This Land is NOT your Land, This Land is MY Land

Parshat Toldot 

 by Rabbi Avi Billet 

 There are a number of three-word verses in the Torah. Some of them would seem to require no commentary, as only names are mentioned. See, for example, 25:14, when three of Yishmael’s children are listed, “Mishma, Duma, Masa.” 35:24 – “Rachel’s children: Yosef and Binyamin” (four Hebrew words). See also Shmot 1:2-4, when the 11 tribes who descended to Egypt are simply listed.

 Fascinatingly, some of the commentaries go off on lengthy expositions of either what to take from the verse or how to understand the three-word verse.

 Bereshit 46:23 is a great example: “And the children of Dan: Chushim.”

 Another classic is in Yaakov’s blessing to his sons, when he cries out, “I pray that God will help you” – “lishu’atkha kiviti Hashem” (49:18).

 In our parsha, we have a seemingly inconsequential verse alerting us to Yitzchak’s settling in the city of Gerar – “Vayeshev Yitzchak B’Gerar.” (26:6) The background to the verse is that Yitzchak seemed to follow his father’s footsteps in settling in Gerar on account of a famine. God affirmed for Yitzchak that the blessing bestowed upon Avraham would be transferred to Yitzchak in his father’s merit. And now he is settling in Gerar, about to use the same rouse that his parents used, declaring himself and his wife to be siblings in order to avoid being killed in anticipation of his wife being taken to King Avimelekh’s harem.

Aftermath of Har Nof Terrorist Attack

I received a tremendous amount of good feedback for this speech. And much encouragement to post it to this blog. While I certainly don't have answers, and I continue to mourn with klal yisrael, if anyone finds comfort from these words, that is a blessing. 

Toldos: A Time To Mourn, a Time to Live

          This has been a very difficult week. For all of us. There were more people attacked yesterday. Who knows what today will bring?

          Who would ever think that just going to shul, a normal procedure for many of us on a daily basis, could become an act that we might associate with a horrifying tragedy? (so many possible links...)

          We must all take, teach and spread an important language lesson.

          When Jews are murdered because they are Jews, we don’t record with “profound sorrow” their passing. We don’t mourn the “death” of the deceased. And we certainly don’t say ברוך דיין האמת.

          We record with “horrifying pain” their murder. We mourn for the “evil crime perpetrated” against the murdered  and against all of כלל ישראל – we cry with their families, with 25 orphans, with tens of grandchildren who no longer have grandfathers, with 4 unexpectant widows. And with all of אחינו בני ישראל. And instead of Blessing the Dayan HaEmet, the true judge, we cry out HASHEM YINKOM DAMAM. May GOD AVENGE THEIR BLOOD!! That their murderers are dead is fitting. But their damage is done. And most sadly, it cannot be undone.

          I have a very hard time swallowing the idea that these murders are brought about by a דיין האמת. I believe terrorists have free will, and they behave independent of the Will of the דיין האמת. It’s a struggle to consider that life and death are written on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur – is this really what God had in mind?

          We also mourn for a police officer – Zidan Sayif. Not a Jew. But an Israeli hero nonetheless. Who gave his life to save his fellow Israelis. Rav Ovadiah Yosef, Z”L in one of his later teshuvos – when asked if a prayer could be said in a synagogue for a Druze soldier who was killed in the line of duty in defense of the State of Israel – wrote the following:

          The Druze believe in one God. They are not idolators. They believe in the concept of the soul. They enlist in the IDF, and put their lives on the line to protect the citizens of Israel. They abide by the 7 Noachide laws. They are included in the righteous gentiles of the world. ABSOLUTELY PRAY FOR THEM.

          As one headline I saw said, “Israel’s latest hero isn’t even Jewish.”

          So let us save the blessings for the Dayan HaEmet for when He in His own ways ends a life. But when Jews are murdered, we MUST MUST MUST CALL EVIL FOR WHAT IT IS, AND DEMAND OF GOD TO ENACT VENGEANCE AGAINST MURDERERS and those who send them to perform their despicable acts. Just as we say for victims of the Holocaust, Hashem Yinkom Damam, and we say Y’mach Sh’mam V’Zichram about their murderers, the same appelations apply to victims of terrorist aggression and those who perpetrate the same. Who “excuse” their barbaric behavior as a “natural response to the occupation.” There is nothing natural about the use of meat cleavers and machetes. Any human being who excuses this kind of behavior has no credibility and no shred of humanity.

          My sister shared with me a note written by the widows of (Hashem Yinkom Damam) Rabbis Kalman Levine, Moshe Twersky, Aryeh Kopinsky, Mr. Avraham Goldberg,  imploring ALL OF ACHEINU BNEI YISRAEL to dedicate this Shabbos, Parshas Toldos, as a יום של אהבת חינם. A Day Of Baseless Love for our Fellow Jews. Charging us to avoid senseless quibbles, speaking lashon hara and rechilus – gossip and slander. Speaking ill of one another. I am sure this is something we can all do, as they put it – as an עילוי נשמת the souls of their murdered husbands, fathers, grandfathers.

          It shouldn’t take tragedy or a response to tragedy for us ALL to commit to this. But at least for today, let us honor this request.

          In our parsha today we read of two instances where someone was fearful for his life – each responded to the concern in a different way.

          Yitzchak was worried that if people found out he was married that they would kill him and take his wife as the prize.

          Rivkah was worried that Eisav would make good on his promise to kill Yaakov after having lost his intended bracha through seeming deception.

          Yitzchak lived amongst his enemies after discovering the threat to his life, and eventually moved to a town not too far away. Yaakov chose to run away, to let time heal the wounds, so that when he would eventually return, bygones would be bygones.

          The eventual confrontation, in both cases, went surprisingly well.

          In our parsha, after Yitzchak is first given asylum, then thrown out of Gerar because of his financial success, Avimelekh finally turns to Yitzchak to make peace. After Yitzchak counters “WHY ARE YOU HERE – YOU HATE ME?” Avimelekh explains his reasoning because, as he puts it, רָאוֹ רָאִינוּ כִּי־הָיָה יְקֹוָק עִמָּךְ. We see God is with you.

          In Parshas Vayishlach, if you ignore the Midrash for a moment, we see that Eisav is more than cordial at his reunion with Yaakov. He even appears to be magnanimous – telling Yaakov he doesn’t need the gifts Yaakov gave him, inviting Yaakov to live with him in Seir. It’s an incredible twist from what we’d expect.

          What happened? Why would these sworn enemies make peace? Did they get religion? Avimelekh mentions God. Eisav says יש לי רב – which probably doesn’t really mean “I got me a rabbi.”

          I think that for both of these men, TIME gave them the element of perspective. Avimelekh was able to see that fighting with Yitzchak was not to his benefit. If the Jew was successful financially and would only be contributing to his nation’s economy, maybe it wasn’t the best idea to expel him from [Spain, Portugal, England, Germany, Palestine, Israel...] Gerar.

         

          Eisav took an honest assessment of his assets 20 years after Yaakov left and saw he had a significant family, his nation was well under way in its formation, and he had actually done well financially. He owed his success to the blessing he received, and of course, to his own prowess, strength and talents, which were best served at creating and building, rather than in complaining and destroying.

          The Jews in Israel are not going to move to an outskirt city – like Yitzchak did in moving to Nachal Gerar. They’re not going to leave the country, as Yaakov did in fleeing to Charan. The recognition of ראו ראינו כי היה ה עמך, and that יש לי רב have to be reached by the Arabs in the land. I believe that the policies of the State of Israel reflect that they recognize these truths about the Arabs. The Arabs aren’t going anywhere, and their religion (when practiced peacefully) is respected. But it takes two to tango. And we continue to wait for TIME to help them come around to the reality that our People are not going anywhere, and that Judaism is an honorable and peaceful religion, that Jews don’t resort to violence to make a point.

          But we will respond to provocative violence with force, because we must. As Golda Meir once put it - "I understand the Arabs wanting to wipe us out, but do they really expect us to cooperate?"

          Koheles says לכל זמן. And I think we can say that only time will tell what will be. Will the events in Har Nof be a turning point in terms of how Israel views its security concerns? Will the world recognize that they who have supported the Palestinians are on the wrong side – because this is what they are supporting?

          When CNN and the BBC can be called out over and over and over for their biased reporting on this story – equating the death of the murderers by police with the death of theirvictims, declaring the attack having taken place in a mosque, suggesting all Israelis (including babies) are like combat soldiers worthy of being targetedby terrorists in their struggle, telling Naftali Bennett that holding up apicture of a murdered Jew is offensive while they posted pictures – mostlystaged, fake, or lifted from Syrian conflicts – of dead Arabs throughout the summer – when normal media calls them out for their buffoonery and malice, this is an incredible turn. Will it be a turning point? For CNN – the Chamas News Network – probably not. But good people are taking notice.

          Most importantly, will the decent people in the Arab world take the perspective of the Druze – embrace their citizenship in Israel, be proud of their country, denounce terrorism, change their rhetoric, recognize that if they can only see what Avimelekh saw – that the Jews have lowered their infant mortality rate, have raised their life expectancy age, have improved their medical care, have brought great blessing to the Land, have made a wasteland much more than just inhabitable, have provided a free society where they can live, raise families, practice their faith and fulfill a human purpose on Earth of being a contributing member of society – will they oust the evil from within them?

          Only time will tell.

          While people who are hated are discussed in theoretical cases throughout the Torah, there are three individuals who are specifically hated using the word שנאה: Yitzchak is hated by Avimelekh. Leah feels hated as a wife. And Yosef is hated by his brothers. Before the sun sets on the book of Bereshis, all of these hatreds are resolved. Peace with Avimelekh is achieved. Yaakov has seven children with Leah and is buried with her. Yosef and his brothers reconcile.

          Hatred can lead to peace. It is possible.

          My sister who lives in Israel shared with me a nice story that perhaps is a demonstration of this: Someone she knows shared a tidbit from her morning on Thursday, when she was in a bakery in Jerusalem and noticed she was standing behind Natan Sharansky. She told him she had just cited from his book this week in a class she was teaching on Sefer Tehillim, sharing his inspiring story of how he had kept a tiny book of Tehillim with him at all times, even when he had to struggle with the authorities to get it back. At that point, Sharansky smiled, reached into his shirt pocket and pulled out a tiny (palm-sized) tattered book of Tehillim. Stunned, she asked him “Do you carry that wherever you go?” Sharansky didn’t even pause and he replied “Actually, it carries me!” We know his story. For him, hatred turned to peace when he was given his freedom and he was able to emigrate.

          My father went to Israel for half a day to make shiva visits to the four families in Har Nof. His report to his children written after his visits, which he sent to us via email, began: “I visited all four families. They each received me very nicely. These are very religious people who have a lot of trust and faith in God. Therefore they have accepted God's judgment with love.”

          Their letter expresses – through very broken hearts – this love. Love of God, and love of Am Yisrael. If Sharansky is right, that his Tehillim continue to carry him, then let us tap into that truth. If we can honor the request of these incredible families and love and cherish one another, and take their model as an example of how to embrace God even in the most troubling and challenging of times, we will be doing our part to bring peace to the world. And in that merit, may the blessing achieved for Yitzchak and Yaakov in their conflicts with Avimelekh and Eisav be heaped upon all of us when the Goeil Tzedek helps God fulfill the prayer of ופרוש עלינו סכת שלומיך as the understanding of these tragedies becomes clear, and the ultimate peace for our People throughout the world is achieved.

Make Peace? But You HATE Me!

I usually write this at the beginning of the week, by Sunday night. So when events transpire during the week, I don't always get a chance to make it relevant (unless it's during an ongoing war). After the events of this past Tuesday, when 4 Jews and a Druze policeman were murdered by terrorists in a synagogue in Har Nof (and others were injured), this "dvar Torah" became even more relevant than I intended. There are no words of consolation to offer to the bereaved families. Am Yisrael cries and mourns with you.

Parshat Toldot

As the main character in the story of the book of Bereshit, our forefather Yitzchak gets all of one chapter before the tale switches its focus to Yaakov. Towards the end of chapter 26, Yitzchak is approached by Avimelekh, King of Gerar, with whom most of the prior encounters of the chapter resembled proverbial head-butts, and he is offered a peace treaty.

                

Yitzchak’s response is classic: “Why have you come to me? You hate me! You sent me out of [your land]?!” (26:27)

                

Unfazed by the bold accusation and criticism, Avimelekh and co. respond, “We have surely seen that God is with you, so we declare that an agreement should exist between us – between us and you – and we’ll forge a covenant with you, that just as we did not touch you, you will do no harm to us. We did only good to you and [we] let you leave in peace.” (26:28-29)

                

If only peace with the enemy were so easy to come by!

                

Some of the midrashim on these verses point to how Yitzchak used a tactic employed by his father, of straight unadulterated criticism. This kind of argument – pointing out the flaws without holding back – brings an honest second party to realize its ills, embrace their flaws, and come to appreciate, and even love the accusing party. In the case of Avraham, and now at least a half century later with Yitzchak, the method brings about an agreement to cease hostilities and to truly live in peace at least until death of either covenant-maker breaks the bond of agreement.

                

The Or HaChaim notes that Yitzchak was compelled to say what he said, not because he had any objection to making peace with them. On the contrary – Yitzchak was intent on living up to the covenant that had been made with his father. The reason why Yitzchak was surprised into essentially declaring “Why are you here?” is because they’ve given every indication until now that his success is what caused them to break any prior agreement.

                

In Yitzchak’s view, the hatred they’ve harbored towards him was on account of their jealousy. Or HaChaim notes what is “known” – that any hatred that is based on some reality dissipates only when that reality changes, except for the hatred that comes from jealousy. Hatred from jealousy doesn’t drop unless there is a complete overhaul in the perception of what causes the jealousy.

                

Yitzchak’s critique is biting, but as Rabbenu Bachaye points out, it opens the door for him to receive a point by point rebuttal, which he does accept in Avimelekh’s response. And, after the fact, we have no reason to suggest the peace made in this time was not honored until the Israelites went down to Egypt, if not later! (Mechilta on Beshalach suggests one of the reasons the Israelites did not return to the land (when leaving Egypt) through the land of the Pelishtim is because of this treaty!)

                

We pray for a time when the other nation within the Land, within the borders of the Land promised to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, can follow the model of Avimelekh. It is ok to be jealous of the success of the family of Yitzchak. It is even ok to have animosity due to that success. But there has to come a point in time when all the cards are put on the table and the realization hits that the best move is to just make peace with the descendants of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov.

                

Why? Because the other nation within those borders will come to the realization of “we see that God is with you,” and we want to honor any kind of treaty from the past that is mutually beneficial to all – that you (the Jews) can have the peace that you want and we (the other nations in the land) can benefit from the success and the bounty that you’ve brought to this land.

                

It’s a utopian vision for peace. But didn’t someone once say something like, “If you will it, it doesn’t have to be a dream?”

Being a Better Parent Than...?

Parshat Toldot

by Rabbi Avi Billet

            

The Torah describes one interaction between Avraham and Yishmael (his banishment in chapter 21), one interaction between Avraham and Yitzchak (the "Akedah" of chapter 22), and one interaction between Yitzchak and his sons in the blessing episode of chapters 27-28.     

            

From an objective perspective, judging only the human element without the divine instructions to listen to Sarah and to take Yitzchak to a mountain, Avraham's parenting skills don't pass muster.

            

Perhaps Yitzchak decided "When I am a parent, I will do things differently. I will not alienate my children. I will not do things that will cause them to resent me later in life." When any child becomes a parent, the opportunity to "prove" or live out such a notion comes when similar circumstances present themselves and the "enlightened" parent can make different parenting choices from those s/he witnessed or experienced as a child.

            

The parallels in the stories are too many to ignore.

            

In both circumstances we have: an elderly father, an older and a younger son, the latter being overly protected by his mother from the older one taking his inheritance, instruction for marriage to take place with people of Aram (or the family living there), references to hunting, a blessing for the older son to be a great nation.

            

The contrasts of parenting choices are notable as well.

            

Yitzchak modeled an age for marriage – and Eisav followed it, getting married at age 40. But Yitzchak did not instruct whom to marry – giving freedom of choice – which came back to bite him (26:34-35).

            

Yitzchak speaks with his older son. Instead of sending him out of his life, he sends him on a mission, to give him merits which will help him earn his blessing.

Whereas when he was the son Yitzchak initiated the only conversation with his father the Torah records, as a father he engages his son in conversation ("My Father," "Here I am, my son" becomes "My son," "Here I am").

Unlike at the Akedah when Avraham brought things that God did not tell him to take (knife, wood, fire), Yitzchak tells Eisav exactly what to take for his mission.

Instead of sending him out with food which may run out, as Avraham did to Yishmael, Yitzchak instructs Eisav to prepare and bring back food.

Eisav, the older son, does not need to see his mother abandon him at a distance of an arrow-shot, a memory which may have contributed to Yishmael's picking up the bow professionally (21:16,20). Yitzchak encourages Eisav's bow-wielding activities (27:3)

            

Hagar is shown the water which will help Yishmael survive, and he is saved because of his sincere prayer. Eisav cries out in a most heartfelt manner over the loss of the blessing taken by Yaakov, and he receives the blessing of "You will live by your sword."

            

Unlike in Yitzchak's case, where he never left home and did nothing to procure a wife for himself, it is decided that the younger son will be sent away for the time being, where he will actively pursue a mate.

            

Without Avraham's instruction, Yishmael marries an Egyptian (just as Avraham did in taking Hagar), avoiding the Canaanite women. Only after hearing Yitzchak tell Yaakov the qualities of a proper shidduch does Eisav (in a moment of irony closing the family circle) take the daughter of Yishmael as a wife.

             

The blessings given to Yaakov and Eisav are physical blessings, quite similar, and are unrelated to the blessing of Avraham, which it seems Yitzchak always intended to give to Yaakov.

Ironically, even Yitzchak's best laid plans backfire. When Yaakov enters, he too reproduces the conversation Yitzchak had with his father. "My father," "Hineni, who are you, my son?" "I am Eisav your first born, I've done as you ask, please rise to eat so you may bless me." "So fast?" "God helped me." "Let me feel you – are you really Eisav?... The voice is the voice of Yaakov, but the hands are Eisav's hands."

In the big picture, Yitzchak chooses to: stay out of shidduch advice until zero hour (failing with Eisav), be more sensitive to his older child than Avraham was to his (fail because Yaakov received the blessing), encourage the not-so-Jewish profession of hunting (fail - at least according to Chazal), try to create a system of equality between brothers (fail). While Yishmael's prayer was answered with a spring of water to help his survival, Eisav cried out (no prayer), and his father blessed him with survival-by-the-sword (is that the best "survival" we can hope for?). And Yitzchak plays favorites as well, giving the blessing of Avraham to Yaakov alone.

And so it seems even the best laid plans are not foolproof. And as much as people might think they'll be better parents than theirs' were, the fact is that each person has a unique personality, unique character traits, and does things differently. In some ways, we always hope we are improving on what was given to us. But hopefully we still respect our parents even though we don't agree with all their parenting choices. And while we hope we are doing a better job as well, we too are not perfect. And when our kids grow up (or if they've grown up) and they show us our imperfections, hopefully we'll stifle our urge to speak when we notice theirs as well.

Trial and error. Succeed and fail. Learn from mistakes, and hopefully do better next time.

Beer ShEva or Beer ShAva? Symbolic or Irrelevant?

Parshat Toldot

by Rabbi Avi Billet

This may seem trivial. And to be honest, I may be completely wrong. But I can't help thinking there's something deeper behind the names Avraham and Yitzchak seem to give to the city where they each forge a treaty with Avimelekh.

Before we proceed with the evidence, we begin with a disclaimer: I am aware that there are words whose vowels change when they land on the cantillation marks of "Etnachta" and "Sof Pasuk." The change usually involves a segol (the "eh" sound) or a patach (the "ah" sound) becoming a kamatz (more like an "uh" sound). Names, such as "Yefet/Yafet" and "Peleg/Paleg" are prime examples of the former, while Canaan and Mitzrayim (Egypt) are classics in the latter category.

In Chapter 21:28-31, Avraham gave 7 sheep to Avimelekh in exchange for peace (don't we wish it were that easy today?), then he called the name of the place "Beer ShAva, because they both swore (nish'b'oo) to one another." Note, of course, that the word "Shava" has an "Etnachta" mark under it. But was the city named for the seven sheep, or for the swear? If the former, it should be Beer Sheva (7). But if it's for the swear, it should be Beer Shava (on account of the swear).

It seems the jury is out on this one. Targum Yonatan thinks the city was named for the seven sheep. The Malbim and Alshikh say it was named for the swear (Alshikh even raises this discussion!). And Radak thinks both events were included in the city's name calculation.

In Yitzchak's case, Avimelekh similarly makes an agreement with Yitzchak, which they swear to maintain (26:31). After Yitzchak sends Avimelekh and Fichol on their merry way, Yitzchak's servants inform him that they've found a well – from all indications, it is the seventh well in Yitzchak's arsenal.

They call the well "Shivah..." (26:33) Rashi claims the well is thus named because of the swear. Seforno claims the well is thus named because it is the seventh well. Chizkuni argues that the well was named for the city they were in – the one that had been named by Avraham.

The verse continues, "Therefore the name of the city is Beer Sheva until this day." (26:33) Is it named for the name of the well, or the fact that there are seven wells? Or is it named for the swear? Whether it is called Beer Sheva for the name of the well or in honor of seven wells seems to be irrelevant. The city is given a name which includes the number seven: "Beer Sheva."

Meshekh Hokhmah argues most sensibly that Avimelekh broke his treaty with Avraham when he threw Yitzchak out of Gerar. Therefore, one of the reasons posited for why Yitzchak has to name the city Beer Sheva is to follow his father's footsteps, on account of the new treaty. The difference is that Avraham never named the city Beer Sheva – only Beer Shava.

It could be that the names Avraham and Yitzchak gave to the city (or cities) were the same, and that coincidence has Avraham's city always having an Etnachta or Sof Pasuk under it when it appears in the Torah, so it appears as Beer Shava.

On the other hand, it is interesting to note that after Yitzchak names the city, the only other person in the Torah connected with Beer Shava is Yaakov – the only person in the Torah that bears two identifying names at the same time.

Is there significance to this connection?

Chizkuni in 21:31 says it wasn't called "Beer Sheva" until Yitzchak's days, while Rashbam (26:33) argues that there are two separate cities with the same name. [In the Neviim books, the phrase "From Dan to Beer Sheva/Shava," identifying the Northern and Southern borders of tribal Israel, seems to interchange Sheva and Shava freely.]

The Chizkuni's notion is very compelling in light of the comparison to the notion of Yaakov's name change. Yaakov had his name changed to Israel later in life, and yet he never lost his original identity.

Whatever Yitzchak's reason for calling the city Beer Sheva, the fact is that his experience mimicked his father's but was not exactly the same. That a city's name could be inspired by two different promises (one broken), and different variations on the number seven (a significant number in the Torah), stands to reason that the city itself will stand for different things to different people.

The subtlety might otherwise only be noticed by the postal service (though in Israel, they don't usually vowelize their words, so it's a non issue). Like Yaakov, however, two names represent a local and national identity. One was for the times and reasons our forefathers lived there, and the other is as a symbol of the eternal borders of the homeland of our people – a symbol of the everlasting connection of our people to the heartland of Israel.  

Verbs, Verbs Everywhere

 Parshat Toldot

by Rabbi Avi Billet

There are two schools of thought regarding Eisav. Jews who study Torah regularly have a negative view of Eisav implanted in our brains from a very early age, as taught to us from the many teachings of the rabbis, midrash, Talmud, and even the works of the prophets.

The other perspective views Eisav as a victim: a victim of circumstance, of his brother's trickery, and of a family unit who misunderstood him.
Certainly the Torah itself does not paint Eisav in terrible terms. Most of the "bad" things he does can easily be explained away, if not justified.

Hakol kol Yaakov - said by Whom?

This appears in this week's Jewish Star (feel free to comment there or here!)

Redefining Ambiguities
Parshat Toldot
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Issue of November 20, 2009/ 3 Cheshvan 5770

One of the fun exercises I like to employ when studying Chumash is to attribute vague or ambiguous statements to the less obvious person.

Let us reread two familiar verses in Chapter 27. We’ll follow them with a series of questions to provoke the imagination.

22 Yaakov came closer to his father Yitzchak, and he touched him. He said, ‘The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esav.’ 23 He did not recognize him because his hands were like Esav his brother’s — hairy — and he blessed him.

While most people will ascribe hard-set identities to the vague pronouns presented, what would the verses look like if we flipped things around? Who touched whom? Who said the words of the well-known statement describing Yaakov’s voice and Esav’s hands? Finally, who blessed whom before Yitzchak gave the true blessing in verses 28 and 29?

Yitzchak wanted to feel Yaakov — he said so in verse 21. But if Yitzchak is laying in a bed, as we imagine, who is making the effort to feel? Is Yaakov putting himself in position for Yitzchak to touch him, or is it Yitzchak’s action? This is a question of semantics; it doesn’t really matter.

Ramban and others say Yaakov was much less concerned about his voice being a giveaway than his hands, either because the twins sounded alike or because Yaakov could disguise his voice. Chizkuni suggests that people’s voices do not always sound the same (you could be hoarse, have a cold, wake up on the wrong side of the bed, etc.)

With this in mind, if Yitzchak describes the voice and the hands, we are left to ponder what he meant. Commentaries suggest a whole slew of ideas.

Curiosity — “It’s odd that Esav is talking this way, but whatever.”
Exasperation or confusion — Yitzchak was trying to comprehend the oxymoron in front of him, a person who speaks the way Yaakov speaks, yet who clearly fills Esav’s body.
A confirmation — Esav had arranged with Yitzchak that he would use Yaakov’s voice when he returned, just in case Yaakov tried to steal the blessings in his absence by using Esav’s voice. In this way, Yitzchak was affirming the test he was supposed to perform. (Ohev Yisrael and Beit Halevi)
A different kind of test – Yitzchak was using his senses to test the identity of the person. His taste, touch and smell all indicated Esav, while the voice indicated Yaakov. 3 out of 4 are good odds. (Toldot Yitzchak)

But what if Yaakov made the statement? As the Torah does leave it vague, the possibility — remote as it may be — remains. And if it was Yaakov, we can now ponder what he may have meant.

