Parshat Vayeshev
by Rabbi Avi Billet
When we look at the “Yehuda and Tamar” story (Chapter 38), there are many questions.
Timeline questions: Did Yehuda marry before or after the sale of Yosef? How old was Tamar? How old were Yehuda’s sons at their respective marriages and deaths? How much younger than Er and Onan was Shelah, the surviving son who was not given Tamar as his bride? Considering that Peretz’s sons (Perets is the older son of Tanar!) are included in those who descend to Egypt (at a time when Yehuda is no more than 44), everyone in the story is really young!
“What really happened” questions: Why did Er die? Why did Onan die? Why was Shelah not given Tamar? Considering their ages, were the people in question ever really married? Did Yehuda “really” know it was Tamar when he met her on the crossroad? Did Yehuda really call for her to be burned at the stake as a consequence for her pregnancy?
Sin questions: What made Er sinful? What made Onan sinful? Did Yehuda sin in approaching the disguised Tamar? Was Tamar the sinful one? Both Yehuda and Tamar may seem vindicated in the end – so what? That doesn’t mean bad behavior never took place!
Motivation questions: Why did Yehuda not allow Shelah to marry Tamar? What motivated Tamar to disguise herself and stand at a crossroad when Yehuda was coming? Considering that she does not approach him, but he approaches her, what was her plan had he not been entranced by her?
P Perhaps if we can understand Tamar’s motivation in the tale, we’ll be better equipped to answer most of these questions.
Rashi notes she wanted to be part of Yehuda's line. Echoing that sentiments, Netziv says Tamar wanted to be part of this family because she saw something in Yehuda. She did not realize at first that Er and Onan (and perhaps also Shelah), being sons of a Canaanite woman, could not be the continuation of the Israelite line. Haktav V’hakabbalah and others note that Er and Onan never consummated a marriage with her (whatever they did was a capital offense in God’s eyes – see Sanhedrin 57), which means she wasn’t really Yehuda’s daughter-in-law, and was fully available to him.
Having been married to Er and then Onan, watching them both die, one wonders why Tamar would want to remain part of this family. Does she feel she owes it to them? Yehuda is surely the instigation behind any concept of her remaining in the family, first through insisting Onan marry his dead brother’s wife, then in telling her to wait as a widow until Shelah is old enough to marry her.
How long does Shelah need to wait? The Talmud in Sotah notes the problem in the passage of time. If Yehuda’s marriage takes place after the sale of Yosef, only 22 years pass from his nuptials, through his sons growing to be marriage-age, their dying, and his having new twin sons (born after their death), one of whom grows up to be a father before the family descends to Egypt. Because of this seeming impossibility, the Talmud’s conclusion is that all of them (except Yehuda) were married when they were under ten years old (Yehuda was around 21 at the time of the sale of Yosef – though he certainly could have been a father by that time).
Riv’a asks how Er and Onan could be punished with death at that age, and he concludes that “God sees the heart.” While it is true that a person is not punished for deeds under the age of 20, it is also true that some can be looked at“al shem sofam” – based on how they will turn out. This may be why Yehuda was pushing off Shelah’s marriage – he needed to reach an older age – not the same age that Er and Onan had been (under ten) in order to be mature enough to wed her properly and survive.
Rabbi Chaim Paltiel agrees that Er and Onan a. never consummated their respective marriages, and b. each “marriage” was a sham anyway because they were so young. He also notes the change in language – when Yehuda meets her at the crossroads he thinks she is a “Zonah.” When he sends his friend with a sheep, to give her in exchange for the items he left with her, she is called a “Kedesha.” Rabbi Paltiel notes that the word “Zonah” means “one who pursues” – which can be translated differently depending on context and about whom we are speaking. One type of Zonah is a woman who pursues married men (a prostitute), another Zonah in one who pursues idolatry (as in the quote from the Shema – “asher atem zonim”), another Zonah is a woman who is an innkeeper (such as Rachav in Yehoshua 2) who looks after her houseguests, while still another Zonah is a woman who pursues a man for marriage – as was the woman with the covered face in this story. When she is called a “Kedesha,” that is from the language of “Kedushin” (betrothal) because their encounter made for a betrothal in the mores of that time period. (Rabbi Paltiel suggests Yehuda found her to be a virgin!)
The verse tells us that after Yehuda married “bat Shua” and had three children “Yehuda took a woman for Er, his first born, and her name was Tamar.”
A woman? Was Tamar considerably older than Er, Onan, and Shelah? If it’s true that Er and Onan were considerably younger, what was Yehuda thinking? Could it be that he wanted her near him? Could it be he saw her as unavailable because he was married, and he thought – let her be a part of my family through my son?
Perhaps Tamar had similar hopes, which is why she agreed, neither of them knowing how things would remarkably turn out for them in the end. [There is a debate in the Talmud and among many commentators as to whether the words “v’lo yasaf od l’da’atah” (38:26) from after her "punishment" was revoked means he was never intimate with her again or he remained her ‘husband’ forever.]
After Yehuda became widowed, however, she took matters into her own hands. Though she certainly found a willing participant in Yehuda.
Rabbi Paltiel suggests that the 3 things Yehuda gave her, his signet ring, his staff, and his cloak served, respectively, as a wedding band, and the pole and tallis for their chuppah. (He notes that others view the three items as representative of the three obligations a husband has to provide for his wife – food (the phrase “mateh lechem”), clothing, and marital relations (“the seal of circumcision”)).
When Yehuda declared she should be taken out and burned, commentaries debate what this means. Some say burned at the stake – suggesting that was the law of the land. Others suggest she should have a mark branded to her, much like Hawthorne’s Hester Prynne. Rabbi Paltiel suggests that “Tisaref” was a code word for a kind of non-capital penalty (a “k’nas”), perhaps a whipping or flogging (not nice, agreed, but certainly more palatable than death by fire). Of course, this punishment was not carried out when the truth was revealed. Chizkuni notes that the reason for possibly punishing her was because it was assumed she had become pregnant from a Canaanite, which was unbecoming of a woman who had cast her lot with the Israelites.
Haktav V’hakabbalah further notes that when Yehuda says “Tzadkah” – she is righteous, he was noting her intent was “for the sake of heaven” for seeking him out specifically rather than any other younger man. This does not account for what Tamar would have done had Yehuda not approached her, but perhaps, knowing of his widowhood and loneliness, she felt she had a sure thing coming.
