Miketz: 

וַיְהִ֕י מִקֵּ֖ץ שְׁנָתַ֣יִם יָמִ֑ים וּפַרְעֹ֣ה חֹלֵ֔ם

It was at the end of two full years, that Pharaoh had a dream

This word, miketz,  is  frightening to me.  It has these long, complex letters.  It ends in a harsh  tz sound. It means the end. At the end, things will be as they are; there is no appeal. We all all know the name of our end. When Gd brings the great flood, Gd says to Noah: 

קֵ֤ץ כׇּל־בָּשָׂר֙ בָּ֣א לְפָנַ֔י

The end of all flesh is come before Me;

There is no later, no appeal. 

The same word signifies the end of Pharaohs dream: 

וַיִּיקַ֖ץ פַּרְעֹֽה׃

Pharaoh awoke

There is a  psycho-emotional connection between ending and awakening. While the dream goes on, the possibilities are endless. Everything  is possible  - as long as we are alive. [The Vilna Gaon fingering his tzitzith on his deathbed].  Life is but a dream. 

The story of this parsha  is the realization of dreams. It starts with Pharoah awakening from the dream that will bring Joseph out of yet another prison/pit. Joseph had been thrown into the pit by his brothers who feared his dominance. He was sold into the abyss of slavery. Joseph ascended based his talents (Divine gifts) and upon the grace that Gd bestowed upon him. Excess grace resulted in another renunciation: he was imprisoned to protect his temptress/tormentor.   He was victimized by his inferior social status.

Joseph's interpretation of Pharaoh's dreams lifted him to the  position of viceroy of Egypt, second in command. Actually, he was completely in command, as Pharoah says: 

אַתָּה֙ תִּהְיֶ֣ה עַל־בֵּיתִ֔י וְעַל־פִּ֖יךָ יִשַּׁ֣ק כׇּל־עַמִּ֑י רַ֥ק הַכִּסֵּ֖א אֶגְדַּ֥ל מִמֶּֽךָּ׃ 

You shall be in charge of my court, and by your command shall all my people be directed; only with respect to the throne shall I be superior to you.”

but his status was limited. 

Despite his power and wealth, Joseph remained a second class citizen because he was a Hebrew. When Joseph arranges a feast for his brothers, neither Joseph nor his brother can sit with the Egyptians : 

וַיָּשִׂ֥ימוּ ל֛וֹ לְבַדּ֖וֹ וְלָהֶ֣ם לְבַדָּ֑ם וְלַמִּצְרִ֞ים הָאֹכְלִ֤ים אִתּוֹ֙ לְבַדָּ֔ם כִּי֩ לֹ֨א יוּכְל֜וּן הַמִּצְרִ֗ים לֶאֱכֹ֤ל אֶת־הָֽעִבְרִים֙ לֶ֔חֶם כִּי־תוֹעֵבָ֥ה הִ֖וא לְמִצְרָֽיִם׃ 

They served him by himself, and them by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves; for the Egyptians could not dine with the Hebrews, since that would be abhorrent to the Egyptians.

No matter how powerful the Jew becomes, the Jew remains abominable. 

Parshath Miketz is read on Chanukah. The Joseph story contrasts with the Chanukah story.  Joseph, the Hebrew,  ascends to the most powerful position in the world. Although he never becomes Egyptian, he accepts his alienation from his past. When he names his  first born Menashe: 

יִּקְרָ֥א יוֹסֵ֛ף אֶת־שֵׁ֥ם הַבְּכ֖וֹר מְנַשֶּׁ֑ה כִּֽי־נַשַּׁ֤נִי אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־כׇּל־עֲמָלִ֔י וְאֵ֖ת כׇּל־בֵּ֥ית אָבִֽי׃

Joseph named the first-born Manasseh, meaning, “God has made me forget completely my hardship and my parental home.”

Perhaps Joseph was forgetting only the hardships. When tumors are excised, healthy tissue always accompanies the disease. It is very likely that Joseph adopted some Egyptian customs to carry out his work. Assimilation was needed for his great success. 

The Joseph story is closely related to the Purim story. Mordechai competes for the position of Grand Vizier (viceroy) of the Persian Empire.  The Jews are dispersed, and to various degrees, assimilated through that Empire. Mordechai's refusal to adopt some of the (newly decreed) Persian practices causes the Grand Vizier to launch a genocidal  campaign against the Jews. This time, the hidden Jewish temptress, the antithesis of the mater's wife in the Joseph story, saves the Jews from destruction, and Mordechai ascend to viceroy. The Jews re-assert their faith

קִיְּמ֣וּ (וקבל) [וְקִבְּל֣וּ] הַיְּהוּדִים֩ ׀ עֲלֵיהֶ֨ם ׀ וְעַל־זַרְעָ֜ם וְעַ֨ל כׇּל־הַנִּלְוִ֤ים עֲלֵיהֶם֙

the Jews undertook and irrevocably obligated themselves and their descendants, and all who might join them,

The Jews were unified. 

