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

 

Zoth HaBracha: ? 

When does the Jewish year end, when does it begin? The calendar changes its number on Rosh Hashana, but the process of review and resolutions continues through Yom Kippur and the Torah restarts  on Shmini Atzret, ten days later.  Through that time, the last parsha, Zoth Habracha hangs over the transition period and never has a Shabbath of its own. 

Zoth Habracha is hard to understand. The introductory sentences are filled with names that are now part adjective,  names that evoke the cast-off siblings ( Seir- Esau, Paran- Ishmael)  or in-laws ( Hovav - Jethro).  Words are torn apart ((אשדת) [אֵ֥שׁ דָּ֖ת], waterfall  becomes the fire of knowledge) . The sentences convey the desperation to  impart understanding to the listener/reader and the inadequacy of understanding. 

The situation is explicit: these are Moshe's parting words before his death. We are confronted with the ethical will of the man of Gd. This Jewish man of Gd is fully human, born of man and woman, and will not be resurrected in the flesh ( for a long time, not yet). The passage, appropriate to Yom Kippur, is reminder that we will all die. 

Moses proceeds to make statements about most of the tribes of Israel ( Simon is not directly mentioned).  The statements are hints, prophecies. Moses does not mention his own sons, Gershom and Eliezer. Moses sacrificed his personal life for the people. He rejected the idea that his descendants would replace Israel, when it was offered to him by Gd. His progeny did not lead the Hebrews.

The daf yomi  ( Bava Bathra 109)  talks about a descendent of Moshe: Jonathan  son of Gershom. The story that involves him in Judges chapter 18, describes his ascent as the priest to the sculpted, molten image called  Pesel Micha: an idol kept by the tribe of Dan and minidtered for hundreds of years by Johnathan's decedents. Johnathan was in the family business, but closer to his great-grandfather Jethro than his grandfather. When Johnathan is identified at the end of the story, he is named: וִ֠יהוֹנָתָ֠ן בֶּן־גֵּרְשֹׁ֨ם בֶּן־מְ^נַשֶּׁ֜ה.  , the son of Me(n)ashe.  The flying nun is intended to protect ( and reveal) the identity of his grandfather.  Was the grandson's  deviation in faith the result of Moshe's decision to put the nation as a whole ahead of his immediate  family?  We as a nation are grateful to Moshe, but we do not look away from the consequences of his decision.

On Yom Kippur, I do not pray for myself alone. When my parents were alive, I prayed for them ( less, but not zero, now). Now I have a wife and children and grandchildren: I pray for their success and their  happiness. Will their success require detour from the tradition? I pray for a better solution. I should have dedicated more time to that goal. 

 Ha'azinu: Tshuva

 What is tshuva? The word implies "return." Something has been left, and it was better than what I have now. I am supposed to return to it. 

Is tshuva an expression of regret, a desire to return to the past and correct a bad decision? The parshe would have me believe that the world is glorious when we are in a state of Divine grace, and we can achieve that state by adherence to the ancient rules. Tshuva is a return to that blessed state by returning to the strict observance (that seems to have been a historical rarity, at best). We can try our best. 

Is tshuva a call for nostalgia, an attempt to return to a state of innocence? There is no hope of going back to Eden before the fall. 

I see my young grandchildren, the paradigms of innocence. I see their developing, wider ranging, desires and jealousies.  The dream of childhood sinlessness is a fantasy that denies reality.  Children are learning how to sin - and getting better at it as they grow. A return to childhood is not what I want, and not what is meant by tshuva. 

Is tshuva  a return to a simpler time? No matter how romanticized, I do not want to go back to the shtetl of my parents and their ancestors. I can only  imagine the world of my childhood, before color TV, home computers, cell phones. I get a taste of that life, and its delights, every Shabbath and Yom Tov. That is enough.

Tshuva is a return to myself. That self is lost in the onslaught of political controversies, internet information, professional demands, job minutiae. I am not sure it can be found anymore. The ancient text, the Torah helps... but that also needs careful interpretation . The only way  I can do tshuva, the  only way I can find myself  is with Gd's help. 

I pray for tshuva. 

Nitzavim-Vayelech: literacy

 

Nitzavim-Vayelech: literacy

This week, I saw a video clip of my eldest grandson, Theodore Irwin Goldberg (whom I call Srulik) learning to read.  He sounded out S A M  S A T. A significant beginning. The next generation is inducted into the written world.