It is clear that the Davidic line comes from a significant number of eyebrow-raising male/female relationships which include: Lot and his daughters, Yehuda and Tamar, Ruth and Boaz, David and Batsheva. Ramban notes that this was by design of the Almighty that the Davidic line of kings should never get too haughty and think of themselves as better than the people they serve as kings, considering their background.
That is probably the most important message of all. Even great kings have skeletons in the closet and pedigree that ought to remind them to be humble and not to think of themselves as better than anyone.
At the same time, Tamar’s story is an incredible nod to the power of truth, dedication, and a certain pursuit of justice. If, for example, Tamar was meant to be redeemed through the equivalent of a levirate marriage in Yehuda’s family, her effort came to fruitful conclusions when she took matters into her own hands.
Not everyone is blessed to have such insight. And certainly the behavior in this tale leaves much to be desired. But history and legend have the benefit of hindsight, and we know where this story stands in the scheme of the history of the Jewish people.
Friday, November 30, 2018
Monday, November 19, 2018
Death Of Rachel - Tragedy Beyond Words
Parshat Vayishlach
by Rabbi Avi Billet
While opinions abound as to how old Rachel was at her death, one thing is pretty clear – from the time Yaakov meets her at the well until she dies is a period of no more than 22 years.
This means that her children, Yosef and Binyamin, were respectively 8 and a newborn at her passing.
Knowing what I know now, it boggles my mind that Yosef’s brothers treated him the way they did into the teenage years, seemingly not having a sensitivity that their younger brother, bereft of his mother, might need a different kind of treatment, be given a pass more often, due to his tragic reality.
A confession: When I was a novice teacher in high school, I was asked to give a dvar torah at a school shabbaton, and somehow I mentioned in a terrible moment of naïvete (I don’t remember the parsha – but it was pretty early in the school year) that “thank God it doesn’t happen today, but the Torah is teaching us how to treat those who are orphaned at a young age.”
One of the administrators called me over afterwards and told me that one of my students had lost her mother a few years prior. It was an eye-opening moment. I later apologized to the student for my insensitivity, and have since tried to be a lot more careful – knowing that the facts of life are simply facts, and that opining about them is where we get into trouble.
Of course since then, I’ve seen too many people pass away far too early. In the last 6 months, I’ve seen peers of mine, all in their 30s, burying spouses. And I’ve heard of other similar stories. In the count of the recent families I know (sadly there are more) – 15 children are now without one parent. The ones I mention died of natural causes. What of those who are killed in terrorist attacks? Battles? Or (not to equate, though the tragic results are the same) car accidents?
In the context of talking about “Daas Torah” and what it means for rabbis heavily embedded in Torah study to have a keener sense and understanding of the world, Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein shared an incredible anecdote, which has troubled me since the first time I read it.
Rabbi Lichtenstein shared the rest of Rav Hutner’s comments (you can find it here, http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/daatTorahLichtenstein.pdf on pages 8-9) to support his point in the article. But the story is what resonated most with me.
Are there people who are so unaware, that they could say the most ridiculous things, just to fill the awkwardness of silence in a house of mourning?
Rachel’s death was a travesty. It destroyed Yaakov. He was never the same again. He didn’t deal with the brothers properly, even as he spoiled Yosef. He was ridiculously overprotective of Binyamin, who will still be identified as a “naar” when he is an adult of 30, the father of ten children, unable to leave his father’s side, because his leaving may cause Yaakov to die.
But there is one thing we can take from Rachel’s death, because just before she died she gave birth to a child. The same verse that she says she named him “Ben Oni” says that his father called him “Binyamin.”
Some commentaries say Ben Oni means “the son of my suffering.” Others, such as the Malbim and Ramban, suggest that Oni means “strength.” Ramban essentially says that Yaakov took from pain and turned it into strength, while Malbim says the “change” reframes the name and makes it more clear. Calling him Binyamin (“son of right hand”) means the same thing. “Son of strength.”
Rabbenu Bachaye also says “Son of Strength” (30:23) as he notes that Rachel’s name for her son, Ben Oni, came from a perspective which denotes God’s name of judgment, while “Binyamin” invokes God’s name of mercy.
And this, I think, leads us to what is the most equitable response. The death of a loved one, at any age, combines God’s attributes of Judgment and Mercy. We understand neither, so for us there is only sadness.
However, there is hope – we give a blessing to people when we visit them that God should be the ultimate comforter. We bless a surviving spouse to eventually find strength amidst the pain. We commit as a community to be as helpful and supportive as we can. And we also must take extra care and be as sensitive as possible to the reality that while everyone is sad when losing a parent (at any age), children who lose a parent while they still live at home are the “Y’tomim” of which the Torah speaks – the ones who must be protected, cared for, watched over, and supported in any way possible. Because they are God’s children, and He expects us to fill the void.
Reality is sometimes troubling, difficult, exceedingly challenging. But like our ancestor Yaakov, who was renamed ישראל (Yisrael - Israel) twice in our parsha, we should be blessed to live up to our namesake as we too “struggle with God” and the challenges He sends us “yet we overcome.”
by Rabbi Avi Billet
While opinions abound as to how old Rachel was at her death, one thing is pretty clear – from the time Yaakov meets her at the well until she dies is a period of no more than 22 years.
This means that her children, Yosef and Binyamin, were respectively 8 and a newborn at her passing.
Knowing what I know now, it boggles my mind that Yosef’s brothers treated him the way they did into the teenage years, seemingly not having a sensitivity that their younger brother, bereft of his mother, might need a different kind of treatment, be given a pass more often, due to his tragic reality.
A confession: When I was a novice teacher in high school, I was asked to give a dvar torah at a school shabbaton, and somehow I mentioned in a terrible moment of naïvete (I don’t remember the parsha – but it was pretty early in the school year) that “thank God it doesn’t happen today, but the Torah is teaching us how to treat those who are orphaned at a young age.”
One of the administrators called me over afterwards and told me that one of my students had lost her mother a few years prior. It was an eye-opening moment. I later apologized to the student for my insensitivity, and have since tried to be a lot more careful – knowing that the facts of life are simply facts, and that opining about them is where we get into trouble.
