Tzipiyah.com

Parshat Vayeitzei: The Wedding Well

Nathan Light — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 05:06:37 +0000

In this week’s parshah, Yaakov Avinu leaves the land of Israel and flees to Charan in order to seek refuge from his brother Esav. It is during this “exile” that Yaakov begins an important phase of his life by establishing a family for himself.

Yaakov’s first encounter with his future wife Rachel took place at a well (Chapter 29). It is interesting to note that Yaakov is not the only figure in the Torah who finds his wife by a well; both Yitzchak Avinu and Moshe Rabbeinu’s wives were also introduced to them at a well (see Genesis: 24: 11 –19, and Exodus: 2: 15 – 17). What is it that is so special about a well? What intrinsic connection lies between a well and the union of two souls in marriage?

Before answering our question, it is necessary to understand what the function of a well is. Often, a helpful strategy in defining an object is to clarify what it isn’t. So, what isn’t a well? A well is not a wellspring (Ayin in Hebrew) or a pit (Bor in Hebrew). A wellspring is a natural flow and upwelling of water that lacks a space in which to contain it, and a pit is solely a hole in the ground, a vessel for water that has no natural water source of its own. A well is a combination of both these characteristics; it is both a natural water source, and a receptacle in which to hold the water.

The qualities that the well embodies are those essential for entering into marriage and beginning a family. Man and woman must understand the role they themselves must play to maintain a healthy relationship. Is a good wife one who forfeits her ideals and accepts whatever her husband decides? Is it ideal for the husband to single-handedly make the decisions within the family and force his values upon his wife? Clearly, this would be a recipe for a disastrous relationship. Marriage is not about one party behaving as a wellspring while the other behaves as a pit! “Love” in marriage will slowly fade away if one side only gives while the other side only receives. A recipe that is more likely to yield success entails both individuals behaving like the well - taking on both roles: the natural water source (the giver) and the vessel (the receiver). Partners in a relationship are capable of offering so much to one another, and likewise possess the ability to receive so much from one another. Together, husband and wife must fuse their respective beliefs and characteristics with one another in order to achieve something greater.

Harmony is the hidden symbolisms of the well, and it is this harmony that is meant to exist between husband and wife. May we all be able to take the message of the well into our relationships with our spouses, and may we merit entering and maintaining loving marriages for the rest of our lives.

Good Shabbos,

NZL

Similar Posts:

Parshat Toldot: Giving Blessings

Nathan Light — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 03:36:59 +0000

The parshah this week places a great emphasis on the development of the relationship between Jacob and Esau, the two twin brothers born to Isaac and Rebecca (Jacob destined to become one of the three patriarchs). The parshah starts off by describing their unique birth and the ensuing verses then tell us of how the boys grew up and were of different character; it also speaks of a certain incident between them regarding who truly earns the title of “firstborn”. Later on in the parshah, the well-known story is told of how Jacob cunningly receives the blessings from Isaac (their father), which were originally intended for Esau. The parshah concludes with the departure of Jacob due to the enmity and hatred that has built up within Esau towards Jacob because of the “stolen” blessings. So it seems that the main focus this week is strictly on the Jacob-Esau relationship.

However, smack in the middle of the Torah’s recounting of the legendary history between the two brothers, we seem to go off on a tangent. The Torah spends a chapter discussing the episode of Isaac’s temporary dwelling in the land of Gerar and his relationship with Avimelech, king of the Philistines. What was so important about this story that the Torah felt it necessary to take a break from the Jacob and Esau story?

When looking a bit closer, it is clear that this “tangent” comes right before the story of “the blessings” that Isaac bestow upon Jacob. Perhaps, the story of Isaac in Gerar was somehow a precursor to the blessings that He would later endow to Jacob in the future. To understand how, it is important to examine the text of the blessings themselves.

The first part of the blessing reads “And may God give you of the dew of the heavens and of the fatness of the earth, and abundant grain and wine” [Genesis: 27: 28] It seems that an integral element of the blessing was related to wealth. Furthermore, the Torah goes on to describe how Esau, upon realizing how Jacob “tricked” him out of the blessings, begs to his father to bless him as well. After a while, Isaac agrees to bless Esau as well and tells him “… ‘Behold, the fatness of the earth shall be your dwelling and of the dew of the heavens from above’ ” [Genesis: 27: 39] Here again, the blessing seems to revolve around wealth and riches.

Now, how does this relate to our tangent? During Isaac’s stay in Gerar, the Torah tells us that “Isaac sowed in that land and in that year he reaped a hundredfold…he became great and kept becoming greater until he was very great. He had acquired flocks and herds and many enterprises; and the Philistines envied him” [Genesis: 26: 12-14] There are few, if any, verses in the Torah that describe one’s level of wealth to such a degree that it provoked jealousy. These verses therefore go out of their way to emphasize the great level of prosperity Isaac had attained, far beyond the level of riches most people had or would ever possess.

