath Sheva invokes Gd as the entity that stands behind David’s oath to make her son, Shlomo, the successor. Nathan emphasizes that the successor should be the king’s decision and currently he is defaulting to circumstances. When David declares that he will make Shlomo his successor, he invokes both of these ideas.

כִּ֡י כַּאֲשֶׁר֩ נִשְׁבַּ֨עְתִּי לָ֜ךְ בַּי

אֱ

יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר כִּֽי־שְׁלֹמֹ֤ה בְנֵךְ֙ יִמְלֹ֣ךְ אַחֲרַ֔י וְה֛וּא יֵשֵׁ֥ב עַל־כִּסְאִ֖י תַּחְתָּ֑י כִּ֛י כֵּ֥ן אֶעֱשֶׂ֖ה הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה׃

The oath I swore to you by the ETERNAL, the God of Israel, that your son Solomon should succeed me as king and that he should sit upon my throne in my stead, I will fulfill this very day!”

In both the Torah portion and the haftarah, repetition makes the story more true. This is a first principle of propaganda and we all have a good deal of recent personal experience with it.

I do not understand how Gd interacts with the world, but I know that interaction takes place. The night that I met my wife, Karen, on the 15^th of Av, my friend from elementary school was staying in my apartment. I told him that I had met the woman that I will marry. It was so. Karen went on to research and write the story of my mother in the holocaust, with the miracles that allowed her to survive  - so that my siblings and I were born.

וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ מֵיְ

 יָצָ֣א הַדָּבָ֑ר לֹ֥א נוּכַ֛ל דַּבֵּ֥ר אֵלֶ֖יךָ רַ֥ע אוֹ־טֽוֹב׃

 

 The thing comes from the Lord: we cannot speak to you bad or good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vayerah: The Individual and the Collective

 This week's parsha  is full of mixed messages.  Abraham begs the travelers 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  mother. He is ultimately willing to offer his  (remaining) beloved son as a human burnt offering! 

 Abraham is the model of generosity. Abraham presses the wayfarers (who turn out to be Gd's representatives) to come and share a meal with him. 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; but not even a minyan of 10 can be found and the city is destroyed. 

Abraham's argument begins with the statement הַאַ֣ף תִּסְפֶּ֔ה צַדִּ֖יק עִם־רָשָֽׁע׃  “Will You sweep away the innocent  along with the guilty? 

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: Each individual should be judged, not the collective. That is not how it turns out. Is the punishment collective because of efficiency? Choosing individuals  for rescue or destruction cannot be too difficult for the Almighty. Perhaps is it the inevitable corruption of every individual within an evil regime that spreads sufficient blame that it justifies collective punishment. Ultimately, collective punishment  is one of the unfathomables that define our relationship to Gd. 

  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.

The rescue of Lot from Sodom does not clarify.  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 ( offering his daughters to the mob, drunken incest)  is not clear enough.  The ambiguity of Lot, who goes on to have an ambivalent  legacy in Ammon and Moab, means that salvation is possible despite previous errors...and we all make mistakes. Sometimes your privileged relatives can cave you. 

 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 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. Did he anticipate that a satisfactory alternative solution would be found? After his actions that expressed doubt: passing Sarah as his sister ( on two occasions), has Abraham come to a more pure faith: that following the edicts of Gd, as stated, will come to a good conclusion. Did Abraham believe that Isaac would not actually be sacrificed, but Abraham does not know when the salvation will come.   By keeping that deep humility, he found 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 am often confronted with desperate problems.  Most people come into the diagnosis of cancer with the expectation that there will be no satisfactory solution. They have been  brought to the  sacrificial altar.  They have been sold out by their genes.  They have run out of water. They need a miracle .  Sometimes it happens

 

Lech Lecha

 

Last week’s parsha, Noah, ended with

וַיִּקַּ֨ח תֶּ֜רַח אֶת־אַבְרָ֣ם בְּנ֗וֹ וְאֶת־ל֤וֹט בֶּן־הָרָן֙ בֶּן־בְּנ֔וֹ וְאֵת֙ שָׂרַ֣י כַּלָּת֔וֹ אֵ֖שֶׁת אַבְרָ֣ם בְּנ֑וֹ וַיֵּצְא֨וּ אִתָּ֜ם מֵא֣וּר כַּשְׂדִּ֗ים לָלֶ֙כֶת֙ אַ֣רְצָה כְּנַ֔עַן וַיָּבֹ֥אוּ עַד־חָרָ֖ן וַיֵּ֥שְׁבוּ שָֽׁם׃

Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot the son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and they set out together from Ur of the Chaldeans for the land of Canaan; but when they had come as far as Haran, they settled there.