These parshioth are about the establishment of a legacy for the contract between Gd an Israel. The parsha ends with Moshe completing the written document

וַיְהִ֣י ׀ כְּכַלּ֣וֹת מֹשֶׁ֗ה לִכְתֹּ֛ב אֶת־דִּבְרֵ֥י הַתּוֹרָֽה־הַזֹּ֖את עַל־סֵ֑פֶר עַ֖ד תֻּמָּֽם׃

When Moses had put down in writing the words of this Teaching to the very end.

The parsha begins by describing the great assembly receiving Moshe’s parting words. It includes the nobles and the lowliest servants and it goes on to include “וְאֵ֨ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֵינֶ֛נּוּ פֹּ֖ה עִמָּ֥נוּ הַיּֽוֹם׃”  those who are not with us here this day.

Rashi comments:  וְאַף עִם דּוֹרוֹת הָעֲתִידִים לִהְיוֹת:  which Sefaria renders: i.e. with the generations that will be in future. The standard Medieval commentators all say that this statement comes to include future generations. This is to be a tradition and the text is its testimony. Reading is the access.

The written word has an undulating history. Socrates was not in favor of writing. In the dialogues of Plato, Socrates ( presented as Thamus) argues that writing will actually lead to forgetfulness because people will rely on written texts instead of their own memory. Socrates believed that true knowledge comes from direct, interactive dialogue, where ideas can be questioned and examined in real-time.

The Mishna and the Talmud are called the oral law. Initially, these ideas were  transmitted by memorization, outside the written world. To an extent the ban on writing the Oral Law may have shared some of the principles attributed to Socrates. Writing the Mishna before its time would have compromised it. In practice, we can see how the absence of a fixed text allowed the circumstances of the time to adapt the law .  The unwritten is more malleable.

Reading opens a world that, until recently, had  been controlled by the owners of printing presses. They printed what they considered valuable or profitable. The publisher could manipulate the perception of truth and value; the publishers could suppress what they considered seditious.

The development of the mimeograph (1874)  allowed individuals and groups, with sufficient will, to publicize views to a limited audience. It broke the publisher’s monopoly on truth and value.  The internet opened information transfer to the full range of possibilities. Anyone, no matter how competent, no matter how careful, no matter how mentally ill, could relatively easily broadcast an opinion or a truth. The written lost its official backing.

In the world of science, a structure of authority was preserved (to an extent) by attributing reliability to peer review and preserving the stature of print journals when they went online. However, the emergence of industry sponsored journals and articles that are really advertisements has made me more skeptical, regardless of the purported editorial policy of the publication.

The ability to slant the truth is blatantly expressed in American “News” Wounding terrorist operatives, identified by pagers assigned only to them, is called a war crime.  They are identified as people, presumably civilians. They are not; and the New York Times knows it.  But the Times controls a very large and powerful press. To me, their power is greatly diminished by their word choice.

Ultimately, I have a small amount of ambivalence about my grandson learning to read. I do not think society has ever properly adapted to the written word. Its origin as an expensive (parchment, scribe, ink)  and exclusive skill gave it a gravity that lasted into the future, to those who are not with us here this day. The strictness of interpretation may have violated its intention. Is the law meant to preserve the original intention or should it be read to maximize the benefit for all. What was the second amendment to the US constitution really about?

I like the Jewish tradition of a written law, an immutable law ( at least some of it written in stone); and an oral law of interpretation, opinion and limited flexibility.  One who enters the sea of words needs a life raft.

 

 

 

Ki Thavo: the myth

 

Ki Thavo: the myth

The  bulk of this parsha is a prophecy of horror; the consequence of disobedience. It predicts a series of misfortunes. The detailed description is introduced:

אֶת־הַמְּאֵרָ֤ה אֶת־הַמְּהוּמָה֙ וְאֶת־הַמִּגְעֶ֔רֶת

The curse, the confusion and the ….

הַמִּגְעֶ֔רֶת ( Hamigereth) is a unique word that appears only once in the canon text. A hapax legomenon.

Rashi translates

המארה  (hama’eyrah) means PAUCITY and המהומה   (hamihumah) A TERRIFYING SOUND.