The Joseph story has an important thread on the issue of unity. There are hints that the bond among the brothers was fraying. 

וַֽיְהִי֙ בָּעֵ֣ת הַהִ֔וא וַיֵּ֥רֶד יְהוּדָ֖ה מֵאֵ֣ת אֶחָ֑יו וַיֵּ֛ט עַד־אִ֥ישׁ עֲדֻלָּמִ֖י

Now it was at about that time 

 that Yehuda went down, away from his brothers 

 and turned aside to an Adullamite man

Joseph's insistence on  seeing his full brother, Benjamin, as a condition for the freedom and survival of the Israel family,  assured that the sons of Rachel were not alienated ( or worse) as Joseph had been.  The end of the story (the ketz) is the Egyptian slavery -  which unified the Israelites into a single nation.

Chanukah is another reassertion of unity. The issue that underlies Chanukah is assimilation into the post- Alexandrian Hellenism.  The trickle of voluntary assimilation  was  now promoted by laws forcing the violation of Jewish practice and custom.  The Hashmonoim, Kohanim ( temple priests) who had assumed the mantle of secular, military leadership recaptured the Temple: the symbol of Jewish unity; they rededicated ( chanukah-ed) it and thus reunified the Jewish people. The salvation brought by the  assumption of power by this select group is reminiscent of Joseph saving the Israelites; their anti-assimilation is a contrast to Joseph. 

All of these stories reinforce a perspective of the Jew living in a world dominated by other tribes and cultures. None of these ascents - Joseph, Mordechai, the Maccabees,  are complete. They are bubbles in a hostile world. 

Adam Sandler 's  1994  Chanukah song identified  entertainment celebrities who have Jewish roots .. or don't. The song is a celebration of Jewish success in the the  arts. It  identifies successful Jews so that the listener can feel connected to them. These outstanding Hebrews are lightning rods for antisemitism... and the antisemitism reinforces the Jewish identification.

In previous years I have talked about the self fulfilling aspect of Joseph's interpretation ( By predicting a famine in seven years, the land was worked mercilessly - until it was depleted, generating the famine). This year, I wonder whether Pharoah was aware of this potential manipulation of the grain market, and decided to participate in the scheme to consolidate his power and change the nature of the state from a force of intimidation to a (feudal) source of sustenance

 I have previously  mentioned how Joseph is analogous  to Fritz Haber [A Jew that was relieved of his Jewishness by Hitler, personally]  The Haber process combines carbon with nitrogen from the air  (70% Nitrogen). With that synthesis , Haber rescued the world from starvation when naturally occurring organic nitrogen [the essence of fertilizer] had been depleted.  [The Haber  process was also central to the production of explosives for the German Wehrmacht in both world wars, and underpins the production of Zyklon B]

Joseph is the original prominent Jew. He is the model for Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Fritz Haber, etc....The pleasure of  the association with these (and many more celebrities) is a unifying force among Jews, regardless of what they consider Judaism to be. It is a thin, sycophantic Judaism, often the last remnant. 

Chanukah is the answer to Miketz. When an era ends, whether in defeat or victory,  the (re)dedication of the Temple, the institution, and most importantly the people, generates the new hope, the new dreams. May the exile come to an end (ketz Bavel) and may the best  dreams be realized.

Happy Chanukah

Vayeshev: Who is Joseph

Who is Joseph?  The second verse of the parsha tells us several things;

אֵ֣לֶּה ׀ תֹּלְד֣וֹת יַעֲקֹ֗ב יוֹסֵ֞ף בֶּן־שְׁבַֽע־עֶשְׂרֵ֤ה שָׁנָה֙ הָיָ֨ה רֹעֶ֤ה אֶת־אֶחָיו֙ בַּצֹּ֔אן וְה֣וּא נַ֗עַר אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י בִלְהָ֛ה וְאֶת־בְּנֵ֥י זִלְפָּ֖ה נְשֵׁ֣י אָבִ֑יו וַיָּבֵ֥א יוֹסֵ֛ף אֶת־דִּבָּתָ֥ם רָעָ֖ה אֶל־אֲבִיהֶֽם׃

These are the generations of Ya῾aqov. Yosef being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren; and the lad was with the sons of Bilha, and with the sons of Zilpa, his father’s wives: and Yosef brought to his father their evil report.

Joseph is Jacob's legacy child. Jacob had 12 sons and one daughter by 4 wives. Rachel was the desired wife, the woman Jacob met at the well; she was the reason that Jacob toiled for Laban.. The birth of Joseph, Rachel's long awaited son, was the impetus for Jacob to return to  Canaan.