This week’s parsha begins with an explanation:

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְ

אֶל־אַבְרָ֔ם לֶךְ־לְךָ֛ מֵאַרְצְךָ֥ וּמִמּֽוֹלַדְתְּךָ֖ וּמִבֵּ֣ית אָבִ֑יךָ אֶל־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אַרְאֶֽךָּ׃

Now the Lord said to Avram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, to the land that I will show thee:

It seems that Gd told Avram to make this journey. Initially, Terach and the remainder of his family came along, but stopped short of the goal. Only Avram and Sarai and Lot (and an unidentified retinue: וְאֶת־הַנֶּ֖פֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר־עָשׂ֣וּ בְחָרָ֑ן, and the souls that they had acquired in Ḥaran;) went on to the goal…for a minute.

But there was a famine in this promised land, so Avram decided (he was not so instructed) to go to Egypt. Should Avram have stayed in Canaan? How bad would it have been? Would they starve? Would they be impoverished? Would Gd come to the rescue? Is it permissible to test Gd that way? Was Gd testing Avram and his family?  Perhaps the instruction to go to Canaan meant visiting and did not necessitate staying. Is it permissible to ask these questions?

Avram decides to go to Egypt. He recognizes that it may (will) cost him his relationship with Sarai, his wife. Avram has stayed with Sarai even though they are childless, they have no heir. Theirs is a special relationship that does not depend upon the fulfillment of the usual expectations. Desperation leads to a demeaning misrepresentation of the relationship between Avram and Sarai as siblings. Gd intervenes to rescue Sarai from the harem of the Pharaoh, from the most debasing consequences of chattel slavery. Had Avram and Sarai told the truth, would Gd have saved them?  Pharaoh gifts Avram a fortune because of his alleged sibling relationship to the desirable Sarai. What is the lesson in profiting from the deception? Did this episode incur a debt from the descendants of Avram to a future Pharaoh?

Nephew Lot separates from Avram. He appears to ultimately obtain a portion in or near the Promised Land, separate from the realm of Avram. An alliance of the precursors of Babylon, Assyria, Persia, etc, invade and take Lot captive along with, the less deserving, kings of Sodom and Amorah. This invasion ( by future oppressors) involves the displacement of early indigenous peoples (Raphaim, Zuzim, Chorim). Conquest becomes a claim to land. Avram decides (no Gd instructions) to rescue his nephew ( and those taken captive with him). He mobilizes a force of 318 ( a small number?) and defeats the invading armies, rescuing the captives. Does conquest over the invaders entitle Avram to be the new ruler? Avram returns the political situation to the status quo ante bellum.

 

A strange ritual with separated animal halves, followed by a dream state, precedes another revelation to Avram. It is a vague picture of the future  with descendants enslaved in Egypt for four hundred years, emerging to inherit the lands  of Canaan. Why does this vision require a ritual? How can Avram accept this dark prophecy of subjugation for 400 years? Does the bleakness of the prediction make it more credible? Does the Egyptian servitude play against Avram’s Egyptian guilt?

Sarai tries to solve the heir problem by providing her servant, the Egyptian Hagar, as a surrogate wife.  Hagar quickly conceives. Hagar becomes arrogant. The drama plays out with Hagar fleeing to a well in the desert ( a well that was not there when she was later banished with her son Ishmael).  An angel reassures her that the child she is carrying will spawn a great nation. Does Ishmael have a claim to the holy land as son of Avram? The story forces the claim to the land (and tradition) to depend upon legalisms rather than heredity.