Of course since then, I’ve seen too many people pass away far too early. In the last 6 months, I’ve seen peers of mine, all in their 30s, burying spouses. And I’ve heard of other similar stories. In the count of the recent families I know (sadly there are more) – 15 children are now without one parent. The ones I mention died of natural causes. What of those who are killed in terrorist attacks? Battles? Or (not to equate, though the tragic results are the same) car accidents?
In the context of talking about “Daas Torah” and what it means for rabbis heavily embedded in Torah study to have a keener sense and understanding of the world, Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein shared an incredible anecdote, which has troubled me since the first time I read it.
“Many years ago, I travelled to Bnei Brak to console my rabbi and teacher, Rav Yitzchak Hutner zt'l, in his mourning, when his wife had passed away.
“When I went to see him, I found him sitting alone. We had a private conversation, and this was conducted in a very open and honest fashion, from one heart to another. Rav Hutner told me that one of the talmidei chachamim who came to console him, tried to convince him and to 'explain' to him how his wife's passing was 'positive', inasmuch as she was now in the world of truth, a world which is entirely positive and other such nonsense.
“And indeed, it is not uncommon to hear such things when one goes to console a mourner, especially when the deceased passed away while being involved in a mitzva or has fallen in battle, in sanctification of Hashem's name.
“It is superfluous to state that saying such things is totally unsuitable. I remember that when Rav Hutner told me this, he raised his voice and he applied the following severe words of the Midrash to that talmid chacham (Vayikra Rabba 1): "Any talmid chacham who lacks 'da’at' is worse than a putrid animal carcass!"
Rabbi Lichtenstein shared the rest of Rav Hutner’s comments (you can find it here, http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/daatTorahLichtenstein.pdf on pages 8-9) to support his point in the article. But the story is what resonated most with me.
Are there people who are so unaware, that they could say the most ridiculous things, just to fill the awkwardness of silence in a house of mourning?
Rachel’s death was a travesty. It destroyed Yaakov. He was never the same again. He didn’t deal with the brothers properly, even as he spoiled Yosef. He was ridiculously overprotective of Binyamin, who will still be identified as a “naar” when he is an adult of 30, the father of ten children, unable to leave his father’s side, because his leaving may cause Yaakov to die.
But there is one thing we can take from Rachel’s death, because just before she died she gave birth to a child. The same verse that she says she named him “Ben Oni” says that his father called him “Binyamin.”
Some commentaries say Ben Oni means “the son of my suffering.” Others, such as the Malbim and Ramban, suggest that Oni means “strength.” Ramban essentially says that Yaakov took from pain and turned it into strength, while Malbim says the “change” reframes the name and makes it more clear. Calling him Binyamin (“son of right hand”) means the same thing. “Son of strength.”
Rabbenu Bachaye also says “Son of Strength” (30:23) as he notes that Rachel’s name for her son, Ben Oni, came from a perspective which denotes God’s name of judgment, while “Binyamin” invokes God’s name of mercy.
And this, I think, leads us to what is the most equitable response. The death of a loved one, at any age, combines God’s attributes of Judgment and Mercy. We understand neither, so for us there is only sadness.
However, there is hope – we give a blessing to people when we visit them that God should be the ultimate comforter. We bless a surviving spouse to eventually find strength amidst the pain. We commit as a community to be as helpful and supportive as we can. And we also must take extra care and be as sensitive as possible to the reality that while everyone is sad when losing a parent (at any age), children who lose a parent while they still live at home are the “Y’tomim” of which the Torah speaks – the ones who must be protected, cared for, watched over, and supported in any way possible. Because they are God’s children, and He expects us to fill the void.
Reality is sometimes troubling, difficult, exceedingly challenging. But like our ancestor Yaakov, who was renamed ישראל (Yisrael - Israel) twice in our parsha, we should be blessed to live up to our namesake as we too “struggle with God” and the challenges He sends us “yet we overcome.”
Tuesday, November 13, 2018
"Does He Have Peace?" "Peace..."
I feel like I'm in a time warp. I wrote the exact same message 6 years ago, but from a completely different angle. Why does Hamas like to attack Israel in the week of Parshat Vayetze? #SMH
Parshat Vayetze
by Rabbi Avi Billet
When Yaakov first arrived in Haran, he encountered shepherds waiting at a well. There is certainly a chance that this is the same well where his mother was discovered 97 years earlier. And if it is, certainly things have changed. Whereas once upon a time the girls of the town might come on their own to draw water, now some kind of pact has led to a large stone being placed atop the well, so all the shepherds can draw water and can keep each other honest.
Wanting to know a little bit about his uncle, Yaakov asked the shepherd a few questions, to which they provided very terse answers.
“Where are you from?” “From Haran.”
“Do you fellows know Lavan?” “We know.”
“Does he have Shalom?” “Shalom.”
It seems that they follow this response with a notice “And his daughter Rachel is coming with the sheep,” though it can also be read that the narrative is informing us that Rachel is on her way (compare it to 24:15 when Rivkah emerges), not the shepherds giving Yaakov new information.
Only when Yaakov asks them about why they’re hanging around the well, do they open up and answer in a complete sentence, “We can’t [water the animals] until all the flocks gather, and we all roll the stone off the top of the well, then we water the sheep.”
That they are more talkative when Yaakov asks them about themselves than about Lavan could just speak to their personalities. But why do they not even answer the question about the “Shalom” in Lavan’s home with a complete answer? (As in "He has Shalom in his home")
And if the introduction to Rachel was something they said, why did they offer that information when they weren’t even asked?
Let’s look at the second question first. A number of Midrashim and many commentaries suggest that these guys were not so talkative and weren’t particularly interested in talking to this stranger who was trying to play Haran-Geography. When they saw Rachel coming they saw an opportunity to get this nudnik off their case – she could tell him all about Lavan! Of course, as Yaakov was an experienced shepherd (his being described as a Yoshev Ohalim in 25:27 is reminiscent of Yaval, the Yoshev Ohel U’mikneh (shepherd) from Bereshit 4:20), talking shop with them opened them up to a conversation. By the time Rachel arrived at the well they were still chatting (29:9).
Some suggest their telling him Rachel was shepherding alone indicated that things were good for Lavan, because he (her father) didn’t have to worry about her, and she didn’t have to worry about herself being attacked or assaulted. (R Chaim Paltiel)
The Baal HaTurim notes that they did not respond to his last question about Shalom with a full response as there is a principle "There is no peace," says my God, "for the wicked." (Yeshayahu 57:21 – from the haftarah of Yom Kippur).