Perhaps, the growth of Isaac’s wealth in Gerar was a necessary path to undergo in order to bestow the appropriate blessings of wealth to his progeny years later. The Torah therefore “breaks” right before the narrative of the blessings of prosperity that Isaac would endow to Jacob (and partly to Esau). Maybe one can say that it was only possible for Isaac to truly give a sincere blessing of wealth to his offspring if he (Isaac) would first experience a certain measure of wealth and prosperity in his own life.

From this idea we can learn, that blessings are not meant to be fabricated and overemphasized speeches. A true and meaningful blessing can be in one sentence, with just the right amount of words and expression that completely originated from one’s will to bestow good upon another person. When someone wishes someone happiness, how can the blessing ever take effect if the giver (of the blessing) has never experienced feelings of happiness himself? He’d be giving a fake blessing, for it would be regarding something he has no relation to or understanding of whatsoever! When one blesses another, it can only truly come into effect if the blessing stemmed from genuine feelings inside one’s heart. It is very important to realize that every time we wish someone “Shalom Aleichem” (literally translated as “Peace be upon you”, a term of greeting), we should be feeling those words in our hearts towards that individual. Even the more so when we recite a blessing to God before eating or before performing one of His commandments; our words contain great significance and literally bring Godliness down into the world.

The blessings that Isaac imbued Jacob with were not merely words to make Jacob feel better. The blessings came forth from the most inner recesses of Isaac’s heart and were meant to act as Jacob’s legacy (and the legacy of all his progeny) until the end of time. So too, the blessings we instill within the people around us are meant to be part of their lives and are meant to last for a very long time as well. With God’s help, may we come to recognize the true power that our words may hold, and the true blessings that we have the ability to give to one another.

Good Shabbos,

NZL

Similar Posts:

What, Judaism can actually be fun?

Gemma — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:36:26 +0000

I got speaking to a mother who had reluctantly just sent her daughter to seminary. She wasn’t religious herself but was angry that her daughter had become religious and couldn’t understand what she saw in Judaism.

I got to the root of the problem - she then told me that Judaism was forced down her throat, “Do this! Why? Because that’s how it must be done!” She said she rebelled the opposite way, she wasn’t going to listen to that. She couldn’t understand why anyone would want to be religious, “it’s like being in prison, you can’t do anything you want, your whole life is controlled – “you can’t do this, this and this!”

Judaism was very prescriptive in her generation, she was turned off. She rebelled. Now her daughter is doing the opposite, thereby creating guilt on the mother’s behalf. Had the daughter come up with any other dietary requirement I’m sure she’d only be too pleased. The reason why there exist so many unobservant Jewish families is because the only way the older generations were taught was through force, prescriptive and seemingly meaningless laws. There was no Jewish thought, philosophy, mussar (ethics) and other works which we are fascinated by today, no nice “vorts.” And because of this, their kids have the same perception of Judaism, i.e. a burden.

I think, therefore, that perhaps the challenge of our generation is to remodel Judaism into its true essence. Judaism isn’t a load of laws and don’t-do’s; that’s missing the whole point. You can’t keep Shabbat simply by not driving, not turning on lights, not cooking, etc without doing the positive mitzvot on the day like making Kiddush, special davening, family time, self-reflection, special food and delicacies, learning with our children and wearing our best clothes. Judaism and happiness go together; if you don’t have the latter you’re not doing the former properly. “Ivdu et Hashem b’simcha” – serve Hashem with joy, King David tells us.

One of the best ways to experience true Judaism is by seeing it in action. Most unobservant Jews will regard Shabbat as restricting and boring, yet how many of them have actually seen a religious family on Shabbat? They’ve not seen the atmosphere around a real Shabbos table, they’ve not watched the wife being praised, the children being blessed, the beautiful songs, fine food and spirituality. And maybe that’s where we as observant Jews have to take responsibility. We have to not only retain our tremendous hospitability but we have to perform our mitzvot with joy and enthusiasm. If we look like we’re watching paint dry in shul on Shabbos morning or if we talk to Hashem the way we talk to the tax man then that’s exactly how mitzvot will be perceived; not only by other Jews but by our children. It’s all very well to say that Judaism is great, but we have to show it’s great. Not through being fake and acting like it is, but by truly believing it is.

Similar Posts:

Parashat Mishpatim and Slavery by admin
Shabbat by Gemma
Urgent Need for a Cure! by Dan Illouz
‘Be Comforted, My People’ by Zemer
Put On Your Yarmulke (Wear My Shoes) by Zemer

Parshat “Chayei Sarah”: The Dichotomy of Man

Nathan Light — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:58:35 +0000

This week’s parshah starts off discussing the death of our matriarch Sarah, and the process that Abraham went through in order to find her an appropriate gravesite. Because it was in the city of Chevron where Sarah had passed away (this was where she and Abraham had been living for many years), Abraham chose to meet with the children of Heth, the other inhabitants of that region, in order to discuss the acquisition of a burial place. The Torah portrays Abrahams opening words as follows:

“Abraham rose up…and spoke to the children of Heth, saying: ‘I am a stranger and a resident among you; grant me an estate for a burial site…” [Genesis: 23: 3-4]

Many commentators jump on the obvious question: How is it possible to be both a stranger (a non-resident) and a resident at once!? Either you live there or you don’t! What did Abraham mean by this apparent dichotomy?