Jacob placed Joseph in a supervisory role. The Hebrew construction: רֹעֶ֤ה אֶת־אֶחָיו֙, translated as feeding the flock with his brethren, does not capture the implication that Joseph was shepherding his brothers.  This alternative makes his adolescent age, 17, relevant. He was learning his trade: supervisor.  It is consistent with the end of the sentence: and Yosef brought to his father their evil report.  Joseph was doing middle manager work. 

and the lad was with the sons of Bilha, and with the sons of Zilpa, his father’s wives.  Bilha and Zilpa, were slaves to Rachel and Leah. Leah and Rachel were Laban's daughters.  They had been raised as daughters, so they married into the status of wives. Bilha  and Zilpa were slaves, gifted to the daughters at their weddings. The daughters had used these slaves to produce offspring, similar to Sarah giving Hagar to Abraham.  The verse promotes these mothers to wives, and implies that their offspring are sons, not slaves. ( The offspring of a master and a slave is a slave) 

The association between Joseph and these (potentially) lower status sons is double edged. The sons of former slave women are a good training ground for Joseph's managerial skills.  Joseph  learned how to be a shepherd  to the extent that it helped him learn  how to supervise shepherds. If Jacob had sent Joseph to supervise the sons of Leah, the project would likely have failed. Although  the sons of Bilha and Zilpa may have resented Joseph as much, or more than, the sons of Leah, their lower status kept the situation in check. 

Joseph's being with the sons of Bilha and Zilpa is also a reminder that his mother, Rachel is dead. Joseph is motherless. He grows up without his best protector. He is  forced to borrow a mother. It is not the same. Joseph needs to be more independent. His orphaned status also justifies some of the favoritism that is shown to him by Jacob, the father.  and the lad was with the sons of Bilha, and with the sons of Zilpa, his father’s wives is an ancient equivalent if the Hemmingway story in six words: "For sale: baby shoes, never worn." 

Joseph is with the sons of Bilha and Zilpa, not with the sons of Leah, Leah was Rachel's true rival. Leah's sons were her validation  and their names relate to her competition with Rachel. To the sons of Leah, Joseph is a threat. Leah's clan feared Joseph's dominance from the moment of his birth. The sibling rivalry must have been intense. Joseph was certainly not with the sons of Leah.

וְיִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל אָהַ֤ב אֶת־יוֹסֵף֙ מִכׇּל־בָּנָ֔יו כִּֽי־בֶן־זְקֻנִ֥ים ה֖וּא ל֑וֹ וְעָ֥שָׂה ל֖וֹ כְּתֹ֥נֶת פַּסִּֽים׃ 

Now Israel loved Joseph best of all his sons—he was his “child of old age”; and he had made him an ornamented tunic. *ornamented tunic Or “a coat of many colors”; meaning of Heb. uncertain.

Israel loved Joseph. We are no longer dealing with Jacob, now he is the glorified, acquired persona: Israel. The name Israel implies a triumph. Did Jacob struggle with his favoring Joseph?  Israel contains the word שְׂרָ, sar, meaning prince or ruler. That root is also in the name Sarah. Sarah was the mother of the winning lineage, the grandmother of Israel.

 Israel loved Joseph best of all his sons. Isaac, Jacob's father loved his brother Esau and Isaac wanted to give Esau the patrimony. Part of Jacob's ruse to obtain the blessing intended for his brother Esau, involved wearing Esau's clothing, so that Jacob would be identified as Esau. Israel had a bespoke suit made for Joseph. When Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery, they used Joseph's unique clothing to fool Jacob into believing  that Joseph was dead... no longer available for the blessing of patrimony. 

Calling Joseph  Israel's child of old age echoes the story of Abraham and Isaac.  Isaac, born to  Sarah in their old age, was appointed (by Gd) to be the true heir. Gd had reassured Abraham that  Ishmael, Sarah's handmaiden's son, would also be a great nation.  The children of Keturah ( a later wife) were given gifts and sent away. That is not how it turned out for the children of Jacob and this section of the Torah tells us why it turned out differently. 

A unified confederation of Israel is a historical dream. It never lasted.  Domination of one tribe over another always contains an element of exploitation and resentment. Many historical heroes are people(s) that employed violence to overthrow "the oppressor." I want to be very careful in justifying violence for a "cause." There are times when the violence is justified: the Warsaw ghetto uprising, the Treblinka uprising. When violence is wielded out of frustration, that is questionable, at best. When the motivation for violence is envy, it is not justified. 

The sin of selling  Joseph  into slavery is never forgotten.  I want to understand its message. 

VaYishlach: Geopolitics

Why is there a Vayishlach? Why was this set of stories and historical details chosen for preservation through centuries?  For millennia it was hand written on parchment, before the invention of paper, before printing. Preserving this chapter, like all chapters of the Torah, was very difficult and expensive. Do we understand what it is saying?

