Toledoth: National Character

 Toledoth: National Character

The second verse of the parsha strongly emphasizes Rebecca’s  connection to Aram

אֶת־רִבְקָ֗ה בַּת־בְּתוּאֵל֙ הָֽאֲרַמִּ֔י מִפַּדַּ֖ן אֲרָ֑ם אֲח֛וֹת לָבָ֥ן הָאֲרַמִּ֖י 

Isaac was forty years old when he took to wife Rebekah, daughter of Bethuel the Aramean of Paddan-aram, sister of Laban the Aramean.

Rashi (quoting Genesis Rabbah 63:4)understands the mention of Aram to mean evil: 

שֶׁהָיְתָה בַּת רָשָׁע וַאֲחוֹת רָשָׁע וּמְקוֹמָהּ אַנְשֵׁי רֶשַׁע וְלֹא לָמְדָה מִמַּעֲשֵׂיהֶם:

She was the daughter of a wicked man, sister of a wicked man, and her native place was one of wicked people, and yet she did not learn from their doings (Genesis Rabbah 63:4).

The Bereshith Rabba actually says: 

אֶלָּא בָּא לְלַמֶּדְךָ אָבִיהָ רַמַּאי וְאָחִיהָ רַמַּאי וְאַף אַנְשֵׁי מְקוֹמָהּ כֵּן,

Rather, it is coming to teach you: Her father was a charlatan [ramai], her brother was a charlatan, and the residents of her place were likewise so,

The midrash rearranges the letters  of Arami אֲרַמִּ֔י to make רַמַּאי ramai. A lier, a deciever. 

Why does Rashi abandon this anagram?  Does he want to imply an evil other than decpetion? Deception is a somewhat more tolerable misbehavior.  

The mention of Aram also brings us to the Hagadda which quotes an interprets Moshe’s instructions in Deuteronomy:

אֲרַמִּי֙ אֹבֵ֣ד אָבִ֔י וַיֵּ֣רֶד מִצְרַ֔יְמָה 

This phrase is difficult to translate. Onkelos, the Rabbinically sanctioned,  official translation of the Torah renders:

לָבָן אֲרַמָּאָה בָּעָא לְאוֹבָדָא יָת אַבָּא

 

[Lovon] the Aramite [wanted to] destroy[ed] my forefather,

The approach the אֹבֵ֣ד oved, mean destroy is standard. It is accepted by Rashi and that interpretation produces the Haggada’s interpretation:

GO [to the verse]

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,

as it is written:

“AN ARAMEAN SOUGHT MY FATHER'S DEATH. 

Ibn Ezra says this interpretation is grammatically incorrect. Ibn Ezra understands אֹבֵ֣ד, oved to mean “lost” and it refers to Jacob (the father)

שארמי הוא יעקב

The term Aramean refers to Jacob.

Many of the classic commentators seem to agree with  Ibn Ezra. 

What is the fundamental difference between the interpretations? Rashi is interpreting  Arami as wicked. Arami represents a personality that wants to totally destroy the Jewish nation. Every Arami is assumed to be an enemy. 

Ibn Ezra, Sfrono, Rabeinu Bachya, Chizkuni identify Jacob ( or Abraham) as the Arami. Now Arami is certainly not negative. It's just a fact.  The anagram in Bereshith Rabba and the Hagadda are drashic, not literal, interpretations. The Hagadda is the  most deeply reinforced interpretation and Rashi has a lot of backup in Onkelos and Beretshith Rabba. 

Thus, Arami becomes a negative connotation; and since it refers to a tribal or national group, its negative connotation becomes a prejudice.

Jews are familiar with this kind of linguistic prejudice. The  parsha has a very early example. 

When Esau realizes that Jacob has appropriated the blessing that he expected for himself, he cries out: 

וַיֹּ֡אמֶר הֲכִי֩ קָרָ֨א שְׁמ֜וֹ יַעֲקֹ֗ב וַֽיַּעְקְבֵ֙נִי֙ זֶ֣ה פַעֲמַ֔יִם

"Is it because he was named Jacob (Yaakov) that he has supplanted/outwitted me (vayakveyni) these two times?"

English translation cannot capture the affront. Esau calls the action of Yaakov (Jacob) ‘yaakveyni” . This should be translated as: he “Yaakoved me”, he Jewed me. Esau invokes the name Yaakov, and then creates a derivative of the name Yaakveyni. He makes Yaakov (Jacob) into a verb. 

