Just click on the Parshah name to see the text.
Shemot (Exodus) 5781Parshat Ki-Tisa/Parah
As things stand it would appear that we are set to celebrate another Pesach without being able to invite others, which means for many people, holding a Seder without family or by themselves. This is made more difficult this year by the fact that Erev Pesach falls on Shabbat, restricting even more the permitted use of technology. People will of course make their own individual decisions on how to act, but as various accusations were last year levelled at the Orthodox rabbinate concerning their supposed ‘inflexibility’ on this issue I thought it would be useful to examine the basic principle concerned in light of our Parshah. The beginning of the Parshah concludes the list of instructions for the building of the Tabernacle. At the end of these directions, the Torah reminds people of the importance of the observance of Shabbat. Similarly, before the actual construction commences, Moses again reminds the people about Shabbat. The inference is clear. The building of the Tabernacle does not supersede the observance of Shabbat. Indeed, the activities forbidden on Shabbat, are learnt from those used in the construction of the Tabernacle, which had to cease on Shabbat. Why should this be so? The Tabernacle exists primarily to fulfil a need of the people. Whether as a response to the sin of the Golden Calf or to a basic human need to connect to G-d in a tangible manner, the Tabernacle comes as a response to a human demand. Shabbat, on the other hand, while being for human benefit, exists as a basic condition of creation. The observance of Shabbat is a necessary condition for establishing the kind of world G-d wants to see. Whether as a memorial of creation, with its message of human restraint in exploiting the physical world or in remembering the Exodus, with its lesson of social justice and equality, observing Shabbat is about us obeying G-d’s plan for His world. This is prior to our need to approach G-d through prayer or sacrifice. Indeed it is a condition of such an approach. As the prophets constantly remind Israel, engaging in sacrifice without obeying G-d’s commands, as epitomised by the Shabbat, is worse than a travesty. Thus breaking Shabbat in order to build the Tabernacle is undermining the very basis of the Tabernacle itself. While the desire to approach G-d through the means of the Tabernacle was legitimate, it could not come at the expense of the basic principles of Torah epitomised by Shabbat. The Seder night is the most important Jewish ritual of the year. Its primary purpose is to remember the lessons of the Exodus concerning G-d’s power and concern for humanity as well as the mission of the Jewish people. In this it is similar to Shabbat, which is also a remembrance of the Exodus. It is of course natural and right to want to share this special occasion with family and friends. Yet to break Shabbat in order to do so is to undermine the very lessons we are meant to learn on this night and Rabbis are correct in not permitting it.Parshat Tetzaveh/Shushan Purim
The second half of our Parshah deals with the ceremony of the inauguration of the priesthood. With little difference in detail, the implementation of this ceremony is described in Parshat Tzav which we read before Pesach. The same is true of the details of the Tabernacle itself that are described in what we read last week and this week but will then recount two weeks later. What is the necessity for this repetition? An answer may lie in the special character of this Shabbat, which is Shushan Purim. It is a unique feature of Purim that the festival is celebrated on different days in different places. Cities walled since the time of Joshua celebrate Purim not on the 14th of Adar but on the 15th. In practice today the only place that does this is Jerusalem, though several places in Israel celebrate both days. As we do not read the Megillah on Shabbat, Jerusalem this year has a triple Purim, with some aspects occurring on Friday, Shabbat and Sunday. But what is the reason we have two separate days for Purim? Because the Jews in the capital Shushan asked for an extra day to finish dealing with their enemies and fought also on the 14th and celebrated on the 15th. By celebrating the 15th of Adar as well, therefore, we are commemorating the fact that the Jews were allowed to finish the job. This teaches us the importance of finishing what we begin. The same is true of the repetition of the details of the Tabernacle and the inauguration of the priests. The Torah repeats these details virtually verbatim because it is recounting their implementation. We are thus being taught the importance of not only beginning a task but completing it. Despite the doctrine found in the Ethics of the Fathers that: ‘it is not up to you to complete the work’, the Sages taught that the reward for a mitzvah goes to the one who completes it. For this reason, traditionally the most important aliyah during the Torah Reading was Hagbah and Gelillah. To be called up to complete the Torah Reading by lifting and dressing the Torah was considered the primary honour and often given to important Rabbis. Thus the Sages emphasised the importance of not only beginning actions but carrying them to a successful conclusion. Even though David made all the preparations for the building of the Temple and raised most of the money, the Temple is called by the name of Solomon who completed it. Thus both the repetitive nature of description of the tabernacle in these Parshiot and the celebration of Shushan Purim, teach us the important lesson that while it is always important to begin something it is also important to seek to finish what you started.Parshat Zachor