The parsha could be seen as model for confronting fears. It opens with Jacob preparing for his confrontation with Esau.  Esau, his rival brother from birth, said that he would kill Jacob when Isaac died. Jacob fears that Esau may not wait for Isaac to die, rather Esau may treat Jacob and his family as  invaders into his territory  and destroy them when they enter the land.  Jacob prays: 

הַצִּילֵ֥נִי נָ֛א מִיַּ֥ד אָחִ֖י מִיַּ֣ד עֵשָׂ֑ו כִּֽי־יָרֵ֤א אָנֹכִי֙ אֹת֔וֹ פֶּן־יָב֣וֹא וְהִכַּ֔נִי אֵ֖ם עַל־בָּנִֽים׃ 

Deliver me, I pray, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau; else, I fear, he may come and strike me down, mothers and children alike.

Jacob fears for his life and his legacy. 

Jacob also recognizes that his claim to the land, obtained through an appropriation of Esau's identity, a process that Esau does not recognize as valid, may be challenged, or worse: The claim to the land will be seen as the basis for an invasion to take possession, and Jacob's party will be destroyed in battle. Jacob teaches the generations that follow to prepare in several ways. As Ramban summarizes: 

שֶׁנַּזְמִין עַצְמֵנוּ לִשְׁלֹשֶׁת הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁהִזְמִין הוּא אֶת עַצְמוֹ, לִתְפִלָּה וּלְדוֹרוֹן וּלְהַצָּלָה בְּדֶרֶךְ מִלְחָמָה לִבְרֹחַ וּלְהִנָּצֵל.

 preparing ourselves in the three things for which he prepared himself: for prayer, for giving him a present, and for rescue by methods of warfare, to flee and to be saved. 

The chapter preserves this wisdom: treat dread with preparation and that preparation includes the self-examination of prayer, the generosity of gifting and the practicality of battle ... and an escape plan.

Jacob's prayer includes attributing to Gd Jacob's claim to the land.  Jacob states that Gd had instructed him to return to Canaan:

הָאֹמֵ֣ר אֵלַ֗י שׁ֧וּב לְאַרְצְךָ֛ וּלְמוֹלַדְתְּךָ֖ וְאֵיטִ֥יבָה עִמָּֽךְ׃

who said to me, ‘Return to your native land and I will deal bountifully with you’!

The force of will behind undertaking this confrontation with Esau is ambiguous: is it Gd or Jacob? In his prayer, Jacob is framing it as Gd's decision, and obedient  Jacob is carrying it out. 

To some extent, this is a continuation of the "joint decision" [Jacob and Gd] to flee from Laban at the end of the last chapter. The practical circumstances indicated that Jacob was now in danger if he stayed with Laban, so he decided to leave. In a dream, Gd told Jacob to leave. The interplay between these is left to the reader. 

Invoking Gd ties the claim to the land to the confrontation with Esau. We do not know how Esau saw the connection between the (cheating) brother and the (claim for the) land. The prayer is among the signals that tie Jacob's claim for the land to Esau's enmity. 

Jacob, by means of his words (and perhaps the gifts [tribute]) manages to escape from Esau. Esau seems to want to "accompany" Jacob's tribe.  There is ambiguity about the destination. But it is clear that Jacob did not want his tribe to be with Esau or his allies; and Jacob  managed to separate from them and go his own way. 

Jacob buys some land near Shechem. Shechem is a significant and recognizable place in Samaria, also called Nablus. When Jacob's daughter Dina is kidnapped and raped, her brothers launch a plot: the local males are convinced to undergo circumcision, ostensibly so that the local people and the Israelites can join into one people. When they are at the low point after the operation, Dina's brothers slaughter all the men, retrieve their sister,  and pillage the city. Thus  they establish a local reputation for Israelites... and, in Jacob's mind, a causus belli, a reason for war, among all the other local inhabitants. The war does not happen. 

Benjamin becomes the first Israelite born in the Promised land.  But his mother Rachel dies in childbirth. Rachel's burial and lasting monument has some similarity to Abraham burying Sarah, in terms of establishing a stake hold in the land. 

 Isaac dies at the end of the chapter. Esau and Jacob  bury Isaac together; like Isaac and Ishmael buried Abraham together. Esau's death threat is not carried out. 

Finally Esau's genealogy and administrative organization,  and the pre-Joshua royal history of Seir/Edom are outlined. These are messages about the provenance of land and the historical bases of claims of possession. The references are obscure, as such things tend to be. 

The parsha conveys several  messages. There is a place for fear. There are ways to deal with it.  The worst outcome need not happen and you may not know why. All hereditary claims are not well understood, regardless of how emphatically they are made. 

Deal with it.  

Vayetzeh: Economic systems

This week's parsha has Jacob  confront economic realities. Soon after running away from Canaan  (because of the murderous pronouncements of his brother), he makes a deal with Gd. 