The New York TImes published an easy on Nov 12, 2026: The Spanish Shylock Problem .  The essay reports that the Royal Spanish Academy has decided to maintain the definition of judio as” a miserly and usurious person”  in the official dictionary.  I am not sure that this deviates significantly from Esau’s usage. It is ironic that the Spanish commentators avoided  the prejudicial interpretation of Arami (Abraham Ibn Ezra lived in Muslim Spain). 

Before Jacob and Esau are born, Rebecca anticipates a competition that involves not only the boys, but their eternal offspring. 

שְׁנֵ֤י (גיים) [גוֹיִם֙] בְּבִטְנֵ֔ךְ וּשְׁנֵ֣י לְאֻמִּ֔ים מִמֵּעַ֖יִךְ יִפָּרֵ֑דוּ וּלְאֹם֙ מִלְאֹ֣ם יֶֽאֱמָ֔ץ וְרַ֖ב יַעֲבֹ֥ד צָעִֽיר׃

and GD answered her,

“Two nations are in your womb,

Two separate peoples shall issue from your body;

One people shall be mightier than the other,

And the older shall serve the younger.”

These are two nations and they will battle and there is an unexpected outcome.  This is a prophecy of strife. Sibling rivalries and conflicts are common, but the projection into the indefinite future gives it a high level of importance. Since we have the prophecy, we cannot tell if this rivalry would quarry forward without the prophecy.  We cannot tell the degree to which the prophecy causes the continuation of the strife. Certainly, the accounts of persecution of Jews has maintained suspicion and latent fear. I have little doubt that non-Jews have stories to tell about us. 

The text leaves no doubt that guile, רמאות [ramaut]  the trait attributed to Aram,  when Jacob appropriated the blessing, posing as his brother Esau. The details make it clear that the ploy originated with mother Rebecca, born an Arami. Jacob, the perpetrator, was also half Arami. Although this feeds into the prejudice, it is a statement of a fault that we share. Arameans tend to use guile. Jews do also; and they come by it honestly through their maternal  (and paternal) heritage.  Rashi and Ibn Ezra are both right.

Ultimately, the enmity between Jacob and Esau  is goaded by the “blessings”  Jacob is given dominance ( although Isaac intended it for Esau) : 

הֱוֵ֤ה גְבִיר֙ לְאַחֶ֔יךָ וְיִשְׁתַּחֲו֥וּ לְךָ֖ בְּנֵ֣י אִמֶּ֑ךָ

Be master over your brothers,

And let your mother’s sons bow to you.

Isaac recognized that he had created a domination relationship.  He says so when Esau asks for a reserved blessing: 

הֵ֣ן גְּבִ֞יר שַׂמְתִּ֥יו לָךְ֙ וְאֶת־כׇּל־אֶחָ֗יו נָתַ֤תִּי לוֹ֙ לַעֲבָדִ֔ים

But I have made him master over you: I have given him all his brothers for servants, 

When Isaac blesses Esau, he makes him a warrior

וְעַל־חַרְבְּךָ֣ תִֽחְיֶ֔ה

by your sword you shall live

 who will depose  his brother ( if he veers from the path of righteousness) 

וְהָיָה֙ כַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר תָּרִ֔יד וּפָרַקְתָּ֥ עֻלּ֖וֹ מֵעַ֥ל צַוָּארֶֽךָ

But when you grow restive,

You shall break his yoke from your neck.”

The next verse is Esau’s reaction; it is cryptic

וַיִּשְׂטֹ֤ם עֵשָׂו֙ אֶֽת־יַעֲקֹ֔ב עַ֨ל־הַבְּרָכָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר בֵּרְכ֖וֹ אָבִ֑יו

Now Esau harbored a grudge against Jacob because of the blessing that his father had given him, 

The traditional reading is that Esau was angry about the blessing given to Jacob.  But it seems possible that Esau was angry  on the basis of his own blessing. That “blessing”  rewards anger with dominance. 

Historically the children of Jacob have almost always been threatened underlings.  From the destruction of the first temple (586 BC) until the founding of the state of Israel (1948CE) , there was no Jewish self- government. The extent to which the modern state of Israel answers to  other powers. 

For a time, the United States purported to do away with the prejudices that divide people ( at least among the European colonizers) . Recently that effort has suffered a setback  and things seem to be getting worse for Jews ( among others).  I am not ready to endorse the prejudicial idea of national character.  I don’t know if I can free myself of them.