G-d commands the Israelites to take various materials and ‘build for Me a Sanctuary that I may dwell among them’. The commentators of course point out the purpose of the Tabernacle is not that G-d dwells in it but that He dwells among the people. As Solomon stated at the dedication of his Temple, the heavens cannot contain G-d, much less a human-built house. Therefore, we may ask, what is the purpose of the Tabernacle? Why is it necessary to have a building dedicated to G-d’s Pretence? One could answer that this is a symbol for humans and comes to take the place of more problematic representations of G-d, such as the Golden Calf. That is undoubtedly true but there is a deeper reason that underpins the whole of Judaism and indeed human purpose in the world. It is related that when Abraham instructs his servant to find a wife for Isaac, he says that the ‘G-d of heaven’ who took him from his father’s house will assist him. The Rabbis pick up on this expression and the missing other half of the phrase ‘G-d of the earth’. They explain that when Abraham left home, G-d was only the ‘G-d of heaven’. Only when Abraham began his mission and caused people to recognise G-d, could He be called the ‘G-d of the earth’. Without human recognition and involvement, G-d is like a king without subjects or a ruler only in name but without real power. Because G-d has chosen to give humans freewill, if humans choose to ignore him, then his writ does not run in human society. The fact that this is inimical to human happiness and progress does not alter the fact that it is possible. Of course, matters can reach such a pass that G-d decides to give up on the world altogether, as in the time of the flood. It was only Noah’s choice to follow G-d that enabled G-d’s presence to remain in the world and humanity itself to survive. The Jewish people at Mt Sinai agreed to follow Noah’s example and be partners with G-d in creation. Our actions are what determines whether G-d’s writ runs on earth and whether He is present or absent from human society, with all the implications which that presence or absence implies. This Shabbat we remember the crimes of Amalek and our duty to oppose his evil in every generation. Some find the episodic necessity for violence in this regard as distasteful. But, based on what we have said, if we are not prepared to fight to destroy evil, we cannot expect G-d to do so. We are the instruments by which G-d acts in the world and if we do nothing, evil will triumph. Without the purposeful activity of Mordechai and Esther, the Jews would not have been saved. In order to have G-d dwell among us, we must make a place for Him by our own actions.Parshat Mishpatim
One of the issues in Judaism that people sometimes struggle with, is the relationship between what is written in the Torah and how that is interpreted by the Rabbis. Some see the idea of an oral tradition of interpretation as merely a cover for the Rabbis making up their own laws and think we should adhere closely to what is written in the Torah. This is especially true of sections like that found in our Parshah, where on the issues concerning damages and labour relations, we have a whole tractate of the Talmud in a few verses. However, the approach that is sceptical of the Oral Law and rabbinical interpretation, itself contains a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the legal sections of the Torah. As was proven by the Karaites who rejected the rabbinical tradition and ended up having to provide their own interpretation, it is impossible to live according to only to the written Torah. On a whole range of issues, it simply does not provide enough information in order to do so. It is clear, therefore, that it is not meant to. In order to understand this we need to see the Torah in its ancient Near Eastern context. To do so is not to deny the authority or eternal relevance of the contents of the Torah but to better understand the form in which this content is presented. It is clear that any message, even a Divine one, needs to take a form intelligible to the people to whom it is being presented. That, in the case of the Torah, means the Near Eastern tradition of law codes, such as the famous Code of Hammurabi. These codes were neither comprehensive nor necessarily practically applicable. They were not meant to be. What they were was a statement of the general principles of law or as, Joshua Berman points out, common law as opposed to statutory law. These principles for example, as in the case of common law, are often based on example, such as in our Parshah, the case of someone stealing a sheep or an ox. If it is still in existence, the thief pays double, if he sold or slaughtered it, four or fivefold respectively. In both cases the Torah mentions a sheep and an ox as an example. What the oral tradition or rabbinical interpretation then does is translate that principle into a practical statutory law, deciding whether the example of a sheep or ox is extended to all articles (as it does in case of regular theft) or is restricted to only the animals mentioned (as in the case of the selling of the animal). Thus the law stated in the Torah concerning theft of objects is not meant to be taken as read, rather used as an example or principle for either an oral tradition for later interpreters to translate into statutory legal practice. Until the late Second Temple period, these interpretations remained oral and flexible. The genius of the rabbis of the Mishna and Talmud was to create from this flexibility a corpus of practical law able to accompany the Jewish people through their long and difficult exile. If we understand the Torah in its context, we will thus also appreciate the meaning of its legislation and the oral and interpretive tradition that makes it an eternal way of life.Parshat Yitro
We have just commemorated another Holocaust Memorial Day. I have mentioned previously, in various forums, my doubts about the efficacy of this annual event. It is undeniable that in the twenty years since its inception, anti-Semitism has markedly increased, rather than the opposite. Why should that be? The reason may be found in this week’s Parshah. Prior to the giving of the Torah, G-d offers the Jews a deal: If they will accept the Torah they will become a ‘chosen people’. Whatever that term signifies, it certainly means that Jews will be, in the words of Balaam, ‘a nation that dwells apart’. Again, this can be interpreted in differing ways but clearly means that Jews will be different. And just as Jews are different, so is anti-Semitism different. The same phenomenon is found in ancient Alexandria and modern Japan, among white supremacists and BLM activists. No other form of racism has the historic reach and ideological breadth of anti-Semitism, which this way is unique. One of the reasons, as brilliantly