וַיִּדַּ֥ר יַעֲקֹ֖ב נֶ֣דֶר לֵאמֹ֑ר אִם־יִהְיֶ֨ה אֱ

עִמָּדִ֗י וּשְׁמָרַ֙נִי֙ בַּדֶּ֤רֶךְ הַזֶּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אָנֹכִ֣י הוֹלֵ֔ךְ וְנָֽתַן־לִ֥י לֶ֛חֶם לֶאֱכֹ֖ל וּבֶ֥גֶד לִלְבֹּֽשׁ׃ 

Jacob then made a vow, saying, “If God remains with me, protecting me on this journey that I am making, and giving me bread to eat and clothing to wear,

....

הָאֶ֣בֶן הַזֹּ֗את אֲשֶׁר־שַׂ֙מְתִּי֙ מַצֵּבָ֔ה יִהְיֶ֖ה בֵּ֣ית אֱ

 וְכֹל֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּתֶּן־לִ֔י עַשֵּׂ֖ר אֲעַשְּׂרֶ֥נּוּ לָֽךְ׃ 

And this stone, which I have set up as a pillar, shall be God’s abode; and of all that You give me, I will set aside a tithe for You.”

Jacob recognizes his basic human needs. His worldview ( at this point) recognizes Gd as the source of sustenance; the tenth that he offers is much more a recognition  of Gd's grace than a payment.  But the transactional  nature of the offer anticipates the rest of the parsha that becomes increasingly business oriented. 

Immediately following this scene, Yaakov confronts the local custom, what has become common sense in Haran: the well is opened when all the flocks have arrived, not before.  To me, this looks like a type of proto-soviet communism. "Fairness": equal access to water?  Timed breaks in the workday? These ideas take priority over efficiency and productivity. It is an example of human values taking priority over business values. Perhaps the custom started that way, or maybe there was a time when water needed to be rationed. The custom, with its inefficiency, had endure past its purpose. 

When Rachel arrives, Yaakov the foreigner, ignores  the local ordinance and removes the rock to help Rachel water her father's sheep. We know that Yaakov eventually becomes a rich, successful shepherd. Is this disregard for local custom part of the success? Does Yaakov's alternative belief system ( Gd as the source) support these transgressions?

Rachel brings (penniless) Yaakov back home to Laban.  In a compressed sentence, we see that Yaakov has begun to work for his upkeep. Laban recognizes that Yaakov's work has value beyond the cost of his food an shelter:

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לָבָן֙ לְיַעֲקֹ֔ב הֲכִי־אָחִ֣י אַ֔תָּה וַעֲבַדְתַּ֖נִי חִנָּ֑ם הַגִּ֥ידָה לִּ֖י מַה־מַּשְׂכֻּרְתֶּֽךָ׃ 

Laban said to Jacob, “Just because you are a kinsman, should you serve me for nothing? Tell me, what shall your wages be?”

Laban recognizes that he must pay more than left-over food scraps and a loft in the barn for sleeping to keep the value of  Jacob's labor. He must offer a reward. This sentence sets the tone of Laban's focus on gain through business. The obligation to care for his nephew is thin; his greed is much stronger. 

This sentence can reflect back to the story of  Rivka and the Abraham's slave. When she did all that work: drawing water for the men and the camels, she, Bithuel's daughter, the Arami, expected some kind of payment. She received it on the spot. 

The substitution of the older sister, Leah, for the more desirable younger sister, Rachel, plays off Jacob's devious taking of the blessing of the firstborn from Esau. This is suggested by the text: 

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר לָבָ֔ן לֹא־יֵעָשֶׂ֥ה כֵ֖ן בִּמְקוֹמֵ֑נוּ לָתֵ֥ת הַצְּעִירָ֖ה לִפְנֵ֥י הַבְּכִירָֽה׃

Laban said, “It is not the practice in our place to marry off the younger before the older.

Laban says: "In our place, we do not do things like you do in your place."

Laban may also have been suggesting that passing over Ishmael was the kind of thing "you people" do, not us.  Laban is distinguishing his people's "superior" customs from the ad hoc mess the descendants of Abraham have created.  To Laban, Nahor, his grandfather who stayed in Haran took the right pat

Laban's economic theory is in the tradition of Feudalism (and its derivative, Capitalism).  When Yaakov explains his leaving, he recounts the hardships of his labor as part of the justification for his reward. Laban 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?

Laban argues: The owner of the capital keeps the produce. 

The relative value of labor and capital and the appropriate rewards for each  in the eye ( and sword) of the force that prevails. 