Or HaChaim argues that their incomplete answer to his question stemmed from the conception they had that Yaakov was asking two things: 1. Is Lavan “Shalem” (whole) in body and financially?, 2. Are they (the shepherds) at peace with Lavan? Their simple response, “Shalom” was vague enough that we’re not in a fight with him, and that he’s doing OK. In fact, his daughter is coming – she’s safe. We have no intentions of harming her.
On the other hand, Or HaChaim continues, the Shalom becomes increasingly vague when we realize that it doesn’t inform whether Lavan is doing well financially. It doesn’t say “Everything is great.” But if it leads into information that Rachel is coming, alone, with all her father’s sheep, that shows Lavan’s assets are nothing to write home about. Or that he is very cheap, and doesn’t care about his younger daughter, who has been raised to be the shepherd.
Alternatively, as the Torat Moshe puts it, there is peace with him because no one wants to associate with him. Since no one wants have anything to do with him, he can’t hire a shepherd other than his daughter. He does his own thing! He doesn’t bother anyone and no one bothers with him.
It’s the simplest ingredient for peace. Leave each other alone. Even if it is a cold peace because we have nothing to do with each other, at least we’re not fighting. And if every now and then we need to cross a border to go into town or to take care of our sheep, we can send an emissary who is not scary, dangerous, etc, who has no appeal to anyone else to bother with for any particular reason.
When fighting and rockets come flaring out of Gaza (as seems to happen on a mass scale every couple of years) this is all I can think of. Except for knowing that some elements of Hamas society and culture will never rest until all the Jews are dead and gone, I can not understand the mentality that refuses to say, “Why can’t we just make the best of our situation here and create a Singapore like nation? We don’t need military! We need creativity! To create, to export, to make jobs, to bring out the best of our people! We need education for our children, hope for our people – that we have the power to create!”
I thought a 100-years war was a thing of the past. And while I don’t want to be pessimistic, when I am blessed with grandchildren one day, they too will watch with sadness as the war continues.
The prophet Yeshayahu says in the two verses prior to the one quoted by the Baal Haturim: “‘[I] create the speech of the lips; peace, peace to the far and to the near,’ says the Lord, ‘and I will heal him.’ But the wicked are like the turbulent sea, for it cannot rest, and its waters cast up mud and dirt.”
Sad and true. And as we learn about Lavan through the parsha, we see why he had no friends. Same reason.
Parshat Vayetze
by Rabbi Avi Billet
When Yaakov first arrived in Haran, he encountered shepherds waiting at a well. There is certainly a chance that this is the same well where his mother was discovered 97 years earlier. And if it is, certainly things have changed. Whereas once upon a time the girls of the town might come on their own to draw water, now some kind of pact has led to a large stone being placed atop the well, so all the shepherds can draw water and can keep each other honest.
Wanting to know a little bit about his uncle, Yaakov asked the shepherd a few questions, to which they provided very terse answers.
“Where are you from?” “From Haran.”
“Do you fellows know Lavan?” “We know.”
“Does he have Shalom?” “Shalom.”
It seems that they follow this response with a notice “And his daughter Rachel is coming with the sheep,” though it can also be read that the narrative is informing us that Rachel is on her way (compare it to 24:15 when Rivkah emerges), not the shepherds giving Yaakov new information.
Only when Yaakov asks them about why they’re hanging around the well, do they open up and answer in a complete sentence, “We can’t [water the animals] until all the flocks gather, and we all roll the stone off the top of the well, then we water the sheep.”
That they are more talkative when Yaakov asks them about themselves than about Lavan could just speak to their personalities. But why do they not even answer the question about the “Shalom” in Lavan’s home with a complete answer? (As in "He has Shalom in his home")
And if the introduction to Rachel was something they said, why did they offer that information when they weren’t even asked?
Let’s look at the second question first. A number of Midrashim and many commentaries suggest that these guys were not so talkative and weren’t particularly interested in talking to this stranger who was trying to play Haran-Geography. When they saw Rachel coming they saw an opportunity to get this nudnik off their case – she could tell him all about Lavan! Of course, as Yaakov was an experienced shepherd (his being described as a Yoshev Ohalim in 25:27 is reminiscent of Yaval, the Yoshev Ohel U’mikneh (shepherd) from Bereshit 4:20), talking shop with them opened them up to a conversation. By the time Rachel arrived at the well they were still chatting (29:9).
Some suggest their telling him Rachel was shepherding alone indicated that things were good for Lavan, because he (her father) didn’t have to worry about her, and she didn’t have to worry about herself being attacked or assaulted. (R Chaim Paltiel)
The Baal HaTurim notes that they did not respond to his last question about Shalom with a full response as there is a principle "There is no peace," says my God, "for the wicked." (Yeshayahu 57:21 – from the haftarah of Yom Kippur).
Or HaChaim argues that their incomplete answer to his question stemmed from the conception they had that Yaakov was asking two things: 1. Is Lavan “Shalem” (whole) in body and financially?, 2. Are they (the shepherds) at peace with Lavan? Their simple response, “Shalom” was vague enough that we’re not in a fight with him, and that he’s doing OK. In fact, his daughter is coming – she’s safe. We have no intentions of harming her.
On the other hand, Or HaChaim continues, the Shalom becomes increasingly vague when we realize that it doesn’t inform whether Lavan is doing well financially. It doesn’t say “Everything is great.” But if it leads into information that Rachel is coming, alone, with all her father’s sheep, that shows Lavan’s assets are nothing to write home about. Or that he is very cheap, and doesn’t care about his younger daughter, who has been raised to be the shepherd.
Alternatively, as the Torat Moshe puts it, there is peace with him because no one wants to associate with him. Since no one wants have anything to do with him, he can’t hire a shepherd other than his daughter. He does his own thing! He doesn’t bother anyone and no one bothers with him.
It’s the simplest ingredient for peace. Leave each other alone. Even if it is a cold peace because we have nothing to do with each other, at least we’re not fighting. And if every now and then we need to cross a border to go into town or to take care of our sheep, we can send an emissary who is not scary, dangerous, etc, who has no appeal to anyone else to bother with for any particular reason.