charted by David Nirinberg, is that different peoples have used Jews and Judaism as a normally negative foil, to make sense of their own world. So the alt-right see Jews as behind globalisation, while black activists see Jews as behind the slave trade and black disempowerment. Much of this utilization of Jews goes back, of course, to Christianity, which from the beginning used Jews as a foil to understand their own religious ideologies and a measure by which to sift them into a coherent structure All of this, therefore, means that anti-Semitism is not only, or primarily, about lack of tolerance or acceptance of difference or fighting racism in general. All of which, of course, form the cornerstone of the messages put out by HMD. Anti-Semitism, of course, encompasses these things but its roots go much deeper. And unless those roots are dealt with, such events will do nothing to combat it. Au-contraire. Because anti-Jewish ideas are utilised by a wide range of groups to comprehend their own particular situation, concepts like human rights and anti-racism can be used to attack Jews, who are seen as at the root of the problem not its victim. HMD itself can and is attacked as proof of the Jewish disposition to parochialism and self centred egoism. Thus the very concepts meant to be used to combat anti-Semitism are turned into weapons to spread its poison to new audiences. Unless we understand the uniqueness of the Jewish place in the world, and thus the uniqueness of anti-Semitism, we will get nowhere in combatting it. Bland statements about tolerance and diversity, will not be enough, they may even be used as weapons against us. We need to have events that concentrate only on anti-Jewish hatred and its deep roots in the European psyche, if we are to make any progress in mitigating its spread. The uniqueness of the Jews as set out in the Parshah at the beginning of our history as a people, necessitates a unique response to the hatred directed against us. Anything less is a waste of time.Parshat Bo
The Parshah begins with G-d sending Moses to Pharaoh, because He has hardened his heart, in order that G-d can perform His wonders in the midst of Egypt. This is in order that future generations should tell the story of how G-d crushed the Egyptians. What is fascinating about these verses is that it seems to imply that the primary purpose of the Exodus is not necessarily the event itself but the narration of the story in future generations. This understanding of the Exodus is important for our understanding of the Torah and the Tanakh generally and how we should approach it. Often, people treat the Bible in either one of two ways. Those who wish to discredit religion dismiss it as non-factual myth, while those who want to uphold traditional belief insist on treating it as historical fact. Neither approach actually does justice to the intention and nature of the text. The Torah is not meant to be read as history but as a religious basis for life. That does not mean that it is unimportant whether the Exodus, for example, actually took place. Without some historical basis for the events described, Judaism loses much of its historic basis and even religious validity. But what is even more important is the way the Exodus is narrated in the Torah. This may indeed be only a version of events but that should not trouble us. All history in the Bible is a version of events. This can most clearly be seen in the history of the monarchy in Israel. We have two, often quite different, versions of the same events narrated in the books of Kings and Chronicles. This is because the authors of those books had different objects in mind. The author of Kings was concerned to chart Israel's descent into idolatry leading to destruction and exile. The author of Chronicles, living at the beginning of Return to Zion and the Second Temple, was preoccupied with strengthening the role of Jerusalem and the Davidic dynasty in Jewish life. They were relating real historical events but from a different perspective. The same is true of the narratives in the Torah. They are a version of the events that occurred, the version we believe, that G-d sanctioned. Being that, as we have seen, G-d Himself says that the real purpose of the Exodus is the future narration of the events more than the events themselves, we should not be too concerned if what we read in the Torah is only a version of those events. Especially, if it is the version G-d approves of. Thus when reading these passages, we should worry less about the literal historical accuracy than the message the Torah wants to convey and what we can learn from it. That is the correct way to read the Torah.Parshat Va’era
This week’s Parshah begins with a resounding assurance of redemption after the despair that engulfed both the people and their leader at the end of last week’s reading. The main part of the Parshah deals with the plagues that hit Egypt while Pharaoh refuses to let the people leave. Yet in between these two sections that naturally follow each other we have the genealogy of Moses’ family. Why is it necessary for us to know in detail about Moses’ family and why is this section inserted precisely here? Interestingly this genealogical insertion is neatly bracketed by almost identical paragraphs. These tell of G-d’s command to Moses to go to Pharaoh and Moses’ retort that the Israelites will not listen to him so why should Pharaoh. Moses has just been reassured by G-d in glowing terms of the ultimate success of his mission. What he doubts, however, is not G-d’s ability to redeem Israel but his own part in the plot. He feels a failure and probably believes that G-d can manage without him. Future generations may also think that Moses was not integral to the story; after he gets no mention at the Seder. Yet the Torah inserts Moses’ genealogy before the beginning of the story of the redemption as if to say that without him there would have been no Exodus. Without his leadership nothing would have happened and G-d’s plan might not have come to fruition. Moses’ human participation was necessary for Divine action. This is an important lesson indeed and one we have seen play out over the last year. The success of various countries responses to this crisis has been in large measure due to the nature of the