There are many simple answers to this question, but we’ll try to focus on one. “I am a stranger and a resident” does not have to be explained in geographic terms; Abraham was not necessarily describing the particulars of his citizenship with the children of Heth. Rather, Abraham’s statement was meant to depict his status as a human being on this earth.

As humans, one of our main priorities in life is to constantly remind ourselves that we act as both “strangers” and “residents” in this world. It is clear that by the very fact that we are living on this earth, we are seen as “residents”. But at the same time, it is incumbent upon us to realize that this world is transient, and is seen merely as a corridor leading us to the next world, which is our true and permanent dwelling. We live our physical lives here solely to perform God’s commandments, thereby attaining the necessary merit to enter the next world. In this regard, we must view ourselves as “strangers” in this world. Throughout our lives, we must strive to attain the proper balance between these two modes of “citizenship” in our every endeavor.

But now we may ask: Why is this idea taught at this particular junction? How does this concept relate to our parshah, pertaining to Sarah’s passing?

The answer is quite obvious. It is only upon death that this dichotomy is truly realized. The process of death and burial is no doubt a clear demonstration that the soul has departed this world, which attests to the fact that the person had been a “stranger” in his previous lifetime. But, now that the soul has departed, what happens to this person’s status as “resident”? Do we say that it is now a “resident” in the world to come? If so, then what happens to its “stranger” status? Can it still possess both?

In truth, even upon death, a person’s soul can eternally be both a “stranger” and “resident” in this world. On a simple level, there is an idea that although one has moved onto the next world, he/she is always watching over the ones he/she has left behind, and can even have an influence upon them, though they don’t necessarily see it. In this way, the soul can still be seen as a “resident” on this earth. But, perhaps on a more profound level, it is through a person’s actions during his/her lifetime on this earth that can ascribe him/her as a “resident” even after death. If a person spent his/her life dedicated to meaningful and honorable pursuits, their name can live on forever and their memory can impact the lives of others who are still living on this earth. However, it is so unfortunate when most of one’s life is spent chasing after emptiness and vanity, to the point where his/her status as a “resident” gets completely “revoked” upon death. And because they have become so steeped in the pleasures of this world, they are even deemed a “stranger” in the next world.

Like Abraham, we must always consider ourselves as “strangers” and “residents” in this world, and through our deeds may we likewise retain these designations even upon our entrance into the next world.

Good Shabbos,

NZL

Similar Posts:

It’s Time to Open the Circle

Florence — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 04:27:28 +0000

I would like to start off with a scenario. A guy/girl gets back after a great year in Seminary/Yeshiva and are so pleased with themselves because of how much torah they have learned and how much they have grown spiritually. As they get acclimated back into their surroundings they tend to notice that there is a staggering spiritual difference between them and their high school friends who didn’t spend a year with them in Israel. All of a sudden they begin to look down on the friends they have been friends with for years. Whats the reason? They are not on the same “spiritual” level as them.

I know you may argue, well I went to Seminary/Yeshiva and I wasn’t like that so why are you generalizing? My answer to that is, yes maybe your case is different but there are numerous cases that I have wittnessed that are this way. The reason I bring this topic up is really to address a more general topic that I have been thinking about, which is how can we inspire more Jews to embrace Judaism and live the Torah lifestyle? I think this scenario not only applies to Seminary and Yeshiva students, but also to all Jews. Unfortunately, even though there are so many Jews that are in some way connected to Judaism, there are many more that aren’t. I know there are numerous reasons for this but I would like to focus on one that I think we can do to prevent any more Jews from being disconnected. One reason that there is a reluctance to embrace Judaism is because of the negative energy that comes from people who are too busy judging other Jews’ actions, that they forget that they are also Jews and still deserve respect.

Going back to the Seminary/Yeshiva student scenario proves my point. Isn’t it strange that someone would not think twice about judging and distancing themselves from their friend that they have known their whole life just because they are not on the same “spiritual” level as them. Yes, it is great how much the student has grown, but by looking down on others it shows that the student has not learned the basic lessons their teachers tried to instill in them in Seminary/Yeshiva, Ahavat Yisrael(having love for a fellow Jew). As a result of this attitude there are many Jews that are turned off by Judaism. I think that, yes, it’s important to wholeheartedly keep the mitzvot, but it is not worth anything if it’s flaunted and used to look down on those that are not at the same “spiritual level”.

It is important to realize how your negative judgment effects others and not to judge others simply based on external factors such as their clothing. I think that if everyone takes the time to treat other Jews with respect and judge them based on who they are we would merit to see the geulah.