When fighting and rockets come flaring out of Gaza (as seems to happen on a mass scale every couple of years) this is all I can think of. Except for knowing that some elements of Hamas society and culture will never rest until all the Jews are dead and gone, I can not understand the mentality that refuses to say, “Why can’t we just make the best of our situation here and create a Singapore like nation? We don’t need military! We need creativity! To create, to export, to make jobs, to bring out the best of our people! We need education for our children, hope for our people – that we have the power to create!”
I thought a 100-years war was a thing of the past. And while I don’t want to be pessimistic, when I am blessed with grandchildren one day, they too will watch with sadness as the war continues.
The prophet Yeshayahu says in the two verses prior to the one quoted by the Baal Haturim: “‘[I] create the speech of the lips; peace, peace to the far and to the near,’ says the Lord, ‘and I will heal him.’ But the wicked are like the turbulent sea, for it cannot rest, and its waters cast up mud and dirt.”
Sad and true. And as we learn about Lavan through the parsha, we see why he had no friends. Same reason.
Saturday, November 10, 2018
Veterans Day Sermon 2018
"Thank You For Your Service"
Kristallnacht, Veterans Day, Parshat Toldot
NAZIS SMASH, LOOT and BURN JEWISH SHOPS AND TEMPLES UNTIL GOEBBELS CALLS HALT
All Vienna’s Synagogues Attacked; Fires and Bombs Wreck 18 of 21
Jews are Beaten, Furniture and Goods Flung From Homes and Shops – 15,000 Are Jailed During Day – 20 are Suicides
And in another article on that page BANDS ROVE CITIES
Thousands Arrested for ‘Protection’ as Gangs Avenge Paris Death
It’s an incredible thing to observe what real fascism is. Gangs “Avenge” Paris death. One person murdered – let’s assume Hershel Grynspan was in the wrong. His act caused the outpouring of rage? That was just an excuse for a raging mob, who had been fed lie after lie after lie, to be unleashed, with police protection and even police participation, to wreak the havoc that, violence-wise, indicated what was in store for the Jews of Europe. All this was to AVENGE PARIS DEATH. Really? Less than a year later, Germany invaded Poland, and the rest is our very sad and tragic recent history.
Tragedies surround us. Some at the hands of man – as we saw in Pittsburgh to Shabboses ago, and in the recent night club shooting in California (where, in addition to 11 customers, 1 guard/officer was killed), some also at the hands of man but in car accidents (I mentioned one last week, there was another in Israel in the days following, and a 33 year old was killed by a car on Thursday in Far Rockaway) and the like. And some are in God’s hands. (California fires...)
Rabbi Jonathan Kroll recently shared with the Katz Yeshiva High School that he went to NY/NJ for the funeral of Dannie G____, the wife of Rabbi Josh G____, who spoke here this summer. She was in her 30s and had a brain tumor – a battle which tragically ended the same Shabbos as the Pittsburgh shooting. When he was in the airport on the way back, people saw his kippah and wished him condolences for his loss. He wondered how they knew about Mrs. G_____ and realized they were talking about Pittsburgh.
Near a shul vandalized in Brooklyn this week – the police have caught some of the suspects – a playground’s sidewalk was chalked up with messages of love. “Tree of Life – Never Forgotten” “Shalom to Jerusalem” “You are LOVED” in a heart. Love graffiti was shared in a synagogue in Western Massachusetts – the Forward had an article about it.
Which goes to show that there are terrible people, very very very troubled people, and good people. Which – as we know – is the story of humanity.
Our parsha shares with us 3 stories. The first is the background of the birth of Eisav and Yaakov and the sale of the Bechora, the second is the one chapter dedicated to the life of Yitzchak, and the final tale concerns the blessings seemingly designated for Eisav which Yaakov received based on his mother’s intervention and instruction.
If I could summarize each of these stories with their aftermath objectively, based on the text we have, it would sound like this:
The First story is divided into two parts. Tension of pregnancy is resolved with assurance that two nations will emerge.
Tension between twins – if any – resolved through financial arrangement agreed to by both sides.
Second story. Also has two components.
The tension between sides is resolved when there is an understanding of who the parties are – Yitzchak and Rivkah being husband and wife.
Second part: Tension is resolved when Avimelekh – some time after having realized that Yitzchak’s being in his city was a blessing, and that his kicking Yitzchak out was not good for business – Avimelekh comes with his general and a group of ambassadors and tells Yitzchak that because they see God is with him, they want to be on his side. This is rather strange, of course, because when Avraham had his own encounters with the Gerarites some time ago, he noted to them that the reason he was not on the up and up about his relationship with Sarah, claiming to be her brother and not mentioning that she is also his wife – was because they were not God-fearing! One would think they’d have learned their lesson!
Nonetheless they do come around in our story, and the tension ends with a new treaty.
Third story.
Tension between brothers does not come to resolution, because the only thing that will heal the raw hurt is time. But who is to blame? Who cheated whom? Where is the address for Eisav’s grievance? Against Yaakov? Against their mother? Against their father? Is Eisav’s grievance even warranted – after all, shouldn’t he have told his father, “I know what you want me to do, and why, but the fact is that while I am the older brother, I sold all merits of the bechora to my brother some time ago – so if this is about a blessing to a first born… you have the wrong guy.”
Eisav did not do that. That conversation might have given us a clearer picture into Yitzchak’s intentions – meaning if he had only called to EISAV, and not “בנו הגדול” we would know for sure. But once we see he’s dealing with a descriptive, then the question is who really owns that descriptive?
So is Eisav’s rage warranted in the end? He wants to kill his brother. Is that a proper response? Maybe a fair response is “let’s come to the table and come to an equitable solution or a resolution of this misunderstanding.”
Maybe I don’t know a whole lot about how brachas work – but surely this kind of discussion could be had at a negotiating table. Maybe Eisav could have even said “Thank you for keeping me honest!”
But there is a hatred that goes beyond reason. And this is why Eisav is described as Eisav Harasha. You don’t like what happened – your immediate response is rage and murder? To Eisav’s credit, he cared about his father too much so he didn’t do it right away.
But he did also believe his father was at death’s door. After all, Yitzchak was now 123, and he was within 5 years of the age his mother Sarah had been when she died.
How can we categorize these characters? Using the descriptives I outlined a littler earlier – terrible, very very troubled, or good people?