Sarah: Ishmael

 

Sarah: Ishmael

This week's parsha starts with the death of Sarah and ends with the descendants of Ishmael and the death of Ishmael. The son of Abraham and Hagar,  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. That did not work out. It appears that Hagar remained attached to her son, excluding Sarah.  

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 story of Moby Dick famously begins with the words: “ Call me Ishmael”. Ishamel is the son who goes to the wilderness that is the sea. Ishmael was not granted land. He must find his way in no man’s land. 

Sarah's treatment of Hagar led to her running away. That episode  led to the encounter with the angel of Lechi Roie who blessed Hagar and her son Ishmael.  The blessings that come through tolerating injustice, seem to have a better chance of coming true. 

The end of Chaya  Sarah lists the biological legacy of Abraham , including the descendants from Ketura ( who may have been Hagar).  Rahi says that Isaac had gone to Lechi Roie to fetch Hagar and return her to Abraham. While Abraham’s servant was getting a bride for Isaac, Isaac was getting a bride for his father

Ishmael is given special recognition since his death is described. 

וְאֵ֗לֶּה שְׁנֵי֙ חַיֵּ֣י יִשְׁמָעֵ֔אל מְאַ֥ת שָׁנָ֛ה וּשְׁלֹשִׁ֥ים שָׁנָ֖ה וְשֶׁ֣בַע שָׁנִ֑ים וַיִּגְוַ֣ע וַיָּ֔מׇת וַיֵּאָ֖סֶף אֶל־עַמָּֽיו׃

These were the years of the life of Ishmael: one hundred and thirty-seven years; then he breathed his last and died, and was gathered to his kin.—

Rashi comments  ויגוע. לֹא נֶאֶמְרָה גְוִיעָה אֶלָּא בְּצַדִּיקִים

This expression — expiring — associated with a word denoting dying is only mentioned in the case of righteous people (Bava Batra 16b).

Rashi quotes a piece of the discussion in Bava Bathra to imply that Ishmael was  a tazadik, righteous. 

 

The previous Rashi 

ואלה שני חיי ישמעאל וגו'. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּא בַּר אַבָּא לָמָּה נִמְנוּ שְׁנוֹתָיו שֶׁל יִשְׁמָעֵאל, כְּדֵי לְיַחֵס בָהֶם שְׁנוֹתָיו שֶׁל יַעֲקֹב

ואלה שני חיי ישמעאל וגו AND THESE ARE THE YEARS OF THE LIFE OF ISHMAEL etc. —R. Chija the son of Abba asked: Why are the years of Ishmael enumerated? In order to trace through them the years of Jacob

This makes Ishmael an incidental character. 

There is no contradiction here. Righteousness is a quality of the individual. The listing of the years implies an impact on the world. Rashi does not deny Ishamael either righteousness nor impact, but he implies that Ishamels’s impact comes through the trajectory of his brother Isaac.  This is an understandable position for  Rabbi Shlomo, the son of Isaac. 

The last verse in Chaye Sarah describes the location of the descendants of Ishemael: 

וַיִּשְׁכְּנ֨וּ מֵֽחֲוִילָ֜ה עַד־שׁ֗וּר אֲשֶׁר֙ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י מִצְרַ֔יִם בֹּאֲכָ֖ה אַשּׁ֑וּרָה עַל־פְּנֵ֥י כׇל־אֶחָ֖יו נָפָֽל׃ {פ}

They dwelt from Havilah, by Shur, which is close to Egypt, all the way to Asshur; they camped alongside all their kin.

Rabbi Yisochor Frand quotes the Baal Haturim

Literally, the word “nafal” in the concluding expression “al penai kol echav nafal” means “he fell over all his brothers”. Rashi interprets the word “nafal” to mean “shachan” – he dwelt.

The Baal HaTurim is bothered by this strange usage. The Baal HaTurim comments that there is a message in the juxtaposition of the last words of Chayei Sarah (al penai kol echav nafal) and the first words of Parshas Toldos: “These are the generations of Yitzchak; Avraham bore Yitzchak…” The Baal HaTurim explains that the proximity of the two expressions teach us that when Yishmael will fall and be finally defeated in the end of days, then the Moshiach [Messiah] – the descendant of Yishai who is himself a descendant of Yitzchak (Toldos Yitzchak ben Avraham) – will come.

This is a message from the 14th century. 