Similar Posts:

Crossing the Bridge

Zemer — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:45:32 +0000

I looked over the highway, directly across at the place opposite from where I stood. I still had to walk all the way round to the bridge, and then cross the bridge, to get to that spot. And only then would I be in the right neighbourhood, and my journey could continue. I asked myself at that instant, ‘If there’s one place you could be, where would that be?’ The immediate answer was, ‘Right there! Just across the bridge. I’d skip walking round to the bridge, and then crossing the bridge, and I’d be right at that spot over there.’ But just a second, I said to myself. That’s not really where I want to go. My final destination is the shop over in the neighbourhood, not that spot across the bridge! In fact, if I could really choose to ’skip’ out any part of my journey, I’d skip it all, and be back home with all my shopping in one second’s time!

So, I began to think. Why was I so quick to settle for the intermediate spot, when after some deeper thinking and prioritizing I could clearly see that it was just a stepping stone? This reminded me of a story.

A king once had a son who misbehaved, acting in a way that was very inappropriate for a prince. The king heavy-heartedly exiled his wayward son, sending him away to live in a small village far away from the capital and the palace.

The prince suddenly found himself in a largely foreign environment. All of the luxuries that had been so integral a part of his life were nowhere to be found, and he needed to learn the basic, unrefined ways of the peasants who surrounded him in order to survive. He became a shepherd, learning through painstaking trial and error how to live the life of someone he’d never even thought of. He was truly an exile, and the adaptation was very difficult for him…

Years later, the king made a royal procession through the provinces of his kingdom, offering his rural subjects the special opportunity to see their king up-close and in their own villages. Moreover, the king upheld a unique custom, where villagers could write notes to the king making personal requests; the king would make an effort to fulfill every request he read.

The king’s caravan entered the village where, according to the king’s intelligence, his exiled son lived. The king read all of the notes this time. He came to a note whose handwriting was painfully familiar; it had been written by his son! What did his son want, what did he request? Did he want to come back home to the palace, to be reunited with his father? To the king’s bitter disappointment, the message read, in the refined writing of the prince, ‘I am a shepherd, but I have never succeeded in building a hut like those that the other shepherds build to shelter themselves from the boiling sun, the freezing frost, and the pouring rain. If it please Your Majesty, would he build for me a hut to shade myself from the elements in my shepherding?’

The king read the note, and he wept. ‘If only my son would ask me to return him back to the palace, I would do it right now! But how lowly he has fallen; he has forgotten who he is, and only asks me for a simple shepherd’s hut!’

We, Am Yisrael, are the exiled prince, living the life of the simple shepherd. Sometimes, we forget who we are, and what nobility we are. We are princes and princesses, exiled from G-d’s cherished palace. Sometimes we forget to ask Him to bring us back to Him, to end the long exile; instead, we ask him for shepherds’ huts, silly things, short-sighted things. And maybe He’s waiting for us to open our hearts, open our mouths and ask Him, Father, bring us home! Bring us back! Maybe that’s all He’s waiting for, to bring us back to the palace, to bring us home…

———-
Picture from here

Similar Posts:

Parshat Vayera: The Inseparable Angels

Nathan Light — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 01:30:02 +0000

One of the episodes of this week’s parshah is the story of the three angels. In brief, God sent three angels to Abraham’s tent in the guise of men, where he invites them in to rest and eat, demonstrating his immense characteristic of hospitality. We may wonder: why did there have to be three angels?

Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaqi, 1040-1105, famed as the author of the first comprehensive commentary on the Torah) tells us that each angel had a mission of his own. One was there to bring news to Abraham and Sarah that they would have a son in a year’s time. One had the mission to destroy the city of Sedom, a place filled with sin and corruption that warranted destruction. And the last one was there to heal Abraham; it was not long after he underwent circumcision, so God sent an angel to ensure him a complete recovery. This very same angel was also appointed to save Lot, Abraham’s nephew, from the oncoming destruction of Sedom (he was living in Sedom). Rashi tells us that three angels were necessary because one angel can only take on one task. Therefore, three angels were needed to carry out the three mentioned “assignments”.

One question we may ask is why the “destroying” angel had to come to Abraham’s tent? If his mission was to destroy Sedom, why was it necessary for him to pass by and see Abraham on the way there? Two more questions we may ask relate to the statement of Rashi that “only one angel can carry out one task”. In the verses dealing with Sedom’s destruction, the Torah writes:

“The men (the angels) said to Lot ‘…for we are about to destroy this place…’ ” [Genesis: 19: 13]

Why is this verse in the plural? Were both angels going to destroy the city? But isn’t it impossible for two angels to carry out the same task!? Furthermore, in the verses describing how Lot is saved, the Torah says:

“…the men (the angels) grasped him (Lot) by his hand…and they took him out and left him outside the city” [Genesis: 19: 16]

Again the verse is in the plural! Shouldn’t only one angel have been responsible to take Lot out of the city!? Why were both angels involved in this mission if it can only belong to one of them!?