It’s complicated. I don’t know if Eisav was terrible – he certainly felt he was cheated and that his perspective was justified. But Yaakov felt his perspective was justified. And while Yitzchak may have felt, on the one hand, that he was deceived (he does say בא אחיך במרמה ויקח ברכתיך), on the other hand, the fact is that he does not undo the bracha and even supports it saying גם ברוך יהיה – the person who received the blessing should be blessed.
RAGE. What a powerful emotion. It is the kind we sometimes feel when we see terrible injustice. Every time there is a terrorist attack deliberately against a random Jew in Israel, I feel rage. Outrage. How does someone – whatever political and ideological differences may exist – take a knife, a gun, a car, a bomb, and use it to kill people against whom one has no specific difference. But even with that RAGE, you don’t see me or anyone who feels that rage going out and killing innocents! Insane!
I don’t justify the killing of someone not engaged in an act of violence. But one of my favorite examples of rage killing – completely justified – comes from the novel A Time to Kill by John Grisham, in which a black man in the south kills the two arrogant bigot white men who savagely ravaged his 10 year old daughter. When they were in custody. And his lawyer gets him acquitted.
That’s what we might call in Torah language – a גואל הדם. Justice to the criminals only. Rage against the perpetrators. They ruined his daughter’s life… he ruined their lives in the only way that was appropriate.
Which is why people with blood on their hands don’t deserve – in my opinion – the free medical treatment they sometimes get when they are injured. Or to have a Jewish doctor and nurse save your life, as the Pittsburgh killer did. Do they even express gratitude? Do they appreciate what people who do not know them, but who believe in the nobility of their profession, did for them?
Did Yaakov deserve that? Did he ruin Eisav’s life? On the contrary, he took a burden of the bechora – which Eisav did not value and did not want – and took it off his hands in an agreed upon transaction. And, in all honesty, owing to our knowing what Rivkah knows, he also followed through with what was rightly coming to him due to their prior agreements.
Eisav – you can’t have it both ways. Make an agreement, don’t hold yourself to it, then get angry when you don’t get what you might think is yours, but really isn’t.
And to think murder is the answer?
No.
There has to be a recognition that when someone does you a good turn – as Yaakov did in feeding you when you were hungry and exhausted, as Yaakov did in taking a spiritual burden off your hands, as Yaakov did in purchasing from you something you did not want –– the pasuk says וימכר and he SOLD his birthright to Yaakov. ויעקב נתן לעשו – he GAVE to Eisav the soup and bread and something to drink… That was not the PRICE of the birthright. That was a meal to celebrate the transaction ---- you owe, at the very least, a debt of gratitude, and an awareness that there are no takebacks. Your mother Rivkah, and in turn, your brother Yaakov kept you honest in taking the blessing that was Yaakov’s to receive. You should say THANK YOU!
Because otherwise, Eisav, you ARE a horrible person.
I don’t need to explain why all those who participated in Kristallnacht were horrible people. There is NO justification for that night. No justification for the war which followed. And the War Against the Jews. No justification for blaming one nation’s problems on the Jewish people.
HATE and RAGE is not a justification for killing innocents. It is just an emotion that separates good people from bad people. Good people can feel rage and hate, but what do they do with it? Bad people turn to violence as their outlet.
And I think it can be said that some people don’t know the right way to express what should be their feelings of gratitude.
I read an article this week by a woman named Sara Carter, entitled “The Five Simple Words that SNL and Pete Davidson Should Learn to Say.”
There was a time in my life when I watched Saturday Night Live. I don’t know why. It was over 20 years ago… Since then I’ve seen clips. Most of them are not funny.
Recently, they mocked retired Navy SEAL and congressional candidate Dan Crenshaw, using a very crude joke about him based on the fact that he wears an eye-patch, which he lost while serving in Afghanistan.
Carter writes: Can you imagine what it’s like to lose your sight?
Imagine fighting overseas, far away from your loved ones, only to find yourself blinded in a momentary hail of gunfire and a grenade being lobbed over your head.
Imagine the last thing you see in your life was the pin of the grenade falling at your feet and your weapon falling from your hands.
Imagine asking the doctors at a makeshift hospital in Afghanistan if you can call your family before they wheel you into a surgery that they tell you, you may never survive.
That’s what happened to my husband, Marty, on Easter Sunday, 2011.
“Baby, I got dinged up a bit. I love you.”
That was all Marty said before the doctors came on the line and told me he might not make it through the surgery. He would endure three craniotomies and rehabilitation before he recovered.
Her husband made it through the surgery, but he is now completely blind.
Crenshaw was asked about the joke at his expense, and he said, “We have thick skin, but as veterans, it’s hard for us to understand why war wounds would elicit such raucous laughter from an audience.”
Carter went on to write that she believes most American’s didn’t find Davidson’s joke humorous, but can agree that this great nation is worth fighting for and dying for.
And she concluded with an important reminder. Every stranger that has thanked my husband and my family for our service has touched our hearts in more ways than they can imagine.”
Just to say to those who served “Thank you for your service.” Five simple words.
(Follow up from after Shabbos: Apology Accepted)
In honor of Veterans Day, a friend of mine shared with me a story he saw on Facebook. A story about Ann Margaret, the actress, and a man who served in Vietnam, and was shot by a sniper.
****
The man - named Richard - had a photo of her when she came to visit his unit with Bob Hope, and when he found out she was going to be doing a book signing in his neighborhood – sometime in the 2000s – he went to hopefully meet her and get her to sign the photo.
The people at the bookstore announced she’d only be signing the book and nothing else. He showed her the photo anyway – against the protests of the employees – saying “I just wanted her to see it."
She took one look at the photo, tears welled up in her eyes and she said, "This is one of my gentlemen from Viet Nam and I most certainly will sign his photo. I know what these men did for their country and I always have time for 'my gentlemen.'' With that, she pulled Richard across the table and planted a big kiss on him. She then made quite a to-do about the bravery of the young men she met over the years, how much she admired them, and how much she appreciated them. Took photos. Made it like he was the only person there.
That moment changed him, his wife writes. He walked a little straighter. A little prouder. And when she asked him at dinner if he wanted to talk about what had happened that day he broke down in tears.. ''That's the first time anyone ever thanked me for my time in the Army,'' he said.
****
I honestly don’t know enough about how the country takes care of the veterans. I hear mixed stories about VA hospitals – some good, some bad. The shooter in California this week was a vet – he is dead so we don’t know his motivation – was it PTSD? Was he a disturbed person who never had the chance to do this before? Or was he just evil? I don’t know. Would this have happened if the warning signs had been tended to? We’ll never know. We only have tragedy and sadness in the wake of it.