Rashi does not translate הַמִּגְעֶ֔רֶת. (Hamigereth)

Targum translates the word: מְזוֹפִיתָא  (mizofitha): frustration, vexation.  Perhaps this is a reflexive translation, relating to the frustration of translating a word that appears only once.

In context, this ambiguity of the word begins to convey the horror. After a curse and confusion, there is something bad, probably worse coming and what it is: is unclear. Obscurity and uncertainty add to the dread. Trepidation is possibly the worst emotion I have felt. When I imagine my parents experience in the holocaust, it is the confusion and panic that frightens and saddens me most.

The climax, the penultimate verse emphasizes dread:

בַּבֹּ֤קֶר תֹּאמַר֙ מִֽי־יִתֵּ֣ן עֶ֔רֶב וּבָעֶ֥רֶב תֹּאמַ֖ר מִֽי־יִתֵּ֣ן בֹּ֑קֶר מִפַּ֤חַד לְבָֽבְךָ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּפְחָ֔ד וּמִמַּרְאֵ֥ה עֵינֶ֖יךָ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תִּרְאֶֽה׃

In the morning you shall say, “If only it were evening!” and in the evening you shall say, “If only it were morning!”—because of what your heart shall dread and your eyes shall see.

The curse is presented as a progression. It starts with natural disasters – drought and disease  - and  progresses to defeat , exile and subjugation. The atrocities described evoke the holocaust. It is distressing that this ancient text, describing the most repulsive scenes Moshe can imagine,  does not quite equal the reality of Poland in 1942.

How did this text prepare the Jews in the Eastren European exile?  When the persecution came, did they see it as the expected fulfillment of the prophecy? Did the passage, heard (by many) innumerable  times since childhood, add a sense of familiarity to the persecution? Was there some comfort in the prediction? Did it make the nation more cooperative and thus help the evil enemy?

My Jewish consciousness is tied inexorably to the Holocaust. My parents were sole survivors of their large families and went through many/most/all the horrors described in the parsha. My personal relationship to the myth of survival from persecution is distorted, but I think that this theme is a most fundamental element of the Jewish collective mythology, the glue of the nation.

Zionism, and the founding of the state of Israel, did not remove this concept. The persecution became a motivation for the assertion of power and independence. There are many brands of Zionism, the (magical) redemption aspects vary across them – from denial to manifest. All are infused with the theme of reaction to persecution.

Perhaps the quality the unites the largest number of Jews is watchfulness. Euphemisms like anti-Zionism and antisemitism cloud the perception of the both the hater and the hated. We all have the prophecy in our hearts:

וְהָיִ֣יתָ לְשַׁמָּ֔ה לְמָשָׁ֖ל וְלִשְׁנִינָ֑ה בְּכֹל֙ הָֽעַמִּ֔ים אֲשֶׁר־יְנַהֶגְךָ֥ יְ

You shall be a consternation, a proverb, and a byword among all the peoples to which the LORD will drive you.

The chapter closes with an undoing of the opening. The chapter starts with a celebration of the miracle of the Exodus from Egypt, the liberation from slavery

וַיּוֹצִאֵ֤נוּ יְ

מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם בְּיָ֤ד חֲזָקָה֙ וּבִזְרֹ֣עַ נְטוּיָ֔ה וּבְמֹרָ֖א גָּדֹ֑ל וּבְאֹת֖וֹת וּבְמֹפְתִֽים׃

The LORD freed us from Egypt by a mighty hand, by an outstretched arm and awesome power, and by signs and portents.

 

It ends with a return to Egypt and status inferior to slavery.

וֶהֱשִֽׁיבְךָ֨ יְ

 

 מִצְרַ֘יִם֮ בׇּאֳנִיּוֹת֒ בַּדֶּ֙רֶךְ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אָמַ֣רְתִּֽי לְךָ֔ לֹא־תֹסִ֥יף ע֖וֹד לִרְאֹתָ֑הּ וְהִתְמַכַּרְתֶּ֨ם שָׁ֧ם לְאֹיְבֶ֛יךָ לַעֲבָדִ֥ים וְלִשְׁפָח֖וֹת וְאֵ֥ין קֹנֶֽה׃ {ס}        

The LORD will send you back to Egypt in galleys, by a route which I told you you should not see again. There you shall offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but none will buy.

Is it an endless recursion?  The perception of victimhood is more than a self-perpetuation. Outside forces keep it going. Can we ever be good enough?