leadership in those nations. We have seen this both in the different experiences of the nations of the UK and in the contrast between Israel’s early success and later relative failure in dealing with the crisis. The key factor in these cases was the committent and personality of those at the top. The same is being seen to be true with the roll out of the vaccine. The lesson is, as in the case of the Exodus, that individual leadership matters. To a lesser extend this is true not only of leaders but of each one of us. We may at times feel overwhelmed by historical or natural forces. We may feel helpless to change the course of history or even of our own lives. We can seem to be trapped in a fate over which we have no control. The Torah tells us it is not so. Our actions are essential for the unfolding of the Divine plan for the world. Indeed we may even shape it. It is true that we cannot achieve everything. Yet courageous, moral and resolute action by ordinary people can transform the world and change the course of history. In the end, the truth is that each one of us can make a difference.Parshat Shemot
At the beginning of the book of Exodus the Torah repeats the names of the sons of Jacob that descended to Egypt, relates their passing and tells us that the Israelites increased greatly in number. This is followed by the description of a new Pharaoh ‘who did not know Joseph’, who begins to persecute them. The Rabbis in their midrash on these verses link the increase of the Israelites to this new situation, Various midrashim describe how the Israelites were to be found everywhere in Egypt, going to all the best theatres and entertainments and generally taking an active part in the life of the country. This behaviour, they postulate, directly caused the ensuing persecution. Considering this idea, we could question if we are meant therefore to learn that Jews should not integrate into the society in which they live. Should Jews always separate themselves and not take an active role in the life of their host country? The Rabbis of the Talmud, themselves, did not live in ghettos and many of them had positive interaction with the surrounding culture. I believe that the key to this idea lies in the seemingly superfluous statement that Joseph and his brothers passed way. This statement seems unnecessary unless it is seen as an explanation for what follows. Not only the later persecution by a new Pharaoh ignorant of Joseph but the increase and prosperity of the Israelites is therefore commented on by these midrashim. The Torah is thus informing us of the passing away of the original generation of immigrants because their physical demise also led to a lessening of Jewish identity. It was not only Pharaoh who did not remember Joseph and what he stood for but the Israelites. Their integration into Egyptian society was accompanied by a loss of values and identity. This increasing assimilation led directly to Pharaoh’s actions. It was this process that the Rabbis were highlighting. This phenomenon was not unique to Egypt. In both medieval Spain and 19th century Germany, integration at the price of Jewish identity led to persecution and catastrophe. As the great Orthodox leader of German Jewry, Samson Raphael Hirsch, put it when replying to a community in southern Germany some of whose members wanted to cease circumcising their sons in order to integrate better. Did they really think that abandoning circumcision would make the non-Jews like them better? We know the tragic answer. What the Parshah and Jewish history tells us is that seeking to assimilate to the surrounding society increases rather than decreases hostility to Jews. We should certainly seek to be part of the societies in which we live. But not at the cost of losing our Jewish values and identity. That path leads to tragedy.
Bereishit (Genesis) 5781Parshat Vayehi
A blind man approaches death and wishes to bless his descendants. He stretches out his hands and gives his blessing. Against all expectation, however, he blesses the younger son before the elder. This scenario occurs not only once but twice in the book of Genesis and both in the life of Jacob. In the first instance, it is Jacob who is the younger son, at the instigation of his mother, ‘tricking’ his father into giving him the primary blessing. In the other it is Jacob who is the blind patriarch, blessing his younger grandson above the elder against the wishes of their father. It is fascinating to think of these two stories in parallel. What was Jacob thinking as he short-sightedly but purposefully placed his right hand on Ephraim not Manasseh’s head? Did he flashback to standing before his own father in Esau’s clothes receiving his brother’s blessing? Standing in his father’s place, does he now understand, as Aviva Zornberg speculates, that his own father was never really deceived? Or is it his own history that drives his determination to bless the younger before the elder? What is also similar in both instances is a clash of wills. On the one hand we have Isaac and Joseph who stand for the rule of primogeniture. The orderly rule of society is that the elder comes first. This is not surprising. Isaac is seen as the embodiment of the principle of justice and Joseph, as well, is the great organiser, the authority that orders whole nations according to a fixed plan. Opposing them are Rebecca and Jacob both more spontaneous and willing to break convention. Rebecca goes above and beyond in her kindness to Eliezer and Jacob throws aside the shepherd’s normal practice in his eagerness to help Rachel. Yet what is interesting in these two scenarios is that the character of who his blind and the nature of that sightlessness changes. Isaac, the symbol of order, is blind and therefore lacks knowledge; Jacob the original rebel is blind and nevertheless or possibly therefore, has greater insight. I would suggest that a new paradigm has been created. Isaac was preferred over Ishmael but he was not the son of Sarah. Esau was the son of Rebecca, like Jacob, but nevertheless was rejected. Ephraim was favoured over Manasseh but unlike Ishmael and Esau, he was not rejected but continues to be part of the family. In each case it was the father who resisted this change yet were in the end overruled. The pattern therefore is now set. When it comes to the leadership of the Jewish people, being eldest is no longer an advantage. In fact the opposite, as seen in the careers of Moses, David and Solomon. What we learn from this is that change, upsetting the old order, can often take time and may evolve in several steps. Change can also be institutionalised, the expectation of non-order becoming a normal pattern. Thus, in blessing the younger before the elder, Jacob was completing the process in which he himself was crucial and thus completing the circle of his own life.Parshat Vayigash