In Eretz Yisroel, Jews have always lived alongside Arabs. A connection between Ishmael and Arabs is made in the story of the enslavement of Joseph. After Joseph's brothers had thrown him into the pit, they see a caravan: 

וַיִּשְׂא֤וּ עֵֽינֵיהֶם֙ וַיִּרְא֔וּ וְהִנֵּה֙ אֹרְחַ֣ת יִשְׁמְעֵאלִ֔ים בָּאָ֖ה מִגִּלְעָ֑ד

they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead,

Onkelos renders this 

וּזְקָפוּ עֵינֵיהוֹן וַחֲזוֹ וְהָא שְׁיָרַת עֲרָבָאֵי אָתְיָא מִגִּלְעָד

I do not know what to make of this irony. The descendants of Ishamel, the son of Abraham banished by Sarah, Ishmael who came near death from thirst in the desert. Ishamel’s descendants are the instrument that rescues Joseph and brings him across the desert. It is through the intervention of the Ishmaelites that the Israelites are enslaved and become a great nation. 

When Abraham dies, Isaac and Ishmael know where to bury him - in the cave, next to Sarah. Sarah was partly Ishmael's mother, too.

 Chaye Sarah: Bashert

This Shabbath is the yahrzeit for my mother , the anniversary of her death. It is a day when I remember the reality she made for me. She gave me my life.  She was perhaps the most important influence on how I see the world. She believed in Bashert: the idea that events are fated. 

There is a Judaism that comes from books and Rabbis. (In its extreme form, it is the practice that comes from Art Scroll.)  Then there is the Judaism that comes from watching and listening to parents: The folk customs and view of how the world works.   In Mishlei it says: 

שְׁמַ֣ע בְּ֭נִי מוּסַ֣ר אָבִ֑יךָ וְאַל־תִּ֝טֹּ֗שׁ תּוֹרַ֥ת אִמֶּֽךָ׃

My son, heed the discipline of your father,

And do not forsake the instruction of your mother;

The Malbim comments: 

התורה שתלמד אותך אמך, או ר"ל תורת הכנסיה בכללה שהיא האם הכוללת, אל תטוש, כי יש לה יסוד במוסר ובדעת:

do not forsake the teaching that your mother teaches you. Or perhaps, “your mother” refers to the teaching of the community as a whole, which is the universal mother. Do not forsake it, for it has a foundation in mussar (discipline and knowledge).

 A Jewish culture evolved in shtetlach in Poland. I, as the son of Holocaust survivors,  grew up in its ashen remnants of that destroyed world. I grew up with  folk traditions like bashert.  I have  a visceral sense of bashert. Bashert is not a strong force that makes things happen. You recognize the coincidences and declare they are bashert. The fact that my mother’s yahrzeit falls on parshath Chaye Sara is bashert. 

The Sarah of the Torah  was the archetypal mother. We refer to her as Sarah Emanu, Sarah our mother. How can I not be thinking of my own mother when I read about Sarah?

. 

The parsha opens with the death of Sarah.  This is the anniversary of my mother’s death. That generates an eerie, but not unpleasant,  feeling. The haftarah which is about Bathsheva protecting her son, Shlomo. It is as if my mother is giving me a gentle poke from the hereafter. There is nothing more bashert than that.  

The connections between the parsha and the events that transpired after my mother’s death are haunting. 

Years before she died, my mother had bought a plot in the Eretz Hachaim cemetery in Israel. Despite the availability of that plot, when my mother died, there was some discussion in the family about the most appropriate burial site. Some  thought that burial in New Jersey, among her landsmen, people from the area around Bialistock, Poland would be more accessible..  At that time most of the family lived in the Northeast US.  They thought that  the convenience of a Northeastern American location would make it more likely for relatives to visit the grave.  I  thought a destination grave in Israel would be better. There is a parsha relationship. 

The second verse in the parsha poses some questions

וַתָּ֣מׇת שָׂרָ֗ה בְּקִרְיַ֥ת אַרְבַּ֛ע הִ֥וא חֶבְר֖וֹן בְּאֶ֣רֶץ כְּנָ֑עַן וַיָּבֹא֙ אַבְרָהָ֔ם לִסְפֹּ֥ד לְשָׂרָ֖ה וְלִבְכֹּתָֽהּ׃

Sarah died in Kiriath-arba—now Hebron—in the land of Canaan; and Abraham proceeded to mourn for Sarah and to bewail her.