The answer to these questions, and to many more unlisted questions, is not so simple. According to Rabbi Uziel Mylevsky, when Rashi said that each angel has his own task, it really means that each angel encompasses one specific spiritual force. Therefore, each angel is limited to perform only the tasks that pertain to its designated spiritual force. The “destroying” angel represents the divine aspect of Gevurah (Hebrew for “strength”), which basically relates to justice. This angel was therefore in charge of administering justice to the people of Sedom, who were deserving of destruction. The “saving” angel represents Chesed (Hebrew for “kindness”), which, as its name connotes, relates to kindness. This angel was therefore in charge of demonstrating divine mercy and kindness towards Lot, by saving him from the destruction. This is why this very same angel was also sent earlier to heal Abraham, which is in parallel to its trait of kindness.

Our Rabbis have told us that upon creating of the world, God established these two traits (“Justice” and “Kindness”) in two separate stages. At first, God “planned” to have a world built on the foundations of justice alone. But it was not too long until He realized that the world could not possibly survive on justice by itself; unfortunately man does sin, but regardless of our faults and disappointments, we always deserves a second chance. Therefore God had to also incorporate the aspect of kindness into creation, allowing humanity to prevail even in the wake of sin. With God’s investment of kindness in the world, man now had the ability to repent and wash away all his wrongdoings. Of course, sooner or later man would be held accountable for his sins if he would refuse to repent, and the force of justice would mete out his proper judgement. Therefore, inherent in creation we see that the forces of justice and kindness are merged with one another. (*See 1^st footnote*)

If these two forces are so-to-speak inseparable, then the angels who represent these traits should be inseparable as well. Therefore, when the angel of justice was meting out punishment to the inhabitants of Sedom, the angel of kindness was alongside him. The idea being that even in God’s intense moments of strict justice and harshness, He still delivers punishment with an aspect of mercy. Furthermore, this is why the angel of justice was uncharacteristically found at Abraham’s tent, for he was “joined at the hip” with the angel of kindness. Likewise, when the angel of kindness was rescuing Lot, the angel of justice was at his side as well. This teaches us that even when God is pouring out his kindness upon others, He bestows it upon them with a limit. God performs kindnesses to others according to the level they deserve, relating to the aspect of justice.

This idea not only tells us of God’s “personality”, but because we are meant to emulate God’s ways, the idea is crucial when trying to understand how we must act as individuals as well. There will come a time in our lives when we may need to discipline our children, or reprimand somebody because of his/her wrongdoings. But we have to understand that the goal of this discipline is to allow them to realize their mistake and correct their ways, and if we don’t do it in a loving manner, we will eventually push them even further away (*See 2^nd footnote*). On the other side of the coin, there will be times when we will most definitely act kind towards another and perform acts of charity towards others. But we have to realize that even this has limits. If we were to give away all ofo ur wealth and time, there would be nothing left for us to enjoy! Furthermore, placing a limit on kindness is especially important when the act of kindness may lead the benefactor to sin.

May we merit the ability to blend the traits of justice and kindness in every endeavor of our lives.

Good Shabbos,

NZL

* Our Rabbis even point out that this idea is realized in the verses dealing with the world’s creation. At first, the Torah states “In the beginning of Elokim (God) creating the heavens and the earth…” [Genesis: 1: 1] God has many names in the Torah, and the name of Elokim specifically alludes to God’s trait of strict justice. This demonstrates how originally the world was meant to be created upon justice alone. But later on we find that the Torah says: “…on the day that Hashem Elokim (God) made earth and heaven…” [Genesis: 2: 4] Here we find that the name Elokim is joined up with the name Hashem, the name in which God demonstrates divine mercy and kindness. This shows how God decided to add in the aspect of kindness, alongside justice, in the world’s formation.

** The sages tell us that when we rebuke others “we must push them away with our left hand while, at the same time, pulling them towards us with our right hand”. We “push them away”, meaning we rebuke them, with our weaker (left) hand. At the same time, this has to be carried out with the goal of “pulling them towards us”, meaning bringing them closer to God, whom they sinned against. This is done with the stronger (right) hand. Therefore the “pulling” must always overpower the “pushing”.

Similar Posts:

A Year in Israel: It’s All About Perspective

Avital — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 01:44:14 +0000

Representatives from different midrashot (seminaries) are starting to come around to the various girls’ high schools in the area and tell us, the seniors, about the different institutions they represent, what each place has to offer. The choices are astounding: new midrashot seem to be springing up all the time, offering this special program or that special program. There is a program for everyone at every end of the religious spectrum, and the influx of all the information is really quite dizzying.

Interestingly enough, within the past two days, representatives from two very different midrashot said several similar things. When asked about their dress code, they both replied “Halachik.” Both brought up the movie Ushpizin, though for different reasons. But the similarity that struck me was the Dvar Torah they both used to introduce their programs.