The argument between Jacob and Laban that ends the chapter is deeply tainted by the fact the Rachel did, indeed, steal Laban's idols! Jacob's indignant statement would not stand up to a better search.  We now that Rachel has the teraphim : 

כִּֽי־מִשַּׁ֣שְׁתָּ אֶת־כׇּל־כֵּלַ֗י מַה־מָּצָ֙אתָ֙ מִכֹּ֣ל כְּלֵי־בֵיתֶ֔ךָ שִׂ֣ים כֹּ֔ה נֶ֥גֶד אַחַ֖י וְאַחֶ֑יךָ וְיוֹכִ֖יחוּ בֵּ֥ין שְׁנֵֽינוּ׃ 

You rummaged through all my things; what have you found of all your household objects? Set it here, before my kin and yours, and let them decide between us two.

The argument, often flawed, is the ultimate consequence of an economic system. Someone always feels cheated, often everyone.  Can recognizing Gd as the true source of sustenance and wealth  calm the anger? Whose god, Abraham or Nahor?

 Toledoth: the antisemitism

Is the phrase: “ He Jewed him down”  antisemitic?  I do find it annoying.  It stereotypes Jews, characterizes Jews as excessively clever and stingy. Compare that with Esau’s remark after Jacob has taken Isaac’s blessing with subterfuge: 

וַיֹּ֡אמֶר הֲכִי֩ קָרָ֨א שְׁמ֜וֹ יַעֲקֹ֗ב וַֽיַּעְקְבֵ֙נִי֙ זֶ֣ה פַעֲמַ֔יִם

[Esau] said, “Was he, then, named Jacob that he might supplant me these two times?

English translation cannot capture the affront. Esau calls the action of Yaakov (Jacob)  ‘yaakveyni” . This could be translated as he “Yaakoved me”, he Jewed me.  This translation is suggested by first invoking the name Yaakov, and then delivering a derivative of the name Yaakveyni. 

The root עְקְבֵ֙, aikev is a complicated word.  In this week’s parsha it is used three times. The first time is the factual part  of  Esau’s insult. When Jacob is born, he is holding Esau’s heel: 

וְאַֽחֲרֵי־כֵ֞ן יָצָ֣א אָחִ֗יו וְיָדֹ֤ו אֹחֶ֨זֶת֙ בַּעֲקֵ֣ב עֵשָׂ֔ו וַיִּקְרָ֥א שְׁמֹ֖ו יַעֲקֹ֑ב

Then his brother emerged, holding on to the heel of Esau; so they named him Jacob.

This usage echoes the expulsion from Eden. 

וְאֵיבָ֣ה ׀ אָשִׁ֗ית בֵּֽינְךָ֙ וּבֵ֣ין הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וּבֵ֥ין זַרְעֲךָ֖ וּבֵ֣ין זַרְעָ֑הּ ה֚וּא יְשׁוּפְךָ֣ רֹ֔אשׁ וְאַתָּ֖ה תְּשׁוּפֶ֥נּוּ עָקֵֽב׃ (ס) 

I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your offspring and hers;They shall strike at your head, And you shall strike at their heel.”

This aikev is the target of the deadly serpent. It evokes sneakiness: The snake in the grass.  In that sense, it adds to the insulting term vayakveyni. 

The next usage of aikev in our parsha contrasts with this.  It is part of Gd’ blessing to Isaac (perhaps the core of the blessing he wanted to transmit). 

וְהִרְבֵּיתִ֤י אֶֽת־זַרְעֲךָ֙ כְּכוֹכְבֵ֣י הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וְנָתַתִּ֣י לְזַרְעֲךָ֔ אֵ֥ת כָּל־הָאֲרָצֹ֖ת הָאֵ֑ל וְהִתְבָּרֲכ֣וּ בְזַרְעֲךָ֔ כֹּ֖ל גּוֹיֵ֥י הָאָֽרֶץ׃ 

I will make your heirs as numerous as the stars of heaven, and assign to your heirs all these lands, so that all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by your heirs— 

עֵ֕קֶב אֲשֶׁר־שָׁמַ֥ע אַבְרָהָ֖ם בְּקֹלִ֑י וַיִּשְׁמֹר֙ מִשְׁמַרְתִּ֔י מִצְוֺתַ֖י חֻקּוֹתַ֥י וְתוֹרֹתָֽי׃ 

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

This usage of aikev appeared once before, in the blessing of Abraham , immediately after the akeidah ( binding of Isaac) 

Esau did not intend this usage in his insult. Some commentators take the word eikev in Gd’s address to Isaac as a hint that the blessing should go to Jacob. 

Esau’s insult refers to the sneaky way that Yaakov obtained the blessing.  When mother Rebecca heard Isaac instruct Esau to bring him a meal so that he may receive the blessing, she instructed Jacob to execute a plot that would get Jacob the blessing.  Perhaps she was motivated by the prophecy that she received before the sons were born: 

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

“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.”