Why did Abraham need to travel  (he had last been located in Be’er Sheva)? Many answers are offered, but the Toldoth Yitzchok  (quoting his brother R, Ephrain Karo) has a very appealing answer. 

According to the Toledoth Yizchak, Sarah’s residence in Hebron  had been  planned by Abraham and Sara together: 

כונת אברהם היתה מתחלה להקבר הוא ואשתו בארץ כנען,

ולפיכך כשהרגישה בעצמה אפיסת הכחות ויתרון החולשה, וידעה שלא תאריך ימים, צותה שיוליכוה לחברון למות שם... לפי שהיא בארץ כנען.

Abraham’s intention from the beginning was for him and his wife to be buried in the land of Canaan … Therefore, when she (Sarah) felt that  … she would not live much longer, she commanded [her servants] to bring her to Hebron to die… since it is in the land of Canaan.

מבאר שבע שהיא ארץ פלשתים ואינה ארץ כנען, לא קנה אברהם אחוזת קבר, שבבאר שבע אינו רוצה להקבר,

And thus “Abraham came” from Beersheba, which was in the land of the Philistines and not the land of Canaan.

This idea of a destination burial plot may have been anticipated by Abraham and Sarah. If Sarah died in Hebron, it would make it easier to bury her there, it would be more sensible.  There is always an case for burying a person near the place of death. This also explains why the verse states the obvious 

בְּקִרְיַ֥ת אַרְבַּ֛ע הִ֥וא חֶבְר֖וֹן בְּאֶ֣רֶץ כְּנָ֑עַן 

Sarah died in Kiriath-arba—which is Hebron—in the land of Canaan;

We knew that Hevron was in Canaan. The verse points out the significance. Sara was to be buried in Canaan, not in the land of the Pelishtim, not in Be’er Sheva. 

There is more…

My mother had paid for her internment in  a cemetery near  Beit Shemesh. When the time came for her to use the plot she had purchased, the undertaker offered to buy us out, pay more than we had put down for the plot. The offer of money became a consideration.

In the parsha  Abraham paid the inflated price  that  Efron the Hitite  asked  for the burial plot. Abraham was willing to overpay for the  stake in the Holy land. I learned from his example. It cost more to bury my mother in Israel.  It was worth it. 

Abraham underwent ten trials (Pirkei Avot 5:4)  Raneinu Yonah (of Gerona) lists the burial of Sarah as the tenth test. Bringing my mother to Israel was a test for me. El Al bumped us off the plane. There was a group led by a Cohen. He threatened to remove his group if there was a corpse on the plane.  Cohanim are not permitted to be in the same space  as a corpse. 

Most flights to Israel probably have Cohanim. I called Rabbi Kletenik for advice. He pointed out that the container made for transporting the corpse was constructed so that the tumah, the ritual impurity, is insulated from the surroundings and there was no problem for a Cohen to fly in a plane that transports a corpse to Israel. Misplaced zeal won over halacha  and I was bumped to a later flight on another airline.  It was an adventure.  It was a trial. 

I sat shiva for a few days in Israel. When I came back to Florida, my sisters had opened my mother’s safe deposit box.  It contained one note that said: “Bury me in Israel.”  There was no discussion about where my father would be buried.  I plan to visit them both in a couple of weeks when we go to Israel. 

During these  weeks, when we read the stories of the Patriarchs, the fundamental question is why? Why have these stories been preserved so  carefully in very expensive, constantly corrected, parchment scrolls? The phrase Maase Avoth Siman Lebanim is often invoked. It means that the actions of the ancestors are a sign for their descendants. 

The phrase Maase Avoth simon lebanim does not appear until the 17th century. The Maharsha quotes the phrase, so it must have been in use at the time, but by quoting it, there is an implication that it may have been older. 

 The concept  can be traced to the Talmud Yerushalmi  (4th century) 

אמר ר׳ יהושע דסכנין בשם ר׳ לוי: סימן מסר הקב״ה לאברהם, שכל מה שאירע לו אירע לבניו 

“Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin said in the name of Rabbi Levi: The Holy One, blessed be He, transmitted a sign to Abraham: Everything that happened to him happened to his descendants.” 

This is quoted by Ramban (13th Century). But the phrase itself מעשה אבות סימן לבנים  does not appear in print until much late, . actually about the same time that bashert appears in the Yiddish literature. 