The famous Akedat Yitzchak, the Binding of Isaac, appears in this week’s parasha, Vayera. How scary it must have been for Avraham! How terrible and heart wrenching. Avraham didn’t pretend that sacrificing his son for G-d was easy; he mourned, he journeyed to the site of the sacrifice quite stoically. He respected G-d’s word without suppressing his emotions.

The Akeda is the climactic, final of Avraham’s 10 tests. The first of them is G-d’s command for him to leave his home in Ur Kasdim and come “…to the land that I will show you.” G-d phrases both of these commandments with the words “Lech Licha,” go for yourself. This linguistic similarity begs us to ask, what did the two tests have in common?

Both tests weren’t just obstacle courses that Avraham had to complete under a short period of time. They attacked his emotion, stunned him, threw him into an unknown so great that it is unbelievable that he could have looked past that and seen straight into the essence of the matter, that it is, ultimately, G-d’s will.

As far off, lofty a thing as that sounds, the Rabbis both said, that is how we, at this point in our lives, can relate to Avraham on a personal level. Avraham was told to leave everything he knew: his homeland and area of familiarity, in one case, and in the other, his family and future, and follow G-d, clueless to what would come ahead. These journeys of uncertainty are what we are going through now. We’re being asked to choose, based on what we are told, not what we see (ein shmi’a kiyiri’ah, there is no better way to hear something than to see it), where we will spend our time, next year, in a foreign land, away from our homes. This idea troubled me extremely.

Is this what life has become to those around me? Have the communities in America become so self-contained, so comfortable, that Israel is the foreign land, and America the home base? I understand that America is our area of familiarity, but that Israel isn’t even the homeland? Just a foreign country that we spend time in because the Torah says so? Where did the spirit go? Why isn’t time in Israel presented as an Aliyah? Why is it no longer a precious opportunity, to be desired? Why isn’t this coming year looked upon as an exciting time in our lives? Why has the importance and love of Israel become tafel in our consciousness, and the slightly more peripheral aspect of the fear of change and transition become the ikar? Have we lost all perspective?

Similar Posts:

Parshat Lech Lecha: Knowing your Boundaries

Nathan Light — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:12:28 +0000

In this week’s parshah we are introduced to our forefather Abraham who, in essence, founded Judaism. The parshah opens up with God speaking to Abraham, telling him to leave his birthplace and travel to the land of Canaan (which is the land of Israel today). Along with his wife Sarah and his nephew Lot, Abraham travels to Canaan. Then, a famine breaks loose in the land and Abraham is forced to travel to Egypt to seek provisions. During his stay in Egypt, Abraham acquired more than enough to provide for himself and his family throughout the famine.

Coming out of Egypt, the Torah describes Abraham as “very laden with livestock, silver, and gold” (13: 2). The Torah also tells us that also Lot, Abraham’s nephew, “had flocks, cattle, and tents” (13: 5). At this point the Torah tells us that “the land could not support them dwelling together for their possessions were abundant” (13: 6). Therefore, Abraham and Lot had to go their separate ways and live in different regions of the land.

After they departed from one another, the Torah tells us:

“Hashem (God) said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, ‘Raise now your eyes…for all the land that you see, to you will I give it and to your descendants forever” [Genesis: 13: 14 – 15]

Why did the Torah have to stress that God spoke to Abraham “after Lot had parted from him”? Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaqi, 1040-1105, famed as the author of the first comprehensive commentary on the Torah) tells us the following: “All the while that the wicked one was with him, the speech (of God) was separated from him…”

Evidently, according to Rashi’s words, Lot was considered a wicked individual and whenever he was around, God could not speak to Abraham. However, if we were to look closer into the opening verses of this week’s parshah, we may say that this is not so! Going back to the beginning of this week’s parshah, the Torah writes:

“Abram took his wife Sarai and Lot, his brother’s son…and they left to go to the land of Canaan, and they came to the land of Canaan…Hashem (God) appeared to Abram and said ‘To your offspring I will give this land’… ” [Genesis: 12: 5 – 7]

How can this be!? The verses clearly indicates that Abram brought Lot along with him, yet it also says that God “appeared to Abram and said…”! Didn’t Rashi just tell us that as long as Lot was around, Hashem couldn’t speak to Abraham!? How do we reconcile Rashi’s words?

There may be numerous ways to answer this question. But in order to reach one possible solution, let us look at Rashi’s words once more: “All the while that the wicked one was with him, the speech (of God) was separated from him…” Rashi never says “ All the while that Lot was with him…” he says “All the while that the wicked one was with him…” So we must say that it wasn’t Lot that kept God away, it was wickedness that kept God away. Therefore, when God “appeared to Abram and said…” at the start of the parshah, we must say that Lot was not yet wicked at this point! Because Lot had not yet transformed into a wicked person, it was fitting for Hashem’s voice to descend there. But now we may ask: What happened? What brought about this transformation in Lot’s character from one moment to the next? What was it that caused Lot to become wicked?