The story of Joseph and his brothers reaches its climax this week with Judah begging for the release of Benjamin and offering himself as a replacement. This, however, is the fourth proposed punishment for the theft of Joseph’s goblet, and the third proposal by Judah himself. As Avivah Zornberg points out Judah’s offers increase in their absurdity. Firstly, he proposes that the person in whose possession the goblet is found should die and the rest should be slaves. In response to Joseph’s officials reply that only the guilty person should be a slave. Judah then offers to Joseph himself that all the brothers should be slaves. Joseph again replies that only the guilty should be punished and the rest should go free. Judah then makes his impassioned speech offering himself in place of Benjamin, meaning the guilty person should go free while the innocent should be punished. How are we to interpret this behaviour? We can understand that Judah, who has taken responsibility for Benjamin’s welfare, is prepared to offer himself in his stead. What is perplexing, however, is the constant proposal that all the brothers should be punished even when this is not what is required. This could be understood as the brothers, seeing in their predicament, punishment for the sale of Joseph, seeking to this time all stand up for Benjamin. Yet I believe their could be another factor at play. The midrashic tradition sees in Judah’s speech to Joseph a tone of accusation. The brothers believe part of plot by Joseph to entrap them, which is of course true, and Judah is in his speech subtly letting Joseph know that they know. The various offer of collective punishment can possibly be seen in this light. The law is that only the guilty person should be punished. That is the constant position taken by the authorities, in the person of Joseph and his officials. By insisting on an unjust outcome, however, Judah is perchance seeking to unmask the injustice of Joseph’s behaviour itself. Judah is in effect saying, both to Joseph himself and his retinue, that their behaviour from the beginning to the end has been unconscionable. From the improbable accusation of spying, through the mysterious appearance of their money in their sacks until the appearance of Joseph’s goblet in the sack of the very person most important to the family, the whole affair stinks. If that is the case, Judah challenges Joseph, then why even pretend to be just. Simply imprison all of us while you are at it. This scheme, however, doesn’t work and Judah is forced to finally offer himself in Benjamin’s stead. Yet this strategy is in fact valid when faced with injustice masquerading as justice. When faced with an oppressive system or idea that tries to present itself as upright one way of fighting it is to refuse to play along with pretence. You may not win in the end but what you can do is unmask the masquerade, leading more people to question the system and making it more likely that cause of justice will eventually triumph.Parshat Vayeshev
The end of the book of Genesis concentrates on two main characters Joseph and Judah and often the interaction between them. These two very different personalities form the leadership of the Jewish people until the end of biblical times. Judah is the progenitor of the Davidic line of monarchs leading eventually to the messiah. Joseph is the ancestor, through his son Ephraim, of both Joshua but also Jerobam the founder of the northern kingdom of Israel. Both Judah and Joseph were successful leaders their descendants became efficient rulers. Yet there is a characteristic of Judah that is not found in Joseph and not in his descendants. Judah, when faced with the challenge of his pregnant daughter in law, acknowledges his responsibility for what has occurred, even though doing so must have resulted in embarrassment and some loss of face. He was prepared to admit that he made a mistake. This is something that we find also in his descendants, notably David, who when confronted with his sins of adultery and murder, readily confessed and accepted responsibility. This is in stark contrast to the behaviour of the monarchy established by Jerobam. Despite, clearly realising that the original establishment by Jerobam of alternative cult centres to Jerusalem had led to the degeneration of the people, they did not abolish them. Even kings such as Jehu, who eradicated Baal worship in Israel, refused to also abolish the cult centres in Beit El and Dan, that were the root of the problem. To admit that this policy was wrong was a step to far. The Sages relates that even when Jerobam was offered the World to Come in partnership with David, he refused to go back on his original action. We can also see this refusal to admit a mistake in the actions of Saul, the first king and also a descendant of Rachel. Even when confronted by Samuel he never really admits that he is wrong but instead blames the people. This indeed seems to be the natural, maybe understandable, instinct of most political leaders. It is, therefore, the uncharacteristic ability of the descendants of Judah to take personal responsibility for their failings, which qualifies them for Jewish leadership. We can therefore maybe understand while the Hasmoneans, like the kings of the northern kingdom, were not in the end successful rulers and why Nachmanidies, for example, criticises them for taking the kingship. However brave and resourceful they were, as priests, they didn’t have the Judean genetic code of self-criticism crucial for a successful Jewish leader.Parshat Vayishlach
The Parshah begins with the meeting between Jacob and Esau. Twenty years earlier Jacob fled from his brother but now he will be forced to confront him. However, the connections between the two brothers go deeper than these two incidents. The midrashic tradition paints Esau in the background, even when he is physically absent. So Esau is connected to both Leah and Rachel. Leah has weak eyes because of her weeping at the general assumption that as the eldest daughter she will marry Isaac’s oldest son. Rachel apparently fears that because of her lack of children Jacob will divorce her and she will be married off to Easu. This theme continues with the midrash commenting on the absence of mention of Jacob’s daughter during the meeting with Esau. This is because he his her in a trunk, lest Esau see her and want to marry her. Because of this, the midrash continues, Dinah was later raped by Shechem, Esau’s influence continuing into the future. How are we to understand this midrashic ghost at the feast haunting Jacob’s life and seemingly haunting his relationships. Is it simply a guilty conscience concerning taken his father’s blessings or something even deeper. The midrash declares that in hiding Dinah from Esau Jacob showed a lack of empathy or kindness towards his brother, as she could have changed his behaviour for the better. To put it another way, Jacob lacked a sense of imagination concerning his brother. He doesn’t believe that responsibilities of the firstborn or his father’s blessing will change Esau, so he takes them for himself. He again corners the family heritage by marrying both possible prospective suitable women, leaving nothing for Esau. Finally, he goes to great lengths to prevent even the possibility of his brother having anything to do with his own family. This could be seen, given Esau’s apparent character, simple common sense. Yet the Sages hold him responsible for not having the imagination to envision other possibilities. By closing off options with regards to his brother he denies the possibility of a different type of future for both of them. For this he is held accountable. This understanding serves to teach us an important lesson. When dealing with difficult people or groups, whether on an individual or collective plane, we should always leave open the possibility of change. If we simply take a risk free defensive approach, being afraid to engage lest we suffer, we close off the possibility of dialogue and a different type of relationship. We condemn both parties to a similarly negative future relationship. However, if we are prepared to take the risk of engaging, however difficult, we open up the possibility of a more positive future. Dealing with the Esau’s of the world is never easy. Yet if we are prepared to hazard it, engagement rather than aloofness may yield unforeseen rewards.Parshat Vayetze
The relationship between Jacob and his uncle Laban is a complicated and ultimately unhappy one. Indeed in the Haggadah we state the Laban was worse for us than Pharaoh. This relationship reaches its climaxes near the end of the Parshah when Jacob finally confronts Laban with his grievances. After listing how Laban had cheated him several times and acted contrary to the established fair working practices of the time, he ends by stating that G-d himself had rebuked Laban the previous night. Laban’s answer is interesting. He doesn’t refute any of Jacob’s accusation which are substantially true. He rather contends that everything that Jacob has achieved is due to him and jacob would be nothing if Laban hadn’t taken him in and given him a start in life. Besides the fact that this ignores several salient facts, such as the fact that, for example, it was Laban that begged Jacob to continue working for him and agreed to the terms that Jacob employed to increase his wealth, the fact that someone gives you a job or even their daughter doesn’t mean that you can therefore cheat and exploit them. Yet Laban’s answer reveals an interesting mental state that is unfortunately extremely common. Jacob had been at first dependant on Laban and so under his control. Later, as Jacob struck out on his own, his success grated on Laban. He could no longer continue to exercise any power over him. This was especially true that he now had the audacity to leave without his permission. We see in the agreement the two reach that all the conditions are on behalf of Laban. Jacob doesn’t ask for anything. Laban is still trying to exercise control remotely. He simply can’t let go. This phenomena is unfortunately not unusual. It can be very difficult for someone or a group of people who have had power over another individual or group to let go or accept that they can now exercise their own power or autonomy. This is of course one of the greatest challenges of parents, to allow their growing children the independence to make their own decisions. But is is also common in the area of politics and international relations. Some of the anti-Israel sentiment in world politics and discourse comes from a reluctance to accept that Jews now have power. Many people, especially on the left, loved Jews as an oppressed minority they could, sometimes, stand up for. The fact that Jews decided to stand up for themselves and wielded real power on their own behalf is something they find hard to swallow. This syndrome doesn’t, of course, exist only in regards to Jews or Israel. It seems also to be alive and well in London. However, in the end, following this path eventually leads to failure. Just as in the case of Jacob and Laban, these attempts at perpetual control will not in the end succeed.Parshat Toldot