The meanings of מעשה אבות סימן לבנים  (Ma'aseh avot siman lebanim)and bashert  are somewhat fluid. We do not believe in destiny. Although it is a point of contention, Rabbi Yochanan says:  אין מזל לישראל , (Ein mazal leYisrael ) Israel is not under the influence of the constellations. We are not subject to arbitrary fate.   But we do believe in the wisdom of the ancestors and that we should learn from their examples. That is why we preserve the stories. 

  When my mother died, I saw this principle in action. Looking at the stories, looking at how our ancestors behaved taught me what to do and gave me the courage to do it.  When it was all over, I recognized that it was  bashert.  Every year, the parsha and the haftorah remind me. 

Vayerah: Parenting

 Vayerah: Parenting

A major theme in the parsha is how parents sacrifice children. Every child becomes an offering. Parents usually attempt to direct their children down a path of righteousness, and/or success. Some parents abandon their children. This is also a sacrificial rite, akin to the scapegoat ritual of Yom Kippur: the abandoned goat ( probably) dies from a fall down the rocky cliff. Parents always abandon their children and usually hope that they have imparted enough guidance so that their future generations thrive and do good.  That is a quality that Gd saw saw in Abraham: 

כִּ֣י יְדַעְתִּ֗יו לְמַ֩עַן֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְצַוֶּ֜ה אֶת־בָּנָ֤יו וְאֶת־בֵּיתוֹ֙ אַחֲרָ֔יו וְשָֽׁמְרוּ֙ דֶּ֣רֶךְ יְ

לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת צְדָקָ֖ה וּמִשְׁפָּ֑ט

For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Avraham that which He has spoken of him.

The abandonments of  the parsha are its drama. 

Abraham, on Gd’s instruction, left his father. Our Jewish tradition emphasizes the importance of this break. Abraham was leaving the deceptions of idolatry for the truth of monotheism with  the universalism and morality that it implies. 

When Abraham left Haran, he brought his nephew Lot with him. Presumably Lot had some interest in Abraham’s worldview and joined the journey. In a sense, Abraham  adopted Lot. Lot’s separation from Abraham, his descent to the valley of greed and riches (Sodom) and his rescue from  capture by the four kings was told in the last chapter. Lot returned to Sodom and now Gd was contemplating destroying the area because of its evil. When Abraham pleads for the lives  of innocents among the sinful, he does not mention  his nephew. Perhaps the danger to Lot was (part of) the motivation for Abraham’s remarkable bargaining with GD, but it is not explicit.  As the story unfolds, Lot, his wife and two unmarried daughters  are uniquely saved by angelic intervention. This is a pattern in the parsha: Gd rescues at the last possible moment and the rescue comes from a path that was present but  had previously been overlooked. 

Lot had taken two  angelic strangers into his home.  The aggressive, violent people of Sodom wanted them. Lot offers his virgin daughters instead (the offer was refused by the Sodomites). He was  willing to sacrifice his daughters for the safety of the strangers. Lot’s values are perverse, they are a distortion. The sacrifice of female offspring for worldly gain was common and remnants of that practice remain. Subsequent events in that family attest to the distorted  values. 

 Ishmael is sacrificed through abandonment by all three of his parental figures. Sarah had given Hagar, her servant, to Abraham as a wife on the condition that she be the parent of the offspring, Ishamael. That seems not to have worked out.  When Sarah sees Ishamel as a competitor with Isaac ( the issue of her body) for the legacy, she demands Ishmaels’s  exile (abandonment). Abraham, Ishamael's father (on the direction of the Divine) allows the expulsion. He sends Ishmael and his mother, Hagar, into the desert with, what he believes to be, enough water to reach a well (that he has dug). But the well is gone. (Presumably the Philistine subjects of Avimelach have stolen it, as reflected in the subsequent treaty of Be’er Sheva) . When Hagar sees a terrible death by thirst looming, she separates from the boy. Divine intervention, pointing out the overlooked spring, saves Ishmael.

 Avraham is told to take this very special son, the miraculous one, the son designated by Gd to be the legacy and offer him as a Holocaust. Abraham is commanded to do an absurdity. To violate the most fundamental principles, to violate the covenant of the children of Noah. By now, Abraham sees that his understanding of the world is incomplete; he replaces understanding with faith; once more, he undoes the Tree of Daath. 