But I do know this. While there are few and rare people who do those kinds of things, there are many people who are gems, who served honorably and were discharged honorably, were never filled with hate or rage against their country or its citizens, and served for God and country. And only asked for a “thank you” in return.
We can’t make sense of tragedy. Mayor of North Ogden, Utah, Brent Taylor, father of 7, was killed this week in Afghanistan. The Veterans continue to put their lives on the line, and sometimes make the ultimate sacrifice.
If you are a Veteran of the US military in this room, please raise your hand or stand. On behalf of all of us, we Thank You For Your Service.
If you have a relative who served, please raise your hand now. We thank your relative for his or her service.
The two most difficult tensions in the parsha were resolved with Avimelekh saying “We see God is with you,” and through Yaakov and Eisav having a separation of time – over 36 years – during which time, it seems, feelings relaxed and things could normalize. Though, it should be noted that when Yaakov and Eisav reunite in Vayishlach, Yitzchak IS still alive.
God, and time.
If Eisav had been God-fearing, he would have been honest about the blessing. If he had let the time since the sale – which had taken place almost 50 years earlier – sink in to his new reality (even if he regretted it later!) he should have been honest about it. Instead he let his emotion, and ultimately RAGE rule his day.
He COULDN’T express gratitude, because he couldn’t be honest with himself about what the people around him were doing – freeing him from responsibility, and giving him a chance at the life he needed to live. A life of being a free spirit not bound to time and place.
When we are God-fearing, we don’t let our emotion overtake how we respond to others. When we realize that our raw feelings are overtaking us, we need to give time a chance to heal us, to set things aright, to help us see the bigger picture.
Time doesn’t heal everything, but it helps us move on.
That is what those who lived through Kristallnacht and the Holocaust certainly know and knew.
That is what those who have been victims of terror in Israel know and knew.
That is what the people in Pittsburgh will come to see.
And to this crowd I will add that being God-fearing is an essential ingredient as well. Because otherwise, our task of trying to make sense of it all is fool-hardy. We will get nowhere.
Being God-fearing, and letting time help us gather the pieces. And of course of course, expressing gratitude to those who help us live in relative safety and peace from invading enemies: that is what we learn from Avimelekh, Yitzchak, Yaakov and Eisav. May these ingredients help all who served, and may they help all of us find peace in the right time.
Monday, November 5, 2018
Jealousy? Of What? ... the Age-Old Question
Parshat Toldot
by Rabbi Avi Billet
All I’ve been hearing and seeing in the last two weeks has been a mix of reactions to the tragic event in Tree of Life Congregation in Pittsburgh two Saturdays ago. While I don’t know how many people are living on the edge, worried about where or when the next attack will be (may all the worry be just worry and never come to anything!), it is a mix of feelings of sadness and “that’s refreshing” to see the kind of security upticks many communities are taking.
At the same time, the spike in vandalism in Manhattan, Brooklyn, California, and other places, in the last week alone, is most disturbing. What is wrong with people?
Finger pointing at left or right is silly. This is a deeper problem than political ideology – this is individuals who think that Jews are a problem in society. And why? Because we exist.
There’s no other rhyme or reason for Jew-hatred. Some people who have never met a Jew hate Jews. Why? Ignorance? Jealousy? Brainwashing? Fear? Israel?
The truth is, it’s an old story. A very old story.
Around the time of the Har Nof Massacre (4 years ago) I addressed the question of how Yitzchak reacted to the peace offer of Avimelekh and Phichol. (26:26) His reaction to them is, “Why have you come to me? You hate me! You sent me away from your land!”
That Yitzchak was sent away was on account of a dispute over wells, economics, control, etc. While he had originally been embraced in Gerar, it soon became clear that his success was extremely troubling to Avimelekh and co. And how did they treat Yitzchak before kicking him out? Instead of asking him to teach them his secrets, instead of honoring his success, they sought to vandalize his property. “And all of the wells that Avraham’s servants had dug in Avraham’s days were stuffed up with dirt and closed by the Phillistines.” (26:15)
Seriously? How immature! See how jealousy can spite your own face. You’re in a land where freshwater seems hard to come by. Wells are good! Yet because you don’t own them yourselves, you stuff them?
And this behavior – of the Phillistines! – is what leads Avimelekh to tell Yitzchak to leave town. 'Go away from us. You have become much more powerful than we are.'(26:16)
Is that, in fact, the problem? That when Jews are successful, that when Jews are influential, that when Jews play a significant role in a society, they hate us? Not all of society, for sure, but there is always an element. And it’s not just those who demonstrate lower intelligence (meaning, who have no really good reason for why they think “all Jews are a problem”). It is also an element of elitists who forget how this country was founded – “that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” also means that all citizens who share the same pursuits of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are not to be discriminated against for different beliefs.
The Jews who are loved and admired in society are most often not outwardly religious Jews. The religious – those who go to synagogue in whatever format – they are the ones undeserving of basic American rights. Right? (Let us make no mention of the fact that not all Jews are "successful" in the financial sense. Many struggle with jobs, livelihood, making ends meet... like, um, normal people)
So why was Yitzchak so upset? Didn’t he know this was his lot in life? Actually, their treatment of him was a total shock. Because while his father Avraham had some run-ins in the past, the thought was that when Avraham explained to the people of Gerar several decades earlier that the reason he had not told them Sarah was his wife was because they had not demonstrated a “fear of God,” the message seemed to strike home! They seemed to understand and appreciate that fear of God was an essential quality for living in peace with persons who are different.
One must see that the other person is created in the Image of God. One must recognize that the other person deserves basic human dignity, and should be treated with decency. One must realize that sharing in the human condition means that while we have differences of opinion, those differences are not meant to be settled through the lifting of a weapon. (While war between nations is tragic, sadly it is sometimes necessary. But it is extremely rare – if not unheard of – for democracies to war against each other.)
And so Yitzchak was in shock over their hate toward him. Because while he had been financially successful, he hadn’t done anything to them to warrant their hatred. Which simply meant their hatred came from a jealousy that was only countered after much introspection from Avimelekh and Phichol, who came to the conclusion that making peace with Yitzchak was necessary because “'We have indeed seen that God is with you,' they replied. 'We propose that there now be a dread oath between you and us. Let us make a treaty with you, that just as we did not touch you, you will do no harm to us. We did only good to you and let you leave in peace. Now you are the one who is blessed by God.' (26:28-29)
Hmmm. That’s not exactly how things went down.