The main theme of our Parshah is the conflict between Esau and Jacob. This conflict is portrayed as beginning in the womb, as Rashi comments: ‘they were struggling over the inheritance of two worlds’ or as the Rabbis put it if one is up the other is down and visa versa. What is this fundamental struggle between the two brothers, which as we saw at the end of last week’s Parshah, does not apply to the relationship with Isaac and Ishmael. If we follow the traditional view that Ishmael stands for Arab and Islamic civilisation and Esau for Christian or Western civilisation, we can begin to understand this conflict. While Jews and Muslims have many differences, their basic approach to life and religion is similar. Through there religious practices they seek to sanctify this world and there is no or minimal, history of asceticism or monasticism in our traditions. Very different is the classic position of Greek thought and traditional Christianity that was, in many ways, its heir. Augustinian theology that formed the basis both for the Catholic church and the Protestant revolt against it, had a very different view of the world. This world is essentially evil and the way to the ‘City of G-d’ (as his most famous work was titled) was to reject the world and concentrate on things of the spirit. This attitude indeed went back to Paul who made a distinction between the ‘covenant of the flesh’ and that of the spirit. Jews were rejected precisely because they clung to the covenant of flesh, namely the practical mitzvot while Christians had progressed to a more spiritual religious dispensation. Thus while Judaism believes in sanctifying the world through the practice of commandments that elevate physical activities, Christianity regarded such an approach as mistaken and even evil. Thus the practices of circumcision, keeping Shabbat or eating kosher were regarded as illegitimate and in converted Jews or other Christians punished harshly by the church. This basic dispute between two irreconcilable world views is foreshadowed in the struggle between Esau and Jacob narrated in the Parshah. It is still alive and well today even in those regarded as friends of the Jewish community. At a civic reception once when I was looking for the kosher food, this person said to me that ‘of course we Christians have gone beyond that’. This also plays out in attitudes to Israel. We cannot understand nor combat some Christian positions on Israel without understanding the spiritualisation of concepts such as the biblical promise of the Land. This does mean we cannot and should not seek to have good relations with the Christian churches. But as we do so we must understand, especially in areas were there are disputes, the diametrically opposed world views we are starting from.Parshat Haye Sarah
When negotiating with his his Hittite neighbours over a burial plot for Sarah, Abraham uses two different expressions to describe himself. He says that he is ‘ger v’toshav imachem’ ‘a stranger and settler among you’. These two terms seem to contradict each other. On the one hand a ger is a stranger or temporary resident. On the other toshav, coming from the root to sit or dwell, seems to imply permanency. Rashi picks up on this discrepancy and links it to the ambivalent status of Abraham. On the one hand he is a stranger among them but if they don’t want to sell then G-d has already promised him the Land, so it is his anyway. This comment brings out the complicated relationship Jews have with the non-Jewish inhabitants of the Land of Israel. The strictures found in the Torah regarding the Canaanites, don’t apply to other peoples, especially those who are monotheists and follow a moral code. On the one hand the Land of Israel is given by G-d to the Jewish people, on the other we have a moral obligation to treat others living there fairly. That is what we learn from Abraham’s words. Even though the Land is by rights ours we will still pay fairly for it and not just take it. This indeed was the opinion of Rabbi Kook, the first Chief Rabbi of Israel who stated that even though the Land was really ours it was correct that the Zionist movement paid high prices for purchasing it. But if the other people in the Land reject our right to be there and seek to prevent us for living buying land there then we can state unequivocally that G-d has given the land to us and we do not need their permission to exist there. Thus, when the other inhabitants of the land seek to stop us living there and indeed attack us we have the right and duty to not only defend us but take land away from them. This indeed, is of course what occurred. Despite the fair purchase of land at often exorbitant prices the Arab inhabitants refused to accept any Jewish presence in the land and sought to drive us from it. In the course of the battle that followed much more land fell in to our hands. In such circumstances we have no obligation to return or pay for any of it, for the whole Land is ours by right. This is what, according to Rashi, Abraham is saying to his neighbours. If you treat fairly with me I will act as if the Land is yours and buy it from it. If, however, you treat me unjustly, then the Land is mine by right and I will act accordingly. Thus, we are neither thieves nor conquerors. Despite our right to the Land we should treat all its inhabitants fairly, if they do the same to us. If not, the Land is ours and we will know to act in the necessary fashion, so they should be warned.Parshat lech L’cha
When examining the story of Abraham, his mission seems to contain an internal contradiction. On the one hand, he is told that he ‘through you all the families of the earth will be blessed’. On the other hand his family story is one of exclusion and selection. Ishmael and Esau are not included in this blessing. Abraham is told that his posterity will be continued through Isaac, not Ishmael, and Isaac blesses Jacob, not Esau, with the ‘blessing of Abraham’. I believe that the key to solving this paradox lies in a comment of Rashi on the very phrase ‘all the families of the earth will be blessed’. He states that while there are other interpretations the plain meaning is that a father will say to his son ‘be like Abraham’. The simple meaning of this is that he should follow in the ways of Abraham. The blessing of Abraham to the world is that they should follow his example and ‘engage in justice and charity’ as G-d describes Abraham’s activity. Thus the universal inheritance of Abraham is not the specific promises of progeny and land, which are reserved for his descendants through Isaac and Jacob but his ethical inheritance that is available to all who follow his path. Unfortunately, Ishmael and Esau misunderstood this point and thought they also had a right to the other inheritance of Abraham. Christianity and Islam, also made the same mistake. Not content with the ethical inheritance of Abraham, they sought to also take on the mantle of G-d’s election of people and land and thus replace the Jews. Not only did this lead to the denigration of and the persecution of, G-d’s actual chosen people but the combination of a universalist outlook with the idea of particular election led to untold tragedy. This combination of universalism and particularism led to the idea of only one true religion, resulting in intolerance, persecution and genocide. In seeking to succeed to the particular inheritance of Abraham reserved for his actual descendants, Christianity and Islam actually forfeited in many ways the universalist inheritance of justice and charity and in the name of ‘Abraham’s’ religion, perpetuated injustice and cruelty. Thus the illegitimate attempt to supersede the Jews as the inheritors of Abraham, led to the practical abandonment of much of the his ethical inheritance. Only, when Christianity and Islam renounce their claims to the particularistic inheritance of Abraham can they truly embrace his universal heritage and themselves truly become a blessing to the world.Parshat Noach