The Akeida ( binding of Isaac)  is the culmination of rescues. What is really important to Avraham: his biological future? his emotional tie to his offspring? the will of Gd? Avraham demonstrates his willingness to give all for Gd. Avraham realizes that he cannot, ever, rescue anyone. Only the Most Powerful can rescue -  and , fortunately, that is just what happens.

Now, I begin to see that my children and their children will be what they will be. I will be forced to abandon this life and they will carry on, each generation striving toward the ever-changing goals that are called The Go(o)d.

Lech Lecha: Faith and the Promised Land

Lech Lecha: Faith and the Promised Land

 Lech Lecha introduces the concept of the Promised Land. Gd tells Avram: 

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

GD said to Abram, “Go forth from your (native)land and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you.

Gd’s initial promise is:

 וְאֶֽעֶשְׂךָ֙ לְג֣וֹי גָּד֔וֹל וַאֲבָ֣רֶכְךָ֔ וַאֲגַדְּלָ֖ה שְׁמֶ֑ךָ וֶהְיֵ֖ה בְּרָכָֽה׃

 I will make of you a great nation, And I will bless you; I will make your name great, And you shall be a blessing.

Avram will become a great, blessed nation. 

The land grant occurs after the Avram has returned with cattle  wealth  from Egypt. He and his nephew Lot  are grazing their cattle. But the land cannot sustain them, causing strife between their shepherds.  

וַֽיְהִי־רִ֗יב בֵּ֚ין רֹעֵ֣י מִקְנֵֽה־אַבְרָ֔ם וּבֵ֖ין רֹעֵ֣י מִקְנֵה־ל֑וֹט וְהַֽכְּנַעֲנִי֙ וְהַפְּרִזִּ֔י אָ֖ז יֹשֵׁ֥ב בָּאָֽרֶץ׃ 

And there was quarreling between the herders of Abram’s cattle and those of Lot’s cattle.—The Canaanites and Perizzites were then dwelling in the land.—

The mention of the Canaanites and Perizzites prompts Rashi (quoting Genesis Raba)  to attribute the strife between Avram and Lot to the interpretation of Gd’s promise. Lot’s shepherds argued that the land would eventually belong to childless Avram. Lot would be the heir, Lot would inherit the land currently occupied by Canaanites and Perizzites. Therefore it is acceptable to graze on the land those people currently claim. Avram did not agree. If the land was currently the property of the Canaanites and Perizzites , using the land without permission is theft. Avram needed to separate from  a thief.

Last week, the Rabbi at the Lincoln Square  synagogue quoted this Rashi. ( The Rashi imprimatur makes this the default standard interpretation.)  He was talking about settlers in the West Bank pilfering olives from Arab orchards - an action that had been sanctioned by some Rabbis.  Rabbi Robinson was comparing the settler’s actions to those of Lot’s shepherds. The geography matches. 

There is a small textual problem with Rashi’s interpretation. It assumes that Gd had already promised the land. In the text, the first promise of land follows that episode.  The text is explicit: 

אַחֲרֵי֙ הִפָּֽרֶד־ל֣וֹט מֵֽעִמּ֔וֹ שָׂ֣א נָ֤א עֵינֶ֙יךָ֙ וּרְאֵ֔ה מִן־הַמָּק֖וֹם אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֣ה שָׁ֑ם צָפֹ֥נָה וָנֶ֖גְבָּה וָקֵ֥דְמָה וָיָֽמָּה׃ 

And GD said to Abram, after Lot had parted from him, “Raise your eyes and look out from where you are, to the north and south, to the east and west,  

כִּ֧י אֶת־כׇּל־הָאָ֛רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֥ה רֹאֶ֖ה לְךָ֣ אֶתְּנֶ֑נָּה וּֽלְזַרְעֲךָ֖ עַד־עוֹלָֽם׃ 

for I give all the land that you see to you and your offspring forever.

Now we have a Promised Land (perhaps as a reward for separating from the thief). 

The parsha goes on to describe the geopolitics of that time and place. The Persian and  Mesopotamian kings had conquered  the land. They had ruled over the area around ( what was to become) the Dead sea for 12 years until the locals rebelled. Avram was aloof from these political struggles until Lot, the nephew from whom he had separated, was captured by the Mesopotamian forces. Avram made an alliance with some of the local tribes and rescued his nephew by overcoming the Empire’s forces.  Avram was the liberator of the land. By the custom of the times, he may have become the ruler, the heir to the land on that basis. 

The context of the story weakens that argument. The overarching  history of conquest by the Babylonians and rebellion by the locals illustrates the insecurity of occupation as a road to possession.  