Recalling our brief summary at the beginning of the essay, the event that occurred between verses (12: 5 –7) and (13: 14 –15) was the descent into Egypt. Egypt, as we learn later on in the Torah, was the most corrupt country in the world at that time. It was a country entirely devoted to mundane pleasures, lewdness, and cruel behavior. Being exposed to such an evil environment can undoubtedly have a terrible effect on a person’s soul and can have the power to draw him into the depths of sin and the pursuit of vanity. This is what happened to Lot. It was after leaving Egypt that Lot was now an entirely different person and was termed “wicked”. (*See 1^st footnote*)

Abraham, who had refined himself to an extremely lofty spiritual state, possessed the power to withstand the dangerous temptations and influences of the Egyptian culture. However, Lot was not on such a level. Therefore he fell into the trap that is Egypt and became so wicked to the point that God was not able to speak to Abraham until he was no longer around. (*See 2^nd footnote*)

This unfortunate collapse of Lot is there to teach us all a valuable lesson. We can not lie to ourselves! Of course, we must aspire to become righteous individuals and follow God’s ways. And yes, we must look to the righteous individuals of our generations and of past generations, and make an effort to act as they acted. But when it comes to being exposed to tempting and sinful situations, we must run away! At these moments we cannot compare ourselves to the righteous and pious individuals, who were able to come out unscathed from the enticement of the evil inclination. We must know our boundaries!

Good Shabbos,

NZL

*Upon leaving Egypt, the verse says: “So Abram went up from Egypt, he with his wife and all that was his – and Lot with him – to the south” [Genesis: 13: 1Our sages tell us that “went up” here alludes to a spiritual elevation. By not juxtaposing Lot with the “went up”, it highlights that Lot did not elevate himself, but rather descended in spirituality, upon leaving Egypt.

**Lot should have never gone with Abraham in the first place on the trip to Canaan. In Rashi’s words that we quoted, the second half of his statement explains that God only told Abraham to “go, for yourself… to the land that I will show you”. “For yourself” and not “for Lot”. After God finshes speaking to Abraham the verses indeed say: “So Abram went as Hahsem had spoken to him, and Lot went with him…” This implies that “Lot went with him” despite the fact that he was told not to do so.

Similar Posts:

My Political Approach

Dan Illouz — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:34:11 +0000

The current election in the United States of America, coupled by so many discussion I’ve had with friends where, after scratching the surface of my political opinions, expressed amazement at how much they agreed with parts of my outlook when they first thought I was on the polar opposite of their position, encouraged me to write a piece in which I want to express and detail my approach to most political questions.

I’m warning you, in the current political climate, there is a good chance you will hate this piece. The reason is simple: my approach does not fit in any box. As such, liberals will call me a fascist while conservatives will call me a socialist liberal. I do believe, however, that the great majority of people in the world will relate to my approach and see it as a breath of fresh air, EVEN those who disagree with most/all my conclusions. Feel free to disagree with me! This is only food for thought. As always, your comments would be appreciated.

Let me start with this past American presidential campaign to set the stage to our discussion:

I disagreed with Barack Obama on most of his policies. I think it is dangerous to speak with Ahmadinejad or other leaders who hold an ideology which is blindly hateful and with which dialogue is not possible and speaking to only represents legitimization. I believe in a free market much more along the lines of the Republican party than along the lines of the one Barack Obama wants to design. Actually, the only issue I actually agree with Barack Obama on seems to be on Education, in which I am hopeful his proposals will re-energize the educational system of America.

And yet…. every time I hear Barack Obama speak, I am inspired.

No, I am not talking about his ability to speak masterfully: he is probably the best speaker I have ever heard speaking live, the second best overall only second to Martin Luther King Jr. But that is not the source of my inspiration. I am inspired by his approach to those issues.

I am inspired when Barack Obama speaks about listening to people he disagrees with, Republicans, and hear their criticism. And while he stresses he will not adopt their positions, he understand the value of listening to the other and considering his position.

I am inspired by his rhetoric which encourages the population to take control of its destiny, which encourages the population to be represented in the White House and not just the president living in the White House.

I am inspired by the fact that he continuously repeats that he will be the president of all of his nation, the American nation, and not just those who voted for him. As such, he will make sure to apply his policies in a conciliatory way and not an adversarial way.

I am inspired by the fact that he focuses on things which unite his nation and not things which divide them – he speaks of bringing the number of abortions down instead of focusing on his pro-choice agenda which makes the right unhappy etc…

I am inspired by his looking forward with hope rather than backwards with criticism. While he had his share of negative attacks which I was disappointed in, the overall tone of his campaign was positive. It was about hope in a better future, about being optimistic, having faith.

I am inspired by the fact that Obama realizes that a president who inspires the population is much more likely to be a successful president.

As you can see, none of these things really reflect the actual policy I would have applied if I was president. However, it does reflect an approach to politics which I think is the right approach.

If we widen the discussion a little bit and look at Israeli politics, many people will call me a “right wing nutcase”. I mean, I completely opposed the disengagement. I would love to, one day, have the privilege to live in one of the amazing communities in Judea and Samaria.