Jacob had already bought the birthright identity from Esau. (Possibly, this confuses matters.) It gave him the right to answer Father Isaac, when he asked who had brought him the requested meal: 

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יַעֲקֹ֜ב אֶל־אָבִ֗יו אָנֹכִי֙ עֵשָׂ֣ו בְּכֹרֶ֔ךָ

Jacob said to his father, “I am Esau, your first-born;

The story tells of  blind Isaac’s skepticism. Jacob did not sound like Esau. They said different things. Isaac blessed Jacob, and when the real Esau confronted him, Isaac said:

וָאֲבָרְכֵ֑הוּ גַּם־בָּר֖וּךְ יִהְיֶֽה׃

and I blessed him; now he must remain blessed!”

Perhaps the guile itself convinced Isaac that Jacob was the proper recipient of the blessing. Isaac owed his own life to the substation of a ram for his person. Substitution has a validity. 

This parsha is  remarkable in its honesty.  Jews have always lived as foreigners. Occasionally, they have been tolerated. More often they have been subjugated and sometimes worse. The hostility of their hosts and neighbors is never far from the Jewish mind. This week’s parsha describes an  origin story for hating Israel that  includes motivation for the hostility. 

It is helpful to understand the opponent. The small amount of truth that underlies prejudice should be recognized. Since Jews were oppressed, they needed cleverness and sometimes guile to protect them and survive. That is also true of many other peoples. It has served us well. 

Chaye Sarah

 Something is hidden in the story of Sarah. Sarah is the first major female character since mother Eve. The first verse:

וַיִּהְיוּ֙ חַיֵּ֣י שָׂרָ֔ה מֵאָ֥ה שָׁנָ֛ה וְעֶשְׂרִ֥ים שָׁנָ֖ה וְשֶׁ֣בַע שָׁנִ֑ים שְׁנֵ֖י חַיֵּ֥י שָׂרָֽה׃ 

Sarah’s lifetime—the span of Sarah’s life—came to one hundred and twenty-seven years.

Ibn Ezra deals with this. 

חיי. לשון רבים ולא יתפרדו.

THE LIFE OF. The word life (chayyim) is always encountered in the plural. We never find it separated (יתפרדו)

The verse reminds us that life is not  entirely a singular thing. We lives several lives in succussion and simultaneously.   The text separates these three phases of Sarah's life.  She had a life in Ur, prior to the migration to Canaan.  She had the life in Canaan prior to her name change, and she had the life of the mother and defender of Isaac. Other divisions are equally plausible. The word  שָׁנָ֛ה  shanah, translated here as "year" also means "change."

 The reading of Chaye Sarah, the obituary of our founding mother, marks the week of my own mother's passing. My mother also had (at least) three lives. She was a girl and young woman in Poland.  She was born in an authentic shtetl: outhouse, no running water, kapotes, no cars.  All people go through childhood.  It is a clear developmental stage, not unlike the larva and pupa stages of insects. The imprints of childhood and adolescence are deep; the memories are few but significant. The memories of the shtetl that my mother shared  with us convinced us that she came from a different planet and certainly did not understand our issues. I am sure that, at least sometimes, my children felt the same way about me. I cannot imagine Ur.

When my mother had therr first child (my sister Fayge), they were on the run from "liberated" Poland.  Although the Nazi antisemites had been vanquished, the small family: my mother, father and sister,  were threatened with murder under the new regime, and were forced to run. They, like Abraham and Sarah, had to leave the country of their birth. The story in the Torah has Gd telling Abraham to move on; sometimes Gd tells people to do things they would have done, even in the absence of Divine instruction. Sometimes people do the Divine will in the absence of an instruction. The backstory of Abraham and Sarah is left open. 

The attention afforded Sarah is unusual in this overwhelmingly male-dominated Torah. Sarai's marriage to Avram is mentioned in the post flood genealogy. The couple's reproductive difficulties are mentioned ( Sarai is blamed, of course). When Avram's father (and Sarai's grandfather) Terah left Ur and headed toward Canaan, Sarai is included by name. She was an unusual woman indeed, given the times she lived in. All of this unusual recognition of an ancient woman implies some hidden features that overwhelmed the customs of that age. 

 My parents fled to the American sector of occupied Germany, to DP camp. The "displaced" [disenfranchised, stateless] inmates had ration cards.  They had more access to food than the recently overcome enemy, the native Germans. A clever man, like my father, could trade food coupons for Leica cameras and diamonds. He did... and he landed in jail. My mother  went to the Rabbi for advice. Somehow, the Rabbi converted a diamond into freedom for my father. To me, it feels like a twist of the Abimelech story in last week's parsha and the Pharoah story the week before. The wife saves the husband. Compromise always contains ambiguity. 

My parents and sister finally came to the USA. My mother and father lived by their wits, in a twilight zone of poverty, ambition and modicums of success.  A new generation arose; the children were protected.  My mother survived these hundreds of crises. 