But what does it mean? It means that the descendants of Yitzchak still encounter Avimelekhs: These are people who are all smiles, who will deny that they ever hated Jews, and they will also say things like, “Some of my best friends are Jews.” They’ll shift all blame off themselves, especially when they realize that being friendly is to their benefit.
But in Avimelekh’s case, there was one more reason. Targum Yonatan explains the following: “They said, ‘We saw that God’s word was helping you. In your merit we had good in our land. And since you left, the wells have dried up and the trees haven’t produced fruit. This is why we need you to come back and that the treaty between us be an investment in our future.’”
I do not believe in any silly notion that Jews are the key to all success in the world. But I do believe that Jews contribute in a significant way wherever they find themselves. It took Avimelekh to wonder WHAT HAPPENED TO MY LAND? to realize that the blessing he had for a number of years ceased around the time Yitzchak left. Which reminded him of what drew his nation to like Avraham in the first place. They had agreed to be God-fearing.
When that happens in truth and for real, we will all enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And Jews will not have to live in any kind of fear of where or when a next attack will come.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
All I’ve been hearing and seeing in the last two weeks has been a mix of reactions to the tragic event in Tree of Life Congregation in Pittsburgh two Saturdays ago. While I don’t know how many people are living on the edge, worried about where or when the next attack will be (may all the worry be just worry and never come to anything!), it is a mix of feelings of sadness and “that’s refreshing” to see the kind of security upticks many communities are taking.
At the same time, the spike in vandalism in Manhattan, Brooklyn, California, and other places, in the last week alone, is most disturbing. What is wrong with people?
Finger pointing at left or right is silly. This is a deeper problem than political ideology – this is individuals who think that Jews are a problem in society. And why? Because we exist.
There’s no other rhyme or reason for Jew-hatred. Some people who have never met a Jew hate Jews. Why? Ignorance? Jealousy? Brainwashing? Fear? Israel?
The truth is, it’s an old story. A very old story.
Around the time of the Har Nof Massacre (4 years ago) I addressed the question of how Yitzchak reacted to the peace offer of Avimelekh and Phichol. (26:26) His reaction to them is, “Why have you come to me? You hate me! You sent me away from your land!”
That Yitzchak was sent away was on account of a dispute over wells, economics, control, etc. While he had originally been embraced in Gerar, it soon became clear that his success was extremely troubling to Avimelekh and co. And how did they treat Yitzchak before kicking him out? Instead of asking him to teach them his secrets, instead of honoring his success, they sought to vandalize his property. “And all of the wells that Avraham’s servants had dug in Avraham’s days were stuffed up with dirt and closed by the Phillistines.” (26:15)
Seriously? How immature! See how jealousy can spite your own face. You’re in a land where freshwater seems hard to come by. Wells are good! Yet because you don’t own them yourselves, you stuff them?
And this behavior – of the Phillistines! – is what leads Avimelekh to tell Yitzchak to leave town. 'Go away from us. You have become much more powerful than we are.'(26:16)
Is that, in fact, the problem? That when Jews are successful, that when Jews are influential, that when Jews play a significant role in a society, they hate us? Not all of society, for sure, but there is always an element. And it’s not just those who demonstrate lower intelligence (meaning, who have no really good reason for why they think “all Jews are a problem”). It is also an element of elitists who forget how this country was founded – “that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” also means that all citizens who share the same pursuits of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are not to be discriminated against for different beliefs.
The Jews who are loved and admired in society are most often not outwardly religious Jews. The religious – those who go to synagogue in whatever format – they are the ones undeserving of basic American rights. Right? (Let us make no mention of the fact that not all Jews are "successful" in the financial sense. Many struggle with jobs, livelihood, making ends meet... like, um, normal people)
So why was Yitzchak so upset? Didn’t he know this was his lot in life? Actually, their treatment of him was a total shock. Because while his father Avraham had some run-ins in the past, the thought was that when Avraham explained to the people of Gerar several decades earlier that the reason he had not told them Sarah was his wife was because they had not demonstrated a “fear of God,” the message seemed to strike home! They seemed to understand and appreciate that fear of God was an essential quality for living in peace with persons who are different.
One must see that the other person is created in the Image of God. One must recognize that the other person deserves basic human dignity, and should be treated with decency. One must realize that sharing in the human condition means that while we have differences of opinion, those differences are not meant to be settled through the lifting of a weapon. (While war between nations is tragic, sadly it is sometimes necessary. But it is extremely rare – if not unheard of – for democracies to war against each other.)
And so Yitzchak was in shock over their hate toward him. Because while he had been financially successful, he hadn’t done anything to them to warrant their hatred. Which simply meant their hatred came from a jealousy that was only countered after much introspection from Avimelekh and Phichol, who came to the conclusion that making peace with Yitzchak was necessary because “'We have indeed seen that God is with you,' they replied. 'We propose that there now be a dread oath between you and us. Let us make a treaty with you, that just as we did not touch you, you will do no harm to us. We did only good to you and let you leave in peace. Now you are the one who is blessed by God.' (26:28-29)
Hmmm. That’s not exactly how things went down.
But what does it mean? It means that the descendants of Yitzchak still encounter Avimelekhs: These are people who are all smiles, who will deny that they ever hated Jews, and they will also say things like, “Some of my best friends are Jews.” They’ll shift all blame off themselves, especially when they realize that being friendly is to their benefit.
But in Avimelekh’s case, there was one more reason. Targum Yonatan explains the following: “They said, ‘We saw that God’s word was helping you. In your merit we had good in our land. And since you left, the wells have dried up and the trees haven’t produced fruit. This is why we need you to come back and that the treaty between us be an investment in our future.’”
I do not believe in any silly notion that Jews are the key to all success in the world. But I do believe that Jews contribute in a significant way wherever they find themselves. It took Avimelekh to wonder WHAT HAPPENED TO MY LAND? to realize that the blessing he had for a number of years ceased around the time Yitzchak left. Which reminded him of what drew his nation to like Avraham in the first place. They had agreed to be God-fearing.
When that happens in truth and for real, we will all enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And Jews will not have to live in any kind of fear of where or when a next attack will come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)