Gd appears to Avram, age 99, without ceremony. Throughout this parsha, Gd is referred to by several names. The E and J, familiar from previous chapters are both here. After Avram’s military victory, the Power on High is introduced by Melchizedek, the regional priest, and accepted by Avram. Now Gd (J) is introduced as the Almighty.

Gd proposes a covenant. This one will require some surgery: circumcision. I came to appreciate how bizarre and intrinsically repulsive this custom is when it was done to my son and, even more, to my grandsons. Our family was participating in a ritual considered cruel and abusive by international pediatric associations… and I was happy about it!  The act, contrary to the scientific establishment, was truly entry into a covenant with the invisible and long silent Gd. It represents a choice of priorities, a choice of allies. Avram immediately implemented his decision.

Gd interacts with names in this week’s parsha. Gd chooses Ishmael for Hagar’s son and Yitzchak for Sarah’s, yet to be born, child. Gd grants the names Abraham and Sarah. Their fate has been adjusted. Together they will spawn our nation.

Gd rewards the faithful. Misinterpretation is a problem.  The corrections are costly.

 

 

 

 

Noach: selection

 

Creation is followed by selection. From The Beginning, the good light is selected and separated  from the non-descript, pre-existent darkness; the land is selected from the  water, the human is granted hegemony over the animals. In this week’s parsha, a pair of animals from each species is selected to regenerate an improved population of that kind; Noah and his family are selected to regenerate humanity.  Gd chooses the winners and losers. The text suggests that this Divine intervention is a way to support the righteous, who may otherwise have been destroyed by the physically stronger or more cunning wicked. Thus:

נֹ֗חַ אִ֥ישׁ צַדִּ֛יק תָּמִ֥ים הָיָ֖ה בְּדֹֽרֹתָ֑יו

Noah was a righteous man; he was blameless in his age;

The sentence implies that Noah was special, perhaps unique, in his generation because of his righteousness. The problem is: righteousness is in the eye of the selector. .

Modern biology purports to be based upon the concept of natural selection. In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin writes that he came to understand the force of genetic selection from his observations of the results of dog breeders (p17, 1859ed.).  He saw the   power of the arbitrary decisions of breeders, based upon fashion and whim (the breeders evolving concept  of righteousness?), upon the biology of previously feral animals.  He then, famously, extrapolated that power of selection to the demands of the ecologic niche; theorizing that incidental variations in plants and animals would make them more or less likely to thrive in any particular environment, hence natural selection. As humans modify the environment, the criteria for selection become an accidental partnership between humans and Gd.   

Selection implies that the few are chosen from the many. We have sympathy for the rejected.  They are brothers and sisters and friends. We could have been them.  We question the criteria.  The process appears cruel.  To an American, selection looks like a great crime.  It is not fair! The logical assumption for any individual entering a selective process is that she will not be chosen. The process is frightening. It maximizes hope.

Noah begins with : 

וַתִּשָּׁחֵ֥ת הָאָ֖רֶץ לִפְנֵ֣י הָֽ

וַתִּמָּלֵ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ חָמָֽס׃

The earth became corrupt before God; the earth was filled with lawlessness (Hebrew Hamas).

The system that emerged from Gd’s laissez faire policy, allowing humans to evolve without Divine interference, had led to an unacceptable, corrupt and violent world. Each person’s claim was backed by that person’s strength and cleverness. Left alone, the earth would self-destruct.  Gd explains the basis of the flood plan to Noah:

  קֵ֤ץ כָּל־בָּשָׂר֙ בָּ֣א לְפָנַ֔י,

the end of all flesh has come before me. 

 The current patterns of behavior will, necessarily, on their own  destroy all life.  The deluge, and the selection it entailed, was a way to save a remnant of creation.  

After the flood, the selection process resumes, driven by humans. Noah cultivates grapes for wine. He works to produce the agent of intoxication. He wants the release of inebriation. His compromised state entices the misbehavior of one of his three sons. Noah reacts with a curse of servitude that is to last through the generations. The descendants of one child will serve the descendants of the others. Ethno-chauvinism is born.

We are all the children of the selected survivors. 

Choose wisely