After Avram’s victory over the Mesopotamian Imperialists he has a dream. In the dream, Avram expresses his concern that he has no heir to his legacy. He has been promised the land ( that he liberated) but he has no heir. Gd shows Avram (the secret of infinity by showing him) the stars in the sky and tells Avram that his offspring will be as numerous (uncountable). Avram trusts in Gd’s reassurance and GD credits Avram’s faith. It is not entirely clear whether the dream ends now or goes on.  THe next sentences are: 

וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אֵלָ֑יו אֲנִ֣י יְ

אֲשֶׁ֤ר הוֹצֵאתִ֙יךָ֙ מֵא֣וּר כַּשְׂדִּ֔ים לָ֧תֶת לְךָ֛ אֶת־הָאָ֥רֶץ הַזֹּ֖את לְרִשְׁתָּֽהּ׃ 

Then [Gd] said to him, “I am GD who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to assign this land to you as a possession.”  

וַיֹּאמַ֑ר אֲדֹ

בַּמָּ֥ה אֵדַ֖ע כִּ֥י אִֽירָשֶֽׁנָּה׃ 

And he said, “O my Sovereign GD, how shall I know that I am to possess it?”

Avram’s faith, trust in the absence of evidence, has been his great merit. Is he now abandoning that? 

The root of the  word  אֵדַ֖ע  is is closely related to the  עֵ֕ץ הַדַּ֖עַת ט֥וֹב וָרָֽע, the Tree of Daath (knowledge?). The eating from that tree gave humanity the ability to ask such a question. I understand  the sin of Adam and Eve better from this interaction between Avram and Gd.  If you don’t have daath, you don’t have doubt.  Once you have daath,  Gd’s word is no longer enough: show me the proof! Belief can never again be pure. Pure faith, for most of us, is a dream.  For Avram doubt arises in a dream state

There is also a practical aspect to the question: בַּמָּ֥ה אֵדַ֖ע כִּ֥י אִֽירָשֶֽׁנָּה׃ how shall I know that I am to possess it?”  Possession implies convincing other people  of the right to that land. I understand the question to include the idea of evidence of possession, the deed. How will Avram convince others that the land belongs to his offspring?

  Gd’s answer is a ritual involving the hemisecction ( cutting in two) of a calf, a goat and ram and dove and pigeon that are left intact. Rituals are symbolic and the meaning is usually mysterious. I will leave interpretations of the ritual for another time or person. 

 Then: 

וְתַרְדֵּמָ֖ה נָפְלָ֣ה עַל־אַבְרָ֑ם וְהִנֵּ֥ה אֵימָ֛ה חֲשֵׁכָ֥ה גְדֹלָ֖ה נֹפֶ֥לֶת עָלָֽיו׃ 

As the sun was about to set, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and a great dark dread descended upon him.

There is only single other תַרְדֵּמָ֖ה, (tardema) deep sleep, anesthesia experience, in the Torah.  That one involves the emergence of the woman from the side of  the single human. Tardema seems to be an anesthesia experience. 

In this תַרְדֵּמָ֖ה, this time outside reality, Gd tells Avram a prophecy of the future. That future will include 400 years of servitude. Followed by a grand  emergence of Avram’s offspring as a great nation. . 

It is these events that no one could have foreseen that prove Gd’s grant of the land to Avram.  Avram knows the sequence of events that no one else could predict. That knowledge is the deed to the land. That information, sourced through Avram, is carried by the conquering descendants and (vaguely?) remembered by the nations to be vanquished.

After the victory over the four kings, Melchizedek associated Avram  with ל עֶלְיֽוֹן, Melchizedek’s concept  of Gd. Melchizedek  had said that A elyon was קֹנֵ֖ה שָׁמַ֥יִם וָאָֽרֶץ, the owner of heaven and earth.  The prophecy demonstrated that Avram was connected to the creator of history. The transfer of possession was from the true owner  to the descendants of Avram. 

The parsha ends with Abraham’s adoption of the brith milah, circumcision. It introduces the boy into the tribe of Abraham with all of its rewards and obligations ( including honest dealings with others) This is an act of faith that involves pain, mutilation, blood, child abuse. It is an act of faith that rejects science ( as we have it as a consensus of experts). That is what makes it great. It is a bite of the tree of life, the antithesis of the Tree of Knowledge.  In the text Gd seems to like that.