These positions shock most liberals who bring up values and principles which they think my position go against: freedom, the collective rights of a nation, human rights, justice, empathy, social justice etc… On my economical perspective, they cite social justice, caring about the middle class and the poor, etc…

However, let me make something very clear:

The reason I support the settlement enterprise in Judea and Samaria, and the sovereignty of the Jewish Nation on all of the land of Israel, is not out of hate for Palestinians. It is because I believe in the collective right of the Jewish People to settle its ancestral homeland, and I believe this right is more true, and not less true, in the historical cities which are found in Judea and Samaria which are the main Jewish historical cities. I believe in the right of the Jewish People to live in Jerusalem, Hevron, Schem, etc…

The reason why I opposed the disengagement was not because I want to continue the suffering of the Palestinians. It is rather because I believe in human rights for all, including Jews, and therefore I don’t believe any place on earth should be made Judenrein (free of Jews), as the Palestinians want their state to be.

The reason I am a Zionist is not ONLY because of nationalist reasons, although those reasons are definitely a part of it. It is rather because I believe Zionism has made right the greatest injustice of the history of humanity by giving back a homeland to the oldest refugees of this world – the “wandering Jews”. Zionism, to me, is not only a hope for the Jewish Nation, but it is the greatest message of hope for all those fighting for justice in this world. It is a clear message that even if it takes time, justice will eventually prevail.

The reason why I would love to live in a settlement is not out of hate for the Palestinians. Not at all. I really think Palestinian people are victims. This is not just some effective rhetoric, I really believe it. I feel they are the victims of their own leadership, the victims of the Arab world, and yes, sometimes (even though not nearly as often as we are accused), the victims of the Israeli government actions.
Unfortunately, by framing the current problem as an Israeli-Arab, or Israeli-Palestinian problem, I believe we have done a great disservice to the Palestinians. Instead, if we would have recognized Jewish Sovereignty on Judea and Samaria for the moral and ideological reasons I mentioned already, and some legal ones which I will not mention here, then, we could have dealt with those who attack us as criminals. We would have dealt with them with strength and cause very clear deterrence. But at the same time, we would have been able to help those Palestinians who do not oppose us live a good life, probably a better life they would ever get in a Palestinian State. You see, I don’t believe the Palestinians have a collective right to a state (and I won’t get into why right over here), but I do believe in their human rights.

The reason I believe in a free market economy is not in order to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. It is rather because I honestly believe that the free market economy, while not perfect and while it needs minor regulations, is the best tool to make the poor richer and the middle class more successful. I think it is the best tool to provide real social justice and opportunity to all.

The reason why I oppose Obama’s idea of speaking to Ahmadinejad is not on tactical grounds, although I do think that giving him the legitimacy of a head to head meeting with the President of the US is a tactical error. My main reason is because I believe it would be immoral to give a platform to someone who is being accused by respected human rights activists such as Irwin Cotler of incitement to genocide.

You see, the right nowadays, unfortunately, makes it seem as if their positions are taken without a lot of thought on the subjects of human rights, justice, equality, etc… I believe my positions, while mostly on the right, are specifically based on my view of human rights, justice and equality.

And, of course, as a religious Jew, I find the source of my interpretation of human rights, justice and equality is in the Torah. When I say the Torah wants us in Gush Katif, I don’t only mean it on a strict legal sense but also, that the principles of freedom and national rights outlined in the Torah are the source of our right to this land.

I often find myself preferring to discuss things with some of my liberal friends rather than my conservative friends. When I discuss things with my liberal friends, while we disagree on conclusions, we are able to discuss things openly, give space to each other’s vision without feeling pressured to adopt the other person’s position. When I discuss things with close-minded people everywhere on the political spectrum – every small disagreement I have with them becomes a big issue which they feel they need to convince me on, and I am entered into an adversarial mode with them.

Often, I realize that when it comes to the principles which make up my policy, I have much more in common with some of my liberal friends than some of my conservative friends, even if I disagree with most of their actual policies, and while I agree with most conclusions my conservative friends come up with, I often see myself cringe at the logic which justifies their policy positions or at the approach they use to promote those positions.

Where does that put me? Somewhere in the middle? Not really. I doubt anyone who considers my positions would call me a centrist.

I, however, think that this is what people mean when they say they want a new type of politics, because I think most people agree with the principles which make up the basis for my politics, many, if not most, which are similar to Obama’s even if we disagree on policy. I think people of all sides are sick of the campaigns which were lead, by both sides (yes, while republicans are always attacked for this, Democrats also need to take a good look in the mirror), and want politics which are more principled and not just focused on policy, because they have the potential of being more unifying.

My only hope is that the Republican Party learns from this and, without changing its policies, reformulates is message to be more inspiring, principled and attractive. I also hope all sides of the Israeli political spectrum learn from this, because they definitely need a good lesson on this, and Israeli definitely needs a leader which could inspire them.

Similar Posts: