Sin Is Not Recognizing True Diversity

Parshat Vaychi

by Rabbi Avi Billet

 After the brothers return from Yaakov’s funeral, they relate to Yosef that their father had instructed that Yosef should “look aside at their פשע (a form of sin which will be defined in a moment) and their חטא (same) which dealt badly with you, and [therefore] now [the brother’s personally request] look aside towards the פשע of the servants of your father’s God…” 

Leaving aside whether Yaakov actually said this, or whether, as some commentaries note, they made this up, Rabbi Moshe Shternbuch asks how they could refer to what they did as a פשע. After all, a חטא is a sin committed by accident, an עון is a sin committed deliberately, and a פשע is a sin committed in a state of rebellion. We never find that the brother’s felt any kind of remorse over “rebelling.” They may have felt that they were not sympathetic enough to Yosef’s plight, or they may have regretted selling him as part of an actual thought process, but rebelling – as their flaw – never seems to be on their radar. 

Rabbi Shternbuch concludes that while they did not regret their having him judged him as a danger to the family, the fact that they felt no sensitivity to their judging their own brother to death (their original intent before Reuven interceded on Yosef’s behalf), they may have felt that these thoughts, or lack of sensitivity, was a form of rebellion to their father. They felt now, as a result, that God would judge them in this manner, because God judges the righteous even for thoughts. 

 Yosef’s response to them is that there is no need for them to worry about being judged for thoughts, as he rejects the notion of a פשע and instead tells them, once again, that everything that happened was a result of God’s plan. 

 In thinking about this “plan,” one must assume that EVERYTHING that transpired as a result of the sale of Yosef was part of God’s plan. One aspect of God’s plan is that Yaakov’s “choice” to make Menashe and Ephraim into tribes, “just like Reuven and Shimon” was actually a part of God’s master plan. 

 Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch notes that Yaakov recounts (in 48:4) how he was given the promise to become a קהל עמים – a community of nations. The way it was told to him in 35:11 was “multiply, for a גוי וקהל גוים will come from you.” Noting that of the tribes, Binyamin alone was not yet born, the word גוי must refer to Binyamin. By extension, the words קהל גוים must refer to Ephraim and Menashe, thereby suggesting that way before they were born, they were slated to be counted as Yaakov’s children, as two distinct tribes. 

 Rav Hirsch goes on to say that the phrase קהל גוים/קהל עמים “assigns the people of Yaakov its distinctive mission. This people is to consist of diverse tribes of differing traits, while maintaining complete unity through one common task. This people should represent the agricultural nation, the merchant nation, the warrior nation, the nation of scholars, and so forth. As a model nation, it should demonstrate for all to see that the one great mission – common to all men and all nations and as revealed in God’s Torah – does not depend on a particular vocation or trait. Rather, all of mankind, with its rich diversity, can equally find its calling in the one common mission.” 

“The division of the nation into diverse tribes, and the resulting division of the Land into different provinces for the different tribes, whose distinctiveness is thus to be retained – that is what is indicated here. Only thus is there any importance to Ephraim and Menashe becoming two distinct tribes. Without the division into diverse tribes, all distinctiveness would be absorbed in the consolidate mass of the nation as a whole…” 

In a way, we can say that the brothers’ “original sin” was in not accepting Yosef as being different from them. They wanted him to toe the line, to not cause disruption, to not shake or overturn the apple cart. But Yosef couldn’t be put into a box of their design, because Yosef was unique, and distinct, with different drives and passions, and different life goals. He was going places they couldn’t foresee, because they were stuck in their relatively provincial existence. 

 But were they so provincial? A number of them exercised unique qualities – Shimon and Levi certainly went out on their own in Shechem. Reuven had a strange interest in Yaakov’s marital space (as a real youngster with the dudaim and later on with whatever he did with respect to Bilhah). The Torah emphasizes that when Yaakov blessed his sons, he emphasized “each getting his own blessing” (49:28), clearly in response to individual characteristics they all carried, some of which Rav Hirsch articulated above. 

In a contemporary sense, we can’t all be doctors, or all be accountants, or all be plumbers, or all be academics/scholars/rabbis/Kollel-leit, or all be bankers, or all be business-people. We are all wired differently, we think differently, we live differently. We look different. 

 Yes, we have a Torah which preaches a kind of uniformity in terms of Mitzvos and a degree of service of God. But we all recognize that there are different paths even just culturally – Ashkenazim, Sefardim, Edot Mizrach, Temani, as well as sub culturally, from right to left religiously, from right to left in political thinking and leaning, how men and women interpret tzniyut, how men and women style or show their head hair (everyone) and (for men) their facial hair (including beards and peyot), to how much emphasis people place on minhagim (customs), to which Halakhic code books we follow completely versus where there is a debate or where things are open for interpretation, how much are things not explicitly stated in the Torah viewed as “Torah level” (such as if declared such in the Talmud or in poskim – or when it is debated), what is considered a Halakha L’Moshe MiSinai versus what doesn’t really fit in that category.

 While I was unable to find it, I recall a video put out by Chofetz Chaim Foundation during the covid shutdowns

, in which they emphasized the need for the Jewish people to not get at each other’s throats over issues of disagreement. It was close to the 2020 election as well, and society was really torn apart (I don’t think much has changed for the good, unfortunately, except that we are not yet heavily involved in a presidential election – we’ll surely see things heat up this coming summer). They put images on the screen pointing to polar opposites, noting that we can’t let these viewpoints divide us (some of these I recall clearly from the video, after the political one are ones I’m adding): stay closed v stay open; social distance v return to normalcy; mask or not mask; vaccinate or not to vaccinate; republican or democrat; to use the Internet for communication or only to use phones for communication; to allow mixed seating at non-Tefillah related functions or separate seating all the time; to follow a strict order of societal norms or to be more open to different views. Their point was that none of these differences (there are surely many more) – and in some cases they are very strong differences – should get in the way of Jews seeing we are all one family. And in a family, everyone is welcome at the table, even if we bring strong differences to that table. 

Yaakov certainly learned one important lesson which he applied twice in the parsha, from very personal experience with his own father and brother: when you bless your children, call them in together, and bless them each according to their traits. Raise them up for their own qualities, and don’t compare them to one another for ways in which you wish for them to be the same. Yaakov first did this with Yosef’s sons, and later did this with his own sons. He celebrated their diversity, while emphasizing that they are all one family. 

We get reminders of this every day. In the IDF, while we don’t get the same kinds of reports of those injured, we see how the cross section of those who have fallen in battle, range from all types of Jews on the religious spectrum – from not at all, to yeshiva students, to rabbis (in miluim). This is Am Yisrael, and it’s time for us to remove barriers – celebrate our diversity instead of trying to crank out everyone to be exactly the same. Unquestionably, making everyone be the same was never what God intended, and it was never what Am Yisrael was meant to be. Am Yisrael is a tapestry: many diverse threads of different colors and shades bound together to make a beautiful picture. 

May we merit to see this, appreciate this, and live this as our reality.

Binyamin Favored? Orchestrating What Is Right (Always with God’s Help)

 Parshat Vayigash

Rabbi Avi Billet 

Take a careful look at Chapter 45, verse 22. After Yosef has revealed his identity to his brothers, he’s sending them back to Canaan with wagons to bring their father and the greater family down to Egypt. 

 (כב) לְכֻלָּ֥ם נָתַ֛ן לָאִ֖ישׁ חֲלִפ֣וֹת שְׂמָלֹ֑ת וּלְבִנְיָמִ֤ן נָתַן֙ שְׁלֹ֣שׁ מֵא֣וֹת כֶּ֔סֶף וְחָמֵ֖שׁ חֲלִפֹ֥ת שְׂמָלֹֽת: “To each of them he gave a set of new garments, and to Binyamin he gave 300 silver coins and also 5 sets of new garments.” 

A number of commentaries ask a few obvious questions. Why did he give one set of garments to each brother? And why five to Binyamin? Why did he give Binyamin 300 silver coins? 

The Torah Temimah quotes a Gemara in Megillah (16b) which suggests that he was hinting to Binyamin that in the future he’d have a descendant (Mordechai, who was a Benjaminite) who would go out from before the king wearing 5 garments of royalty

 מרדכי יצא מלפני המלך בלבוש מלכות

1. תכלת
2. וחור
3. ועטרת זהב גדולה
4. ותכריך בוץ
5. וארגמן 

Then he addresses the questions with which we began, noting the importance of paying attention to the pesukim, and how the words are written. 

 The Vilna Gaon asked the question of how he could foment more jealousy? How would the brothers know that Yosef was making a symbolic gesture regarding an event in the future? 

The Vilna Gaon answers that the five garments given to Binyamin were of far lesser quality than the garments given to the other brothers, and in totum was equivalent in value to the garment each of them got. Thus they understood that the five garments were symbolic, but they were all getting the same value. 

Rabbi Epstein (author of the Torah Temimah) suggests that this is hinted to in the text. Look back at the verse in Hebrew at the beginning of this article and you’ll find that the word חלפות is spelled with the letter Vov (“ו”) when referencing the garments of the brothers, and the word חלפת is spelled without that letter Vov when referencing the garments given to Binyamin. That additional letter for the brothers hints to their higher value, while Binyamin’s garments are missing the ו thus missing value as well. 

 The commentaries on the Talmud ask how Yosef was unconcerned for jealousy over the money Yosef gave to Binyamin. Admitting his dissatisfaction with their answers (though without recording their answers) Rabbi Epstein proceeds to give the following analysis, quoting Rabbenu Bachaye. 

The sum of 300 silver pieces was determined based on the proper penalty the brothers owed based on the sale of Yosef. A slave is typically deemed to be valued at 30 silver coins, and the penalty for stealing one is ten times that – 300, based on a teaching in Gittin 45b that selling a slave to idolators is punishable by up to ten times the value of the slave.

What does this have to do with Binyamin? Nothing directly. 

 But according to this law, each brother was responsible to pay Yosef 300 silver pieces as a penalty for being involved in his sale. Binyamin was not involved in his sale, so he would not have such a penalty. Since Yosef forgave each brother for the money each owed to him, it was as if he gave each of them 300 silver pieces. So of course he needed to give Binyamin 300 pieces to thus be treating everyone equally. 

 In this way, there was no jealousy. Everyone got credit for what they owed, and Binyamin received a cash payout.

The takeaway from this analysis is straightforward. Things all work out in the end. 

 We don’t have a handle on how God runs the world, but we believe that in the end, each person was given what he or she deserved or had coming. 

 Sometimes things don’t seem fair. Some people seem to have more natural gifts, greater wealth, better skills in many areas of life, while others have greater challenges. 

 But in the end, there is a balance, a restored equilibrium. 

Some people are blessed with good health, what may even seem to be far beyond their fair share. Some people have great relationships with their children and grandchildren, far beyond their fair share. Some people have nachas, in far greater amounts than they ever felt they’d deserve. Some people have wisdom that helps them be admired, and if they’re blessed to counter that wisdom with humility, they are even further admired. 

 Some people have friends whose value in their life far exceeds any material wealth. 

The most important thing is to be שמח בחלקינו, to be content with our portion. When we remember that life is not a competition for wealth and happiness, and that each of us has our own equation and direction that is best for us, we’ll have a much easier time living a joyful and joyous life because the thought behind it all is “God is orchestrating for me based on what I need and on what I deserve. He is looking out for me, He is in my life, and He is giving me the things I should have in my life.” 

With such an attitude, one could never feel alone. Particularly for those who struggle with difficult things in life, knowing we are not alone can be an incredible source of comfort and strength.

The Power of Elokim, Who Runs the World

 Every now and then, after writing my weekly Dvar Torah, I come across an article written by Rabbi Sacks Z"L, in which he addressed similar motifs. To give a different example than the link below from this week, last year I came up with this clever title, only to discover later that Rabbi Sacks beat me to it by over 13 years. I did not see his piece before I wrote mine. Thus is the world. :)

This week, I came across this article by Rabbi Sacks after writing what you'll find below:

Parshat Miketz

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

In Chapter 41, Yosef is taken out of prison and brought before Pharaoh. One message he conveys, loud and clear, is that he does not interpret dreams, but God does. Yosef mentions “God” five times over the course of his sharing the meaning of Pharaoh’s dreams, thus eliciting Pharoah’s own acknowledgment of God’s hand in Yosef’s interpretations – once in each of verses 38 and 39. 

It is always interesting to note which name of God is invoked in any conversation, especially with “non-Jews.” (In Lavan’s case, for example, when he meets Eliezer, and in the first 14 years of Yaakov’s time in his home (24:31,50,51; 30:27), it is the 4-letter name of God י-ה-ו-ה, and here in chapter 41 it is א-ל-ה-י-ם) 

In modern Hebrew, the “Elokim” name of God is often used as a generic word referencing God, while “Adonay” is presumed to be God’s name (even though it is not pronounced how it is spelled). This may have reverberations in the Yosef story. 

As to how the names of God are referenced in the Torah, there is much discussion. Easily most famous is that Elokim references God’s attribute of Judgment, while Adonay references God’s attribute of Mercy. 

Netziv points out (41:25) that when it comes to dreams, the dreamer himself knows when the interpretation is correct, because he hears it in his subconscious when he dreams, and an actual human interpretation triggers a reminder that the understanding is correct. Pharaoh’s necromancers understood interpretations through the method of demons (שדים). Yosef understood that what Pharaoh had received was a prophesy, similar in style to communication which came to Avimelekh (20:3,6), Lavan (31:24) and Bilaam (Bamidbar 22:9,12,20,22 etc) - all of which were heard from Elokim. 

 Netziv concludes that because Elokim appeared, only someone who has a רוח א-לקים (the spirit of Elokim in him) could understand and interpret the dreams. This puts Yosef on a much higher footing than necromancers who deal in the realm of שדים. 

 This suggests that the way that God appears to the Torah’s gentiles, in the realm of prophesy, is through using the name א-לקים.

 The fact that the name י-ה-ו-ה makes an appearance with each of these gentiles also shows that there is an element of disconnect in how they relate to God and in how God relates to them. It is Elokim throughout chapter 20 (Avimelekh) until the last verse, when י-ה-ו-ה makes an appearance to reopen the wombs of the women in Gerar. 

In Lavan’s case, he brings up י-ה-ו-ה again (for the first time in a long time) after he’s already decided to make peace with Yaakov (31:49). Aside from that, it’s been Elokim since he declared to Yaakov that “God (י-ה-ו-ה) has blessed me on your account,” which was right at the conclusion of Yaakov's 14 years of labor for his wives, just as Lavan was convincing him to stay to build his own fortune. (30:27)

 In Bilaam’s case, as he speaks to Balak’s emissaries, he keeps referring to the relationship he has with י-ה-ו-ה, while every time God appears to him in a dream (as noted above) it is with the name Elokim. And yet, the angel that appears to him is a מלאך י-ה-ו-ה, and it is י-ה-ו-ה who opens the mouth of the donkey to speak to him. Bilaam, after angering א-לקים because he accompanied Balak’s emissaries, has contrition and comes to the clear understanding that even though he came for the wrong reasons, he will only get to say what God puts in his mouth to say. Once he understands and accepts that, all that is to follow is in י-ה-ו-ה’s hands (the Merciful side of God). Bilaam “embarrasses” himself over and over through blessing the Israelites, and through disappointing Balak, who had hired him for a different purpose. 

And so it boils down to a message God is conveying to the gentiles in question. "You are worthy of receiving a message through the name of God that is א-לקים because you have a choice that lies before you insofar as what you will do with this message." When they accept what is before them and make the choice to treat Avraham, Yaakov, or the Bnei Yisrael (respectively) nicely, things turn around for them for the better.

Avimelekh’s family is cured of their ailment. Lavan returns home in peace, without having harmed anyone and without being harmed. Bilaam goes on his way and returns home (that he later dies in the war with Midian speaks of Bilaam returning to evil ways, but it is not attached to the story with Balak). 

 The question we are left with, is this something that was known at that time? If we assume that the way things are “reported” in the Torah, as either handed to Moshe Rabbenu by God or recorded by him at God’s instruction, is accurate, then the name of God that Yosef invoked was deliberate, and presumably a choice that was made based on his upbringing, and the way he felt would be most impactful in the conditions in which he found himself. 

 Rabbenu Bachaye focuses on the usage of the name Elokim, noting that “All comes from the power of א-לקים, and He is the Master of all powers. He will help you through the difficulties of the dream and processing its interpretation.”

Yosef understood from the dream, which took place at the יאר (River) that Egypt would eventually be stricken in the River (referring to the plague of Blood). This stems from a virtue that had been assigned to Pharaoh, in a famous statement recorded in Yechezkel 29:3 in Pharaoh’s name: “The River is mine and I created it.” This sentiment was not of just one Pharaoh, but of every Pharaoh. Yosef saw that the eventual downfall of Pharaoh in Egypt would begin with the River because eventually Pharaoh would say “Who is God (י-ה-ו-ה) that I should heed his voice?” - “מי ה' אשר אשמע בקולו” (Shmos 5:2) rejecting י-ה-ו-ה. Here Yosef made the attempt to align Pharaoh in a good direction through focusing on א-לקים. Elokim is the one Who has the power and the ability to not only interpret your dream, but to have given you that dream in the first place. והוא יענה את שלום פרעה – Elokim will answer Pharaoh’s dilemma. (See Iyov 5:8) 

Knowing that Pharaohs in general viewed themselves as higher than י-ה-ו-ה, Yosef used the name א-לקים which is the name of God universally utilized in the creation of the world in Chapter 1 of Bereshis, reminding Pharaoh that א-לקים has the power and Elokim is the true Creator. 

 It is a message that the gentile world needs to heed. Contrary to any mistaken belief that Jews control the world, we will be the first to say that God controls the world. A few days ago, a Turkish MP named Hasan Bitmez delivered a powerful and impassioned 20-minute speech against Israel, aimed specifically at Turkish relations with Israel, but also against Israel’s actions in the current war, concluding that “Even if you escape the torment of history, you will not be able to escape the wrath of God.” He finished the speech, and immediately collapsed on account of a heart attack, and he died two days later. 

 Was this a sign from God? Was God showing Who runs the world? 

Yosef’s message to Pharaoh, loud and clear, was that God runs the world. He used Elokim’s name for different reasons, partially to help Pharaoh, and partially to make God’s role acceptable to the Egyptians, perhaps in a more generic fashion than using God’s name of י-ה-ו-ה. 

May we, who use the different names of God in different contexts, always be blessed to make clear that from our vantage point, God runs the world. We aim to do His will and have the best relationship with Him that we can. And hopefully, as for Yosef, we will be granted His good graces, He will shine His light upon us and our people, and we will be blessed with the ultimate blessing – ה' יברך את עמו בשלום, the blessing of Peace.

Honest Hatred and a Roadmap for Peace

Parshat Vayeshev 

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

 וַיִּרְא֣וּ אֶחָ֗יו כִּֽי־אֹת֞וֹ אָהַ֤ב אֲבִיהֶם֙ מִכָּל־אֶחָ֔יו וַֽיִּשְׂנְא֖וּ אֹת֑וֹ וְלֹ֥א יָכְל֖וּ דַּבְּר֥וֹ לְשָׁלֹֽם 

“And [Joseph]’s brothers saw that he was loved by their father [more] than all his brothers, and thus they hated him, and they were unable to speak peaceably with him.” (37:4) 

After he has been shown extra favor and been given a special overcoat, the above verse immediately follows, setting the stage for the animus which will eventually lead to a brother being sold into slavery. At this point, without getting into the possible meanings of the word וישנאו (translated above as ‘they hated’), it is clear that there is disfavor from the brothers towards Yosef, such that they can’t even talk to him in a normal way. 

 Is this a good thing or a bad thing? 

Certainly, the inability to talk to someone can be viewed as a bad thing. Do we not see the humanity of the other person? Does the person have no merits whatsoever? Has the person done such horrible things that there is no common ground between us and nothing to talk about? Obviously, relationships can deteriorate in such a way. More reasonably, mortal enemies may feel this way, that there’s no one to talk to and no amount of meeting, talking, reasoning will get the two sides to see eye to eye on anything. Was that Yosef and his brothers, though? Were they mortal enemies? It is hard to imagine that this is how they viewed him, and even more so how he may have viewed them. So it would seem that being unable to talk to him is a bad thing. 

On the other hand, it may also mean that they are principled. Because they are thoroughly convinced that Yosef is a danger to the family dynamic, they want nothing to do with him. 

There is a passage in Bereshis Rabba in which Rabbi Achoah b’r Zeira says “From the disgrace of the Shvatim we learn of their praise. Elsewhere (Shmuel II 13:22) we are told that ‘Avshalom did not speak with Amnon – neither good or bad’ because he left what was in his heart inside his heart. However, here, they could not speak peaceably with Yosef because what was in their heart they said with their mouths.” 

 [The Avshalom/Amnon reference is to a tale involving the children of King David, who were half-siblings through their father, though had different mothers. Amnon had an infatuation over Tamar and raped her. Avshalom (who may have shared a mother with Tamar) took her assault very personally and plotted to kill Amnon for a long time, eventually succeeding. In the interim, he did not speak to Amnon at all, and he bided his time as his hatred for Amnon continued to grow.] 

In his commentary on this in the Torah Shleimah, Rav Kasher writes: 

“Avshalom didn’t speak to Amnon at all, and left what was in his heart hidden feeling it was better to leave a secret a secret. Regarding the brothers of Yosef, however, while they did not speak with him peaceably (בשלום), they did argue with him and fight with him. What was in their hearts they shared openly! The verse does not say they were unable to speak with him (עמו) – it just says דברו לשלום, that they couldn’t speak peaceably to him… What this indicates is that in their righteousness they demonstrated the quality of having תוכן כברן – their inside reflects their outside… In their own way they fulfilled the verse that says ‘You shall not hate your brother in your heart.’ Because they hated him so much, they could not pretend and speak with him in a manner that looks peaceable when in their hearts they feel the opposite. [They let it out in the open!] 

“The Torah is warning us that one should not keep the hatred in the heart [or put it out there in the open]. The better way is to follow the model of Aharon HaKohen, to love peace and to pursue peace.” In other words, we must work on our own middos to find a way past the animus we feel. 

 So we go back to our question: Was the way they spoke to him (or didn’t speak to him) a good thing or a bad thing? 

 Rav Kasher’s teaching from the Midrash is that there is great merit to being תוכו כברו, for a person to be honest with oneself in how one feels, and to reflect outwardly what is going on inside. 

 However, there is even greater merit to working on oneself on the inside, so that what comes across on the outside is genuine, and a true reflection of one’s inner character. 

 A similar example of the degree of their hatred can be found later on when they bring the blood-covered coat to their father and say “Recognize it. It’s the coat of your son, isn’t it?” In the book “Maayana Shel Torah,” the editor writes in the name of “one of the gedolim” that this is a basic sign of clear hatred, when a person can’t even say the name of the other person. When the brothers could not even say Yosef’s name, Yaakov said טרף טרף יוסף, that the name Yosef has been torn apart in that even his own brothers couldn’t utter it. 

 There is peace and there is peace. There is a cold peace of simple existence, where you let me live and I let you live and we leave each other alone. There is a nice peace of coexistence, where we live together amicably, and we find a way to move past differences towards a greater common goal of making life better for all. And there is peace which is non-peace, which is when there isn’t an outer aggression all the time, but the aggression bubbles below the surface. When that animus exists, it is just waiting to rush out and commit unspeakable crimes.

 In the brothers’ case, it is unfortunate that Yaakov did not heed the warning signs, sending Yosef off to Shechem, to an encounter that was predictable because the animus was out in the open. 

Avshalom’s action upon Amnon was less predictable because it looked like peace but was a non-peace. And even if it had been predictable it is likely that no amount of talking to Avshalom would have gotten him to give up his aims on killing his sister’s rapist. 

 This is the challenge the Jewish people face in Israel with Gazan neighbors. Just about every Jew wants to leave alone and be left alone and to live in peace. Even if it’s a cold peace, it’s still peace. But when there is an enemy that just wants you dead, it is hard to have a conversation peaceably with that individual or entity. We have come to learn that some people who were viewed as trusted had betrayed (in some cases) over 20 years of trust, because they were of the Avshalom type. They acted normally, but hated in their hearts so deeply, that they betrayed every piece of information they could share about people they’d worked for and worked with for so long. 

 Perhaps there is merit to those who outwardly say they want to kill Jews, in that at least they are honest! The Torah teaches us that those who hate so deeply have to work on themselves to eradicate that hatred and to prefer to focus on good things in life and to be an inspiration to others in overcoming discord towards an equitable resolution that is peaceful. BUT it takes two sides to tango. 

When one side says “we want to live in peace,” and the other says “there will be peace when all of you are dead,” then there aren’t really two sides. There is, in a sense, no one to talk to. When this is the “partner,” there is no partner, and we are left with the human tragedy that we call “war” which can only really end when the side that seeks death for all is defeated once-and-for-all. 

May we merit to see the day when “we can talk to each other peaceably” – a day which will only come when the designs on killing our People are over, and the region is filled with an ideology that says “Look where we can find ourselves if we can work together towards the common goal of bettering our own lives and the lives of our children and grandchildren.” It begins by seeing the humanity in the other, and being able to say the other person’s name.

The Pain of the People of Shechem

Parshat Vayishlach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Seen on a Jewish satire webpage: 

Q: Why weren’t Shimon and Levi afraid of the consequences / repercussions from the surrounding nations, for killing out the people of Shchem? 

A: That’s exactly why they converted them first. Since they only killed Jews no one cared! 

Maybe you find it funny, maybe you don’t. 

The truth is that I saw a teaching along these lines many years ago (from the Haktav V’Hakbbalah) that suggests that Yaakov’s sons caused the Shechemites to have no allies because through the act of circumcision their former neighbors saw them as rejecting the old ways, and joining with the Jacob clan. 

Once looking at things through this lens, it becomes apparent that some of the verses we are familiar with need to be read in a different light.

In 34:15, the brothers make it clear to Shechem (the young man) that “you must be like us, all males circumcised.” In the next verse when they outline that the males of each family will marry the females of each family, they conclude saying “And we will be one nation.” 

The Torah goes on to describe that Shechem circumcised himself right away, and he and his father went to convince (or inveigle) the townspeople to go along with circumcising themselves. 

 The Torah then says that on the third day, when they were in pain, Shimon and Levi came in and executed everyone. There are many justifications given for this action, even though Yaakov was very upset by the actions of his sons. Some point to the whole town supporting Shechem’s rape of Dinah. Some say they all took a turn! Some say they did not establish courts to hold everyone accountable. There are very many analyses of this question – including a nice one by Nechama Leibowitz, as well as many individual commentaries.

A few commentaries note, however that the word “pain” – in the Torah כאבים, has a different meaning. It means turning to idolatry. 

 In other words, the Shechemites were cajoled into thinking that the bombastic and selfish prince was looking out for their best interests in telling them of the benefits of joining Yaakov’s clan and circumcising themselves. In short, they had buyer’s remorse and regret. 

 Within 3 days, they were back to their old ways. They had no intention of sticking with monotheism, and had no interest in making the effort to marry into Yaakov’s family. Someone who has joined the Jewish people and then returned to idolatrous ways may be subject to the worst kind of outcome. 

There is no question that the Shechem story is a human tragedy in every direction. The only people who seem to feel OK with their role in the story are Shimon and Levi who judged the people of the city and found them guilty of a capital crime. Or, perhaps as some commentaries put it, they went in to attack Shechem and his enabler-father, and the people of their city came to their defense and were all killed in the heat of some kind of battle. 

 At the very least, what that third day looked like is vague. We have a tradition that Avraham did a lot of running (to greet guests) on the third day after his own circumcision, which lends itself to suggest that in that time circumcision wasn’t all that debilitating. 

 The Jewish people are at a crossroad in our relationship with our non-Jewish neighbors worldwide. While I don’t believe there are as many anti-Semites as there seem to be, the loudest ones are typically the most brash and the most violent, and the ones that seem to get the most media attention.

Which leads us to ask ourselves, are we of the Yaakov mentality or the Shimon and Levi mentality? 

No, I am not suggesting that we circumcise everyone or kill anyone. 

 The question is more of do we focus on passivity, which seems to be Yaakov’s approach to confrontation with the family of Chamor and the people of Shechem. Yaakov’s route of choice is silence in the aftermath of what was done to Dinah. [It is an interesting study in how Yaakov reacts to Shechem versus how he has taken charge in confronting Lavan and Eisav respectively.] 

Or do we take the path of the brothers, saying “An abomination was done against our sister. We will stand for her honor and we will stand for our honor. Even if it makes us unpopular in the eyes of our father, and perhaps other neighbors. This is a risk we are willing to take, to show that Jewish blood is not cheap.” ? 

Those who follow the Yaakov approach may be surprised by how much Jewish blood has been spilled in the past, the argument having always been, “don’t rile them up. You’ll just make it worse.” As if being murdered, tortured and raped on a small scale is acceptable as long as it is not on a big scale. 

 The brothers’ approach of strength is the kind we need more than ever. Again, this is not a call for the murder of anti-Semites. But it is a call for us to remind ourselves that it is through strength that we are respected, and it is through weakness that we are further diminished. 

 May Jewish leaders today stand by this lesson. And may those who have the ability to fight back to show Jewish blood is not cheap demonstrate to the world and to our enemies that we know what we stand for – for goodness, for peace, for God, for the Torah. Those who respect our values we accept as neighbors. And those who want to destroy our values and who live for death and destruction – we are ready to fight such a notion because nothing is more pure and holy than knowing that the goodness you stand for is just, right and good, and that if necessary it is worth fighting for to defeat evil, and a culture bent on terror and devastation.

The Tragedy of Leah Imeinu Being Barren and Unwanted

Parshat Vayetze

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

The Talmud (Yavamos 64a) makes the claim that Avraham and Yitzchak were sterile, unable to father children, until such time as God changed their reality and they were blessed with the pregnancy that resulted in the birth of the next of the Avos (that Avraham had a child with Hagar is ignored in this passage). The reasoning given in the Talmud is מפני שהקב"ה מתאוה לתפלתן של צדיקים. God desires the prayers of the righteous. 

 A similar claim is made in several Midrashic passages regarding the mothers of the Jewish people, “ולמה נתעקרו אמהות ר' לוי (אמר) בשם ר' שילא ר' חלבו מש' ר' יוחנן שהקב"ה מתאוה לתפילתן ולסיחתן ” (Bereshis Rabba 45:4). God desired their prayers, and eventually opened their wombs.

In watching the birth of the children of Yaakov, first through Leah, then Bilhah, then Zilpah, then Leah, and finally Rachel, one wonders if Leah is included in this group of barren women. The verse tells us “And God saw that Leah was s’nuah (some translate as ‘hated’ though others might argue ‘less loved.’ Still others might say this is a reflection of ‘how she felt’), so God opened her womb.” (29:5) If God needed to open one can infer that her womb had been closed and that she too, indeed, was barren. 

 Malbim puts it this way: All the mothers were barren, and had Leah not been ‘hated,’ she too would have been barren. Since God saw she was perceived that way, and since Rachel was Yaakov’s preferred wife, the concern was that he would only pray for her (Rachel), and neglect Leah’s needs of having prayer open her womb. As a sort of proof, he suggests that the Torah saying ורחל עקרה (Rachel remained barren) suggests that Rachel was the עיקרה, the main wife, for whom Yaakov would pray. Thus she remained עקרה, barren…. 

The implication is that Leah was barren, but her barrenness was ended by God rather quickly, perhaps even before it was apparent. 

 Rabbi Dovid Zvi Hoffman expressed a slightly different point of view on this matter: 

שכל אמהות האומה עקרות היו בטבען; כמו שרה ורבקה היו גם רחל ולאה עקרות, רק בחסדו המיוחד של אל הרחמים, של ה', ילדה לאה את ארבעת בניה הראשונים, וכפי שגם נאמר אצל שרה: "וה' פקד את שרה"23), ואצל רבקה: "ויעתר לו ה' ותהר רבקה אשתו"24), ואילו רחל, שלא זכתה לחסד מיוחד זה, נשארה עקרה, משום שהאלהים, זה שבראה, עקרה בראה. רק משום שהיא נותנת לו ליעקב את שפחתה לאשה, היא זוכה לשני בנים, 

“All the mothers were barren by nature. Just as Sarah (25 years of infertility) and Rivkah (20 years of infertility), so were Rachel and Leah barren. It was only in the great and abundant kindness of the God of Mercy that Leah birthed her first 4 sons… Rachel only merited to have her sons because she willingly gave her maid to Yaakov as a wife.” 

 It was only after six years of watching her co-wives having so many children that the prayers of Rachel were heard, and she had the experience of seeing her personal חרפה removed, with the birth of Yosef, at which time she says "אסף אלהים את – חרפתי". And even in that joy, she asks again for God to watch over her and to give her another child - "יסף ה' לי בן אחר" 

The takeaway message from this analysis is simply that we don’t know how God works, and what His plan is for each of us. Some people merit to have children. For some, there is a different plan. 

 God wants the prayers of the righteous, and God wants the prayers of those who are not as righteous. 

Is everyone guaranteed to have an amazing and easygoing life? Or does every life have its ups and downs, its trials, its tribulations, its amazing moments, and its moments of difficulty and hardship? 

Some people seem to have all the nachas in the world. Some suffer terribly, some more in private, and some more in public; some kinds of suffering are obvious to outsiders, while for other kinds of difficulties, those suffering suffer in silence and in privacy. 

 Was Leah correct in feeling “hated?” Was she truly hated? Or was she simply less loved? 

The verse tells us that Yaakov loved Rachel more than Leah (29:30) which implies that he did have positive feelings towards Leah, just that he loved Rachel more. This is natural! In general terms, people naturally have a preference for friends and even loved ones that are more beloved to an individual. Most people won’t say it aloud, but it’s simply because of a combination of a number of factors that put a person in a more preferred light. This can apply to the person who practices polygamy (which has not been an Ashkenazic practice for over 1,000 years, and has grown out of practice in most Sefardic communities, especially where the law of land forbids polygamy), or even to a parent who has several children. 

While all of us would wish for ourselves and for everyone else to have an easy life and for all things to go as best as possible at all times, we are also realists who live in the real world, and therefore know that there are no guarantees. 

Rachel, for example, may have been most beloved to Yaakov. He may have showered her with all the care, love, affection, gifts, kindnesses that he could muster. But her barrenness made her marriage a very difficult one. And her life was cut down prematurely in the aftermath of the birth of Binyamin. 

 Additionally, while we don’t know how long Leah lived, or even if she accompanied the family down to Egypt, it seems most likely that she too passed away in the time between the death of Rachel and the family’s descent to Egypt. It seems Yaakov lived his 17 years in Egypt without a spouse. 

 This is not to say or suggest whose life situation is most painful or most difficult. But it is to suggest that the way a person embraces God’s role in one’s life may put a person at a greater advantage when it comes to facing and overcoming adversity. Prayer has power that is beyond our comprehension. 

 The person who has nothing to fall back on may feel groundless and may feel very much alone. 

 The person who has God to fall back upon can rely on the things we say regularly such as ה' לי ולא אירא – God is with me and I shall not fear (last words of the Adon Olam prayer) and גם כי אלך בגיא צלמות לא אירא רע כי אתה עמדי, that even as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil for You are with me. (Tehillim 23) 

May we merit to connect to God through prayer, may we fear nothing knowing He is with us, and believe fully that whatever He does is for the best. 

 Leah may have felt hated (or less loved), and the feeling (even if it was in her own mind) of being unwanted is one of the most tragic of human experiences, particularly of the kind in which physical violence isn’t even part of the equation. While Leah’s feeling שנואה may have merited her to have her womb opened and to have children sooner, that she felt that way is a tragedy of large scale proportions. 

 May we be blessed to be seen for who we are and to love and be loved accordingly.

What Triggers the Best of Choices

Parshat Toldot 

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

Three people in our parsha consider what a future will look like, based on their current situation. 

Rivkah struggles in her pregnancy and says אם כן למה זה אנכי – if pregnancy is this insane ordeal, what did I need this for? Hers seems most easily alleviated when she finds out there are two children in her, who are struggling over matters of their own destiny. 

 She weathers the storm, gives birth to them, and her immediate struggle has obviously run its course. 

 Eisav returns from the field, exhausted. Asking for the food Yaakov is preparing, the conversation turns to matters of birthright. Contemplating the value of the birthright, Eisav considers his own mortality. “I’m going to die anyway [one day], so of what value is the birthright to me?” 

[This opens the door to a larger conversation regarding what the birthright includes – is it a financial thing? A spiritual thing? Is it simply an inheritance? Does it carry with it any kind of responsibility?] 

And finally, we see Yitzchak calling Eisav in, to give him an assignment that will allow Eisav to “be blessed before I die.” The verse had just told us that Eisav was 40 when he married. Since Yitzchak was 60 when his sons were born, he is 100 at the time of Eisav’s wedding. His age at the time of the blessing is between 100 and (based on other information in the Torah) 123 (123 is the most popular opinion). The Torah will later record for us that Yitzchak died at 180, which means that for all his concern, he still lived another 57 years. So why was he so worried about death? Rashi says because his mother died at the age of 127, and he was within a few years of that. More likely, we read at the end of Chayei Sarah that Yishmael died at the age of 137. If Yitzchak is 123 now, it is at the same time as his ½ brother Yishmael’s death. And that may significantly get him to think about his own mortality. 

 Rivkah’s ordeal simply questioned whether the pregnancy was worth it. She wasn’t facing mortality. 

Eisav and Yitzchak are each, in their own way, contemplating their deaths, and their actions as a result tell us a lot about them. 

 Rabbi Lamm put it this way: “For Isaac the imminence of death was an incentive to leave a blessing. For Eisav it was a reason to feast on lentils. For Isaac, death was a signal to reenforce the spiritual worth of a wayward child. For Eisav it was an excuse for forfeiting a birthright. This is how death clearly defines the essence of the personality – by making a man choose between a last blessing and a last fling.” 

Rabbi Lamm went on to contrast the one who found God in the foxhole v. the one who lost Him in the hail of frontline fire – one is looking for a blessing, one for a fling. 

It’s an important question to consider. What are my true values? Is the goal to get closer to God in this lifetime? Or is the goal to pursue the pleasures of Eisav’s lifestyle? The Talmud (Shabbos 152b) tells us that Talmud scholars, the older they grow, the wiser they become. But amei ha’aretz, ignorant people, the older they grow, the more does their foolishness increase. This doesn’t suggest everyone needs to be a Talmud scholar. But certainly those who don’t want to be lopped into the latter category can pursue pursuits that have great value – even as a volunteer! Volunteering to help yeshivas, to help Israel, to raise funds for important chesed and tzedakah projects, or to participate in those chesed and tzedakah projects. 

Rabbi Lamm noted how the Chafetz Chaim compared life to a postcard. There’s a finite amount of space to get a message across. Most people begin writing inane questions or statements (How are you? Wish you were here!), in a larger font, until 3/4 of the postcard is filled and they realize they haven’t actually written anything of substance yet. Then they write in smaller letters, and are very careful about what they write. In life, those getting closer to the end might be more considerate, more careful, far less concerned with the petty and trivial. 

When King David contemplated his own demise, he wrote new songs of poetry. He began to sing in praise of the Almighty, revealing his true essence. 

I happened to speak to a gentleman from the old Woodmere guard (I knew him as a middle-aged man when I was a child) during the first months of COVID. Even after shuls had reopened he was still staying home (in a different South Florida community), being cautious, and while I encouraged him to return to shul – which had been a staple of his life forever – he told me about his new ‘online’ life “I have so much to live for! I am learning Torah with my grandchildren, in Israel, in the United States. I participate in a Daf Yomi class, and other shiurim. I’ve never been more productive in my retirement.” He has since passed away – but that conversation left me thinking, Here is a man who knows what he is living for! 

I’ve shared recently that I finished re-reading “All For the Boss.” The subject of the book, Mr Yaakov Yosef Herman, decided some time in his 40s that he would fast every day (except Shabbos and Yom Tov), breaking his fast every evening on a minimal amount of food. When he was in his 70s, he had a serious health scare when already living in Israel, and when his physician found out he fasted daily, he told him he had to stop, because he wasn’t getting enough nutrition. Mr. Herman was reticent to accept this reality, until the doctor told him a story of a Chassidic Rabbi who, at the age of 70, was told for his own health reasons that he could no longer fast on Yom Kippur. The rabbi’s response was to start dancing! He said, “Ribbono Shel Olam, for 70 years I had the opportunity to serve You by fasting on Yom Kippur! Now I will be serving You by not fasting on Yom Kippur.” After hearing this, Mr. Herman agreed to only fast on Mondays and Thursdays and to eat normally all the other days of the week. 

 Certainly when it comes to prolonging life, most of us will try very hard to follow the physician’s advice. We’ll try to drop bad eating habits or smoking habits (Rabbi Chazkel Abramsky stopped smoking cold turkey at the age of 63 when he was told by his doctor that it was a terrible thing to do. He also loved chocolate, and would eat a few chocolate bars a day. He dropped this cold turkey as well, a few years after dropping smoking, when advised to do so by a physician). We’ll do more exercises, even if difficult, if we are told the idleness will kill us. 

Do we pick the path of Yitzchak when considering how much of the postcard is left to fill? Or do we continue to follow the ways and values of Eisav? 

Chazal tell us that Pharaoh was the cause of the greatest Teshuva at his time, because when the verse says ופרעה הקריב, that Pharaoh approached/encroached, וישאו בני ישראל את עיניהם, the Israelites lifted their eyes… and thus turned to God pleading for salvation. 

In our day, the same can be said about Hamas, whose atrocities on October 7 paved a pathway of commitment to kosher, to Shabbos, to tefillin and tzitzis, and countless things I don’t know about – aside from the most obvious, a love of our fellow Jew and the chesed that accompanies that love. 

It does not have to be that we only make better choices when we consider our mortality, or when the enemy is at the door, threatening our annihilation. That should certainly be a push for great decisions, choices, and action! But wouldn’t it be more powerful and more beautiful if we contemplated such without even considering how much time we may have left? 

May we be blessed with Arichas Yamim (lengthened days and years). And may we be blessed to fill those days and years with meaningful activities, an absence of pettiness, and a focus on bettering our relationships with God and with our fellow man as we fill our lives with Torah, Tefillah, Chesed, love for our fellow Jew, and kindness to our fellow man.

Avraham’s Last Big Move – a Lesson in Finding Tov (Good) in Life

Parshat Chayei Sarah

by Rabbi Avi Billet

At a time in his life when Avraham perhaps should have faded into the sunset, after the death and burial of his wife Sarah, he does two things that the Torah notes. The first is take responsibility for finding a wife for Yitzchak – which he does through the agency of his unnamed servant (who just about everyone identifies as Eliezer (based on 15:2). The second, after Yitzchak’s marriage, is to take Keturah as a wife. 

 Last week, I shared the opinion of Seforno that the sons of Keturah might not have actually been Avraham’s sons, but were her children that he helped raise. All this, over 40 years after the birth of Yitzchak, his own ben zekunim (son of his old age), should be a marvel either way, whether he fathered them AND raised them or even if Keturah brought them into the marriage and he had a hand in raising them. 

With the exception of Midian, there isn’t a clear history in the Bible of any of Avraham’s descendants (Yishmael or the other sons of Keturah) having enmity against the Bnei Yisrael. It could very well be that Avraham taught them well the value of family (Yishmaelim bring Yosef down to Egypt, though that is a complicated story. Otherwise Yishmaelim are referenced in Tehillim 83 as a group who God had destroyed, though no context is given as to when that happened). 

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks wrote an essay “On Judaism and Islam” [https://www.rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/chayei-sarah/on-judaism-and-islam/] in which he derives a message of hope for the future with truly-peace-loving practitioners of Islam, based on the premise that Yishmael is the ancestor of Arabs and therefore of Islam. 

More than looking at the children of Avraham, whether natural or adopted, let us focus on the first component of Avraham’s last hurrah in the Torah, his marriage. 

 Chazal have pointed out that Keturah was a new name for the woman who had previously been Avraham’s wife (or concubine, however one prefers to view their relationship), namely Hagar. She is called Keturah, which is related to the word Ketoret (the special spice blend of the Mikdash) because her deeds in this marriage were similar to the Ketoret, in that they uplifted and were pleasant.

Her name is reminiscent of the verse in Moshe’s blessing to the Tribe of Levi before his death (Devarim 33:10), "They shall teach Your ordinances to Jacob, and Your Torah to Israel; they shall place incense before You, and burnt offerings upon Your altar - יוֹר֤וּ מִשְׁפָּטֶ֨יךָ֙ לְיַֽעֲקֹ֔ב וְתוֹרָֽתְךָ֖ לְיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יָשִׂ֤ימוּ קְטוֹרָה֙ בְּאַפֶּ֔ךָ וְכָלִ֖יל עַל־מִזְבְּחֶֽךָ," a phrase which is followed by “May the Lord bless his army and favorably accept the work of his hands” - בָּרֵ֤ךְ ה֙' חֵיל֔וֹ וּפֹ֥עַל יָדָ֖יו תִּרְצֶ֑ה 

Our Sages explain that when Hagar/Keturah was reintroduced to Avraham’s home, she who had been an outcast, despondent, destitute, felt the plight of the wayfarers who passed through Avraham’s tent, and she had a complete turnaround in her own life, focusing now on being a baalas chesed. 

 Avraham is the first person that the Torah mentions as having become widowed, who later married again. While we don’t know enough about his personality and his personal life, nor what triggered his remarriage, I think it is safe to make a few assumptions: 

• He mourned his wife, and wasn’t interested in marrying again until after Yitzchak was settled 

• After seeing Yitzchak’s ability to love his new wife, Avraham considered that he too had more love to give 

• He did not simply want to enjoy his retirement, but he wanted to continue to feel relevant and important, and knew that taking on new responsibilities was good for him 

• It is possible that he did not want to be alone 

The Torah tells us in the context of Adam in the Garden of Eden that God said לא טוב היות האדם לבדו. It is not good for the human to be alone. Since in that space the only human was Adam, some render it to mean “it is not good for man to be alone.” 

 This is one reason why community is such a valuable commodity. The fact is that there are some people who are alone, and having neighbors, friends, people who check in, or simply the ability to come to shul or to a local gathering place is “good.” 

Sometimes tragedy (widowhood) or circumstance (divorce) puts people in a position of being alone, and the verse also references that such a situation can be defined as לא טוב. This is not to say that people are unable or incapable of making the best of their circumstances. Some people manage well alone. Some people have a hard time of it. Some people put on a good face in public. Some people are open about their struggles. Some people never want to marry again. Some people desperately want to marry again. Some people entertain the possibility that marriage may happen again for them. [The truth is that some people who are in a bad marriage may also feel alone – this too is לא טוב.] 

The hope for everyone is that what the Torah defines as לא טוב can somehow be overcome through a person not feeling alone. Sometimes community creates such possibilities through activities, through regular shul-going, through getting involved to whatever degree possible, and through staying “on the map” of visibility. 

Yes, it is also on others to make whatever gestures of invitation and openness and helpfulness to do our part to see to it that those who are alone are not alone. And hopefully, no matter what circumstance one finds oneself in, one does not feel alone. 

 What Avraham demonstrated was what worked for him. He waited 3 years after the death of Sarah to put his house in order, to make sure Yitzchak was settled with a wife, before looking out for Avraham’s own loneliness to be addressed. 

 And if indeed Hagar was Keturah, her loneliness being filled by Avraham gave her the opportunity to take upon herself the ways of his household and transform herself into a model baalas chesed. 

I just finished re-reading “All For the Boss,” a wonderful book of Yaakov Yosef Herman, an influential balabus in the Lower East Side in the early 1900s (he and his wife moved to Palestine in 1939) who, like Avraham and Sarah, “cornered the market” on Hachnasas Orchim. His wife, his partner in hosting and feeding myriads of guests through their years in NYC and in Jerusalem, passed away around 9 years after they arrived in the Holy Land, shortly after the establishment of the State of Israel. He learned to cook, and continued to host in the manner he had before. And a few years later he married again, and his new wife stepped into the role of hostess for their many orchim, rising to the occasion herself based on her new reality of not being alone, and finding a situation that became very טוב. 

 While many in the Torah had passed at much riper old ages than Avraham, he is the first to be described as dying בְּשֵׂיבָ֥ה טוֹבָ֖ה זָקֵ֣ן וְשָׂבֵ֑עַ, at a good old age, old and satisfied, and maybe the word “good” is included there, because he chose to not fall prey to the circumstance of life being לא טוב and he made the effort to find the טוב he needed in his life, such that it was most noteworthy at the time of his death. 

May those who are alone be blessed to find טוב in friends, in family, in community, and if and when the opportunity arises, in and with a new spouse.

Righteousness, Justice of a People and Their Land

A lot of map points are referenced below. Several maps are presented at the end, to ease certain reference points.

Parshat Vayera 

 by Rabbi Billet 

 Countless times in the chapters of Avraham, God tells him and promises him that his children are to become a great nation. This nation will be clearly identifiable, to bring one example, by their innate need to practice righteousness and justice. God even declares that He knows Avraham will teach his children to conduct themselves in this manner (18:19), which is why He reveals to Avraham His intent to destroy the cities of Sodom, so Avraham can try to defend the wicked inhabitants of those cities. 

 Over the course of the parshas Noach, Lekh Lekha, Vayera and Chayei Sarah we learn about families, clans, and nations. We learn of where they settle. We learn of certain aspects of their identities. We also see populations move, looking for greener pastures, or better opportunities. In chapter 10, we learned that Yefet’s children settled in areas that look like Europe, including islands, presumably on the Mediterranean. Cham’s children settled mostly in Northern Africa and along the Eastern Mediterranean coast (Canaan – which is defined, east to west, as Sodom to Gaza), while Shem’s children settled around, though primarily east of, the Euphrates. 

 One of Cham’s descendants, Nimrod, seems to have initiated a move westward in the efforts to create the tower of Bavel. The failure of that enterprise contributed to further expansion westward from the earlier civilization essentially spawning out of Mesopotamia. Terach (a descendant of Shem) started a move westward as well, he settled in Charan, which is eastern Syria. His son, Avraham, continued the journey to Canaan, now at God's direction, where he eventually settled, and was ultimately promised the land by God – an inheritance that would take possession 400 years after his child Yitzchak would be born.

 What happens to Avraham’s other children? Yishmael is expelled from the house at Sarah’s behest and his mother turns to her roots, finding a wife for her son from Egypt. (21:21) He settles in the wilderness (how does one “settle” in the wilderness? Presumably he is a nomad) and he is described as being a bow-slinger. I’ll give the benefit of the doubt and assume this means he hunts animals. His district is Midbar Paran. The most common identification of Midbar Paran is in the Eastern Sinai, just west of the western border of modern day Israel’s Negev Desert. 

 At the end of Chayei Sarah, we are told that Avraham married Keturah (who some identify as Hagar, though this is debated), and that she had 6 sons. Whether Avraham was their father or raised her children is a debate. Seforno argues that he raised them, based on the evidence in Divrei HaYamim I 1:28 (Keturah’s children are mentioned there too in 1:32, and the verse doubles down that these are her children in 1:33, seeming to support Seforno’s view). He explains that the verse in Bereshit 25:2 which says “she birthed for him” doesn’t have to mean that he was the father, because the verse in Shmuel II 21:8 references the children that Michal gave birth to for Adriel, when Michal never had any children (see Shmuel II 6:23) but she raised her sister Merav’s children. 

 The ”Bnei Keturah” (as they are called in 25:4) are given gifts and sent off to live in the east – the most famous is Midian, and the land that is eventually known as Midian is western Saudi Arabia, south of Jordan. 

 Finally, the very end of Chayei Sarah tells us where the Bnei Yishmael lived – from Chavila until Shur, which is near Egypt (25:18). Midbar Shur is typically identified as being north of Midbar Paran, in the Eastern Sinai desert, northwards. Anyone who claims to be a descendant of Yishmael has a decent historical claim on the Eastern Sinai. Arabs who claim to be descendants of Avraham from Keturah have a decent claim on the lands of Arabia. 

 Unrelated to these groups of Avraham’s descendants, there is another clan known as the Phillistines (Pelishtim) who play a much more significant role in the books of the prophets. Philistia is along the Mediterranean coast, in the area primarily identified today as the Gaza Strip. Avraham encounters them twice in his experience – in chapters 20 and 21. First he lives in Gerar, which is identified as being between Kadesh and Shur (20:1). Kadesh is likely east of Paran, while Shur is slightly north of Paran, which means that Gerar has to be to the northeast of Shur – aka close to the Gaza Strip. Later on he is in a place called Beer ShAva (which may or not be the same place as Beer ShEva – that is a debated point). This would follow a natural departure of ways, with Avraham returning to the southern most part of the land promised to him, just shy of living in a wilderness. (Beer ShAva is just north of the Negev Desert.) There is no one today who claims ancestry from ancient Philistia. [For a related discussion as to the location and identification of Kadesh, see here]

 Going ahead a generation, we will meet Eisav, who will settle in Mt Seir and in the land eventually to be known as Edom. Those areas are north of Midian, to the south and east of the Dead Sea. There are some claims that descendants of Eisav crossed the Mediterranean and ended up in Rome. In either case, no one today identifies as being a descendant of Eisav. 

 In the history of the world there were People identified by nationhood, and there were lands that were occupied by those Peoples. We can identify where Babylonia was, but the people of Babylonia are gone. We can identify where Persia was, but the people of that empire are gone. We can identify areas controlled by Mamelukes and Byzantines, but no one identifies directly as being from that culture. Similarly, the great empires of Rome and Greece can be pointed to on a map, but there is no remnant of those cultures in identifiable people today. There are likely descendants of Ottomans today, as that empire fell apart a little over 100 years ago. And while there are surely descendants of Nazis today, only the most unabashed are proud of their family history, as most decent people would like that horrible stain to disappear from their heritage. 

 The people of Israel entered the land of Canaan at God’s instruction, in fulfillment of the promise to Avraham. All the nations who were there at the time are gone. No one in the world can claim Canaanite ancestry. While Israel became two kingdoms – Yisrael and Yehuda – they were still one nation of Bnei Yisrael. Much of the Kingdom of Yisrael was sent into exile and lost, which has led to fascinating theories and research in identifying peoples who seem to have certain Jewish practices, wondering if they are from the lost tribes [the Falasha and the Bene Menasseh, for example]. The Judean section of Israel was partly exiled, and these Israelites became known as Judeans (or Jews), or Yehudim (Yehud or Yehudi). Since the time of the Roman exile, there were always Jews in Israel. Almost seventy years after the destruction of the Temple (in the 130s), the Bar Kokhba rebellion took place. While a center of Jewish life produced the Babylonian Talmud in Babylonia, there were rabbis in Israel producing the Palestinian Talmud (in Hebrew, Talmud Yerushalmi), using the name the Romans had given to the land. Throughout the Talmudic period there were Jews in Israel. Continuing through the Middle Ages, there were as well: Yehuda HaLevi came to Israel around 1140 and found Jews there; Maimonides came to Israel and met Jews in the 1160s; Nachmanides came to Israel and met Jews in the 1260s; there was a significant settlement of Kabbalists in Tzfat in the 1400s-1600s (and beyond). And of course, the ancient dream of “Next Year in Yerushalayim” started to become a significant reality with the return of many Jews starting in the 1880s. From thousands of years of exile somehow there is still a People who claim Avraham as our ancestor. 

An authoritative book, written in the 1700s by Hadriani Relandi, "Palaestina ex Monumentis Veteribus Illustrata" claims that there were far more Jews than Arabs in the land when he traveled the land identifying 2500 locations and kept records of how many Jews (always the majority), Christians (a more significant minority), and Arabs (smallest population) were around. Gaza was 1/2 Jewish, 1/2 Christian. Nazareth was completely Christian. Tiberias and Tzfat had only Jews. Jerusalem was 2/3 Jewish, 1/3 Christian, and almost no Muslims. Only Shechem (Nablus) was a Muslim city. It is clear that the larger Arab population that eventually was to be found in the Holy Land emigrated to the land after the 1880s, when the Jews began to rebuild the land and economic opportunities began to present themselves. The book contained 1200 pages and was published in two volumes. 

 Mark Twain came to the Holy Land in the 1860s and reported that there were not a lot of people in the Holy Land. Surely there were inhabitants, but how long had they been there? What had they built? Why were they there? Where had they come from? Were these nomads who tried settling? Were these people who had come from Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Lebanon looking for a different life?

 Until 1948, Palestine referred to a land, never to a people. In fact, Palestine never referred to a people (who were simply displaced Arabs) until the founding of the PLO in the 1960s. It is a modern miracle that the wasteland that Twain saw is a country that blooms. It started to turn with the arrival of Jews , a couple of decades after Twain's visit, intent on reviving the land, an effort eventually enhanced by modernity. 

 As Avraham made peace with his neighbors in chapter 21, there could be peace in the land today. But peace can only work when there is a basic premise of accepting the other’s right to exist. Historically, this has always been difficult for one side.

 Tzfat (Safed) was attacked in 1517, 1660, 1838, 1929. There were riots in Hebron in 1929 and throughout the land in 1936-39. All of this pre-dates the modern State of Israel. Many have noted the offers of Statehood that have always been rejected by Arab leaders. 

 Everyone loves and sympathizes with dead Jews. What they don’t like is a Jew who doesn’t lie down and take it, who will no longer walk like sheep to slaughter. The Jew who fights back is a tough pill for some people in the world to swallow.

 Avraham’s mission was to model a life of Tzedakah and Mishpat. Righteousness includes allowing everyone to live in peace. Mishpat means that when people break laws and don’t allow for life to be lived in safety that such crimes need to be addressed, and the perpetrators need to be eradicated. That is what happened to the people of Sodom. 

 Calling the just court that carries out the law “murderers” is a diversionary tactic to not see crimes for what they are. To state the obvious, those who don’t commit crimes don’t need to answer for them. They are never at the mercy of a court which is carrying out the law, ridding the world of actual murderers.

 Moral people are sickened by crimes against humanity, and no decent person wants war. War is sometimes a necessary evil, but the goal of war (when a nation is attacked by an evil enemy) is to end hostilities forever, so there will be no more war. That is justice, the kind that opens the door for a world of righteousness to emerge.

Those who call for ceasefire, using humanitarian claims before the war is won, don't realize that war, by definition, is not humanitarian. Those who start a war are the ones responsible for its outcomes, and the only real way for a war to end is for the bad guys to surrender and to never start up again.

May God help that reality come about so those who truly want to live in peace can do so. The first step (which unbelievably needs to be stated after 75 years) is to accept Israel's existence, and its place as a Jewish State, as a reality. Accept its right be so. Give up hopes of taking it over (to recreate whatever theocracy or terrorist state that no one really wants), and make a commitment to make the best possible life for those who truly suffer - without wanting Jews to suffer.

THEN THERE WILL BE PEACE!

Lekh Lekha: Getting the Hint to Grow Our Nation Properly – With Tefillah!

 Lekh Lekha

This year, I referenced this article

https://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2019/11/avrahams-relationships-and-sarais-chamas.html

and just added the following to the end (here is the last paragraph from there, with an additional sentence in bold).

Of course some of this is conjecture, but it is clear to me that people grow in time, and relationships change, and hopefully evolve for the better. The first of our forefathers and foremothers are a great example of how at all stages, people ought to be in tune to each other, and whenever and as much as possible, ought to pray that their relationship should only be growing and improving, through their own efforts and through the help of God. Whichever relationship is better – אתו or עמו, that should be achieved as well.

Certainly getting angry at someone for doing your bidding is an inappropriate response. Believing very much in the power of prayer is a tremendous maylah – a great credit to Sarai for sensing what was truly needed. Who knows? Perhaps she offered Hagar to Avraham to get him to pray for Sarai. Maybe she was hoping he’d catch a hint. If that was the case, the hint was lost on Avraham, and the rest is history.

Things played out as they did, Hagar had a son named Yishmael, and Yishmael’s descendants are viewed today as being the Arab world. Not all Arabs hate Israel, though obviously those who do, hate ALL JEWS and have gone far beyond the pale in their hatred.

May we learn from Sarah that if there is disgrace upon anyone, it may be because we haven’t prayed hard enough to have the resolution we need and hope for. May God hear our prayers and may He bless us all with peace, in our homes, in our families, among our People, and in our Holy Land.  

Light Comes From Different Sources

Parshat Noach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

 One of the instructions given to Noach is to make a "Tzohar" for the Teivah (Ark). Rashi's explanation is based in the Midrash – that the Tzohar was either a shiny precious stone that gave light, or that it was, perhaps most obviously, a window.

Ibn Ezra strongly objects to the idea that some suggest that the Tzohar is another name for the opening of the Ark. He prefers the “window” approach (plus another which we’ll see shortly) 

 The argument supporting the two opinions recorded by Rashi are supported numerically by the Rosh and Baal Haturim who use either Talmudic numbers or their own ingenuity to suggest that depending how you write Tzohar – without or with a Vov – would numerically equal לאור האבן (to the light of a stone) or אור חלון (to the light of a window) respectively. 

 [[ROSH -- Tzohar (Without a Vov) = L'Or HaEven (295) (Sanhedrin 108b) 

BAAL HATURIM -- Or Chalon = Tzohar (with Vov) (301/302)]]

When the Midrash Aggadah describes in greater detail what Rashi summarized, it explains that God commanded him to bring precious/shiny stones that would light the Ark as if it is their (based on how צהר is related to צהרים/afternoon), because the Ark was otherwise dark.

 מדרש אגדה (בובר) בראשית פרשת נח פרק ו סימן טז 

 [טז] צהר תעשה לתיבה. צוהו הקדוש ברוך הוא שיכניס עמו מרגליות שתהא מאירה להם כצהרים, מפני שהיתה התיבה חשיכה: ד"א צהר תעשה. זה חלון שהיה פתוחה, ונח מביט ממנה מה שיעשה, ובימי גשמים שהם מ' יום היה צריך למרגלית, והחלון צריך לפתוח אחר מ' יום של גשמים:

Utilizing both interpretations the Midrash concludes about how the respective Tzohars were used. During the 40 days of rain, they used the stones for light, and after the rain stopped, they could open the window.

 The Pesikta further adds that the shining luster of the stones was more prominent in the nighttime – Rabbi Levi explains that when the stones were weaker (in their light giving capacity), Noach knew it was daytime. And when they were stronger, he knew it was night. 

 Where does one even find such a special stone? According to Targum Yonatan, Noach went to the Pishon River to find the right stone for his purposes. In other words, he followed a river that flows directly from Gan Eden. Not surprising that he should want such a connection, considering that his journey's goal was to revert back there somewhat, as he and his family were going to be starting the world anew post the flood. 

 A number of commentaries, including Ibn Ezra, Radak and Chizkuni, go in a different direction when it comes to defining the Tzohar. While everyone understands it to mean a "light" these three commentaries note the similarity between Tzohar (which comes from the term Tzoharayim meaning daylight) and Yitzhar – oil, used for providing light. 

 Radak puts it plainly and bluntly when he says, ובאמת הכין נח שמן לנר בהכינו כל צרכיו: "The truth is that Noach prepared oil for all his lighting needs" (the weather was not going to be light giving for a long time). 

Perhaps a message to be taken from these discussion surrounding the Tzohar is that there are different ways that illumination can come about.

A recent discussion in our synagogue addressed the rules surrounding candles on Yom Tov (holidays), and the reality that we simply don’t use candles for light anymore, due to our reliance on electricity, wasn’t lost on us. When we talk about light, we may be talking about natural light, such as from the sun, or physical light, such as whatever light we experience, whether in daylight or a lit up space, or artificial light, which could also be from bulbs – depending how dark a space is. 

 And we could be referring to an intangible kind of light, a symbolic kind of light, which counters the bad we sometimes refer to as “darkness.” Darkness can refer to the absence of light, or it can refer to a “headspace” a person is in whether depression, despair, or when simply confronting evil. Those that peddle in destruction are often referred to as those who peddle in darkness. 

Noach was facing a darkness. The world he knew was going to be destroyed, because people in his time peddled in darkness. They were uncaring, they were self-centered, they did not bring light to the world. Aside from the word used to describe their crimes – חמס – which is often translated as robbery, one need look no farther than the instruction given to them when they left the Ark, as recorded at the beginning of chapter 9. 

"You may eat of the animals and birds and fish of the world. However, the animal must be dead when you eat it. And you are not allowed to murder humans. Those who murder humans will be put to death by other humans (under the order of a court of law)." 

 To me, this implies that part of what defined the crime of חמס included those who were eating animals that were forbidden to humans to eat, and that for whatever reason murder was taking place with regularity, with no repercussion to murderers. 

 And so, as we once again contemplate Parshat Noach, we can challenge and ask ourselves what vision of humanity we champion? 

Do we champion the vision of Eden, of veganism, of idealism? Do we champion the vision of exile from Eden, in which man falls again and again, committing robbery, murder and eating forbidden foods, to the point that the world needs to be destroyed? Do we champion a world not focused on surviving, but focused on thriving through channeling the human-instinct-to-take-life in the direction of animals for the purposes of offerings and food? And of course through humanity having a certain code of ethics that punishes the murderers for taking away from others’ pursuit of happiness and ability to live a full life on this earth, a life guided by a simple societal handbook that puts in order a basic respect for humans to be able to live and serve God in His world that He gifted to us. (An ordered society taking the lives of actual murderers, people with blood on their hands, by consensus is not "murder" or "unlawful killing")

 Not much more needs to be said. We are in the final days before very important and difficult tasks will be undertaken – not in the court of law, but in the courtroom of humanity. Many lives are likely to be lost in a war that has at its core the question of Israel’s survival. 

 War by definition is brutal – there are no winners, especially when a media is on the front, calling every move into question. But those who murder and delight in it are not to be given a second chance. And all those who die as a result are all on the hands of those who began the fight to begin with, who ignored the Torah’s final warning against murder. 

May Hashem grant a swift victory to the IDF, may we see a return of captives. And may all of humanity be granted to see the Tzohar – the light – that emerge from the darkness, as a very hostile region comes to accept that the only true path forward is one in which weapons are put down, and everyone lives and lets live, in peace. 

Halevai the light will be so clear one day!