Because of the wickedness of humanity G-d resolves to bring a flood to destroy the world and begin again with Noah. The Torah in describing the degenerate state of human affairs uses two different words hamas and hashchata. The first is generally translated as violence and the second as corruption, so ‘humanity corrupted their way on the earth and the earth was filled with violence because of them’. The Rabbis generally saw hamas as referring to robbery and hashchata to sexual promiscuity. But if we examine the root meaning of these two words we can discover an indictment of the generation of the flood that is relevant for our own. Hamas actually means an uncontrolled desire for the possessions of others and the belief that you have the right to acquire them by any means. It is summed up in the statement of the Mishna ‘what is mine is mine and what is yours is mine’. In this world view I should have anything I want if I can obtain it, no matter what the price to others. Hashchata really means destruction or vandalism. It is the wanton destruction of the world around us as illustrated in the prohibition of the Torah to destroy fruit trees in war. Bal taschit then becomes a general prohibition on wantonly destroying anything. In this light we can see the true sin of the flood generation. They were consumed with an uncontrolled desire for acquisition and use of resources both material and human. This led to them totally disregarding the basic rights of others, whether animal or human. People’s possessions or their bodies were fair game if you were strong enough to use them to satisfy your desires. This in turn led to the destruction of society and nature inevitably leading to the complete destruction of the world in the environmental catastrophe of the flood. This may sound somewhat familiar. Our generation and those preceding have also had an unquenchable desire to use resources, both material and human, to create ever more wealth to satisfy our need for ever more possessions. We thus have depleted the natural world of its resources and led to the degradation of our own environment. Unregulated capitalistic exploitation has led to vast discrepancies of wealth, health and education, that threaten to tear about society and cause conflict between nations. All of this is inexorably leading to an environmental catastrophe from which no one will emerge the winner if anyone survives at all. The pursuit of hamas and hashchata in our generation threatens to lead to the same result as it did in the generation of the flood. The Rabbis say that Noah spent 120 years building the ark in order to warn his generation of the impending catastrophe, they did not listen and were swept into oblivion. We have far less than that time to change our ways before it is to late. Will we maybe, this time, take heed?Parshat Bereishit
In commenting on the narrative of creation the Rabbis in the Midrash tell two stories that at first sight may seem like fanciful myths but are in fact contain a deep philosophical understanding of the nature of the universe. They noted that while G-d commanded that fruit trees should bear fruit, the next verse merely states that the earth brought forth trees bearing fruit, omitting the word fruit. G-d, they postulated, commanded that the bark of the tree should also have the taste of its fruit, but the earth rebelled and only the fruit not the bark had the correct taste. Later on, they noted it states that G-d created the two great lights but then calls them a great light and a small light. They again posited that the sun and moon were meant to be the same size but the moon complained that this equality wouldn’t work, so G-d reduced the size of the moon. What are we to make of these stories? What message were our sages trying to convey to us? If we look at them carefully we see that they tell of an original plan for creation that went wrong. Ideally, a the body of a tree should faithfully reflect the fruit it bears, the two luminaries of day and night should be of equal size. Yet in reality this was not possible. The original Divine plan when it came into contact with physical reality had to adapt to the inherent imperfection of the material world. This is a process described in kabbalistic terminology as the ‘Breaking of the Vessels’. The world by its very nature is imperfect and couldn’t be otherwise. But there is also an important moral understanding behind this concept concerning the role of humanity. The world is created with imperfections in order for us to perfect it. We are deliberately placed in a flawed environment because it is our job to correct the flaws. That is part of the Divine wisdom behind the nature of the universe. Indeed, according to Jewish mystical thought, our ability and responsibility to repair the defects of creation extend beyond this world to the very structure of the universe. Thus what the Rabbis are telling us in these midrashim is that we should not be perturbed when we live in a world that seems to us to be not quite right, where we have to deal with epidemics and other such issues for example. That is the way the world is meant to be in order that we can have a role in healing it. So as we continue top face our current predicament the first chapter of the Torah teaches us not to be astounded at such occurrences, rather to understand that they exist precisely in order for us to overcome them.