Sarah's fierce defense of Isaac is her most famous action. It is a complex story. Sarah had suggested that Abraham have a child with his slave, Hagar. Hagar was to be a surrogate. Instead Hagar acted as a mother. Sarah was excluded. That plan failed. 

Sarah did, eventually, as promised, have a son. She would not allow a competitor, Ishmael. Over Abraham's reluctance, she insisted that the older son be exiled. When Sarah died, Abraham had to ascend from Beersheba to Kirith Arba to bury and cry over her. Beersheba was Ishmael's neighborhood.  Were Abraham ( and Isaac) visiting Ishmael? 

As events fade into the past, only incomplete stories remain. Every story hides as it reveals. I sense that my parents had many secrets that they did not share with their children. I think it has been that way since the ancient times. My fantasies fill in the gaps with a mutable mesh. It's OK if I don't know some things. Some things are better not asked. 

 Vayerah: Testing

When did life become a series of tests? Did that attitude wait until school, or was the struggle for parental approval, from the earliest non verbal ( infantile) times, its beginning? The trials continue, the ( harsh) grading system has been internalized. I do not see it ending while I am alive. I am told that my life will be followed by a final, cumulative, exam. I hope I get an A. 

Vayerah (the chapter title could be read as "Revelation") has many tests. The (angelic) wayfarers come to Abraham. He prepares an expensive, sumptuous feast for them. They announce that 90 year old, post menopausal Sarah will bear son. Is that a joke? Sarah laughs, and she is confronted for her (perfectly justified)  doubt. The (predicted, provoked, scripted) laugh shows a lack of faith in the powers of Gd.  Gd had just told Abraham: 

וְקָרָ֥אתָ אֶת־שְׁמ֖וֹ יִצְחָ֑ק

and you shall name him Isaac; *Isaac Heb. Yiṣḥaq, from ṣaḥaq, “laugh.”

The Great Tester knows, in advance, that there are some tests that will be failed. 

The laugh indicates an element of surprise. Had Sarah known Gd's previous  promise of a son, named Yitzchok (translation: he will cause laughter)  to Abraham, she would not have laughed.  The announcement of the wayfarer would have lacked the novelty needed to induce laughter. Was this laughter the testimony of Abraham's failure to communicate this important message to Sarah?

I see this visit by the angelic travelers as home visit by Divine Social Services. A child will come into this complex  home. Hagar was mistreated when she was pregnant. Can these people handle the complexity of the new child? Maybe the test revealed the communication issue and helped to correct it, somewhat. 

The news about the probable destruction of the five towns, led by Sodom and Amorah, led to Abraham's  plea through bargaining. How many righteous people are required to save a city  from destruction?  Abraham gets the number down to ten. The absence of a criterion for righteousness and the unique nature of this destruction deflects the questions that arise from subsequent history ( Warsaw, Crakow, Hiroshima, Nagasaki). Sometimes we do not know the passing grade. 

This conversation, ostensibly to rescue the wicked cities from destruction, is a test of Abraham's concern for strangers.  It stands in contrast with Abraham's willingness to compromise his wife's integrity  by having her pose has his sister, leading to her  seizure by the Avimelach, the local regent. It contrasts with Abraham's willingness to send Hagar and Ishmael into the desert to preserve the  status of Isaac. It contrasts with Abraham's attempt to cut his son's throat on a (misunderstood) Divine instruction. 

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

― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

Consider the author of these words]

The stories in the parsha tell of  tests for Abraham. They are also revelations of the grand Divine plan, and maybe an insight into how it works. When Avimelach dreams that  Sarah is married to Abraham (maybe he suspected that), he says to Gd: 

הֲג֥וֹי גַּם־צַדִּ֖יק תַּהֲרֹֽג׃

“O lord, will You slay people even though innocent?

He was referring to the devastation of Sodom. A lesson had been broadcast. All people now questioned their actions. Were they passing the test? Were they good enough to save their city? Were they good enough to be personally saved? This contemplation says that the stories in this parsha are instructive to all people at all times. 

But the messages are ambiguous, messy. Should Abraham have offered his son because of a Divine instruction? 

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 binding of Isaac is introduced by 

וְהָ֣אֱ נִסָּ֖ה אֶת־אַבְרָהָ֑ם 

 And it came to pass after these things, that Gd did test Avraham,

In this sentence Gd is called HaElokim, "The Great Powers."  This name for Gd  implies uniqueness. When Joseph conceals his Hebrewness from his brothers, this is the title he uses. Its usage here implies a universal message, aimed primarily at outsiders. This story will be Isaac's validation.   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 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 Creator, the entity that destroyed Sodom and gave him an heir at age 100. He follows (his understanding of) the instructions.  He binds Issac and prepares to bring down the knife.  Ultimately, there was a solution: a ram caught by its horns. Never abandon the hope for a solution.  That is a most  important message of the story for me. It is an important part of why I exist: My parents did not abandon hope.

 

 

.