Patronizing — I know the voice is Yaakov’s, but look at the hands!
Clever — This is what you were expecting: Yaakov’s voice and Esav’s hands. (based on Beit Halevi)
Meek — The voice is Yaakov’s because I (in my role as Esav) am having “a moment.” I am feeling spiritual right now and have decided to speak in a different way.
Convincing — Don’t pay attention to voice or the things I am saying. Voice is the strength of Yaakov. But my (Esav’s) strength is the hands. And the hands prepared and brought you the food you asked for.

The vague blessing at the end of verse 23 can also have gone either way. Whether Yitzchak was giving a cursory blessing to Yaakov for having brought the food, or Yaakov was blessing Yitzchak for going along with the ruse thus far, we see two people challenged by the circumstances they’ve been put to, who relate to each other in a cautious yet respectful way.

When Rivka told Yaakov in 27:13 that any penalties would be on her shoulders, she gave Yaakov what football fans would call a “free play.” He could essentially do whatever he wanted or felt he needed to do in order to receive the blessings from his father.

If Yaakov said the “famous phrase” he teaches us how there are times we need to be our own best advocates. As long as we follow the rules laid out for us (in Yaakov’s case the rule was his mother’s instruction, “You are pretending to be Esav”), we are to make the best effort to achieve our desired outcome.

Married With Children - Sunday Morning at Temple Solel

This morning, I participated in a program for the religious school parents who brought their children to Temple Solel's Sunday morning program. Thanks to Rabbi Kurtz-Lendner for organizing the program, and of course for the introduction and for his participation.

Our topic was "Married With Children" - though we left Al Bundy and his machinations out of the equation.

Instead, our focus was on lessons to be learned from our forefathers and mothers, in the Torah portions of yesterday (Chayei Sarah) and this coming Shabbat (Toldot).

With a merging of drama and discussion, we focused on five points to be learned from the ways in which Abraham, Isaac and Rebekah raised their children.

1. Abraham makes a concerted effort to help his son find a spouse.

While most of us do not experience parental involvement in the choosing of our mate, as parents we can be involved in the process leading up to important life decisions our children make.

2. Rebekah recognizes the different nature of each child

From the time she was pregnant with her twins, she knew each one was different. Even twins can be dramatically different from each other. It is important to recognize the differences and never to assume that just because they are being raised in the same home that the same methods will work for both (or all) of them. And, of course, to relate to each child in a different way, in a way suitable to the needs of the individual child.

We compared this to the Cain and Abel story (interestingly, Esav is a farmer and Jacob is a shepherd, which are the same professions as Cain and Abel respectively). Cain and Abel each brought an offering to God: Abel's was accepted and Cain's was rejected. Abel had brought the choice of his flock, while Cain had brought secondary items.

It was not that God compared Cain's secondary offering to Abel's choice offering. Cain was compared against himself, and what he could have brought had he only cared more.

Children should never be compared to one another. They should only be measured against their own potential.

3. Isaac and Rebekah parent differently - and love their children differently

The Torah tells us that Isaac loved Esav because of the 'food he put in his mouth,' while Rebekah simply 'loved Jacob' - with no reason attached.

While a parent may "prefer" one child over another - and it also may depend on the day - it is never a good idea to express this to children. There are no favorites.

Additionally, love must be unconditional. The moment Isaac receives food from the diguised Jacob, he blesses Jacob, because he loves the bearer of food not for who he is but for what he does.

4. Isaac and Rebekah share a vision of what is best for their child

Recognizing the danger Jacob is in due to the violent tendencies of Esav (and his self-admitted plan to kill Jacob), the two parents discuss and conclude that Jacob's best bet is to go to her brother's home where he can continue his life. They know his presence will lead, minimally, to discomfort in the home, and maximally to his death. Together they come up with a plan that will work for everyone - though the amount of time he stays away (22 years) is not anticipated.

5. Subliminal Messages

One thing Esav did learn from his father is to marry at age 40. The problem is that Abraham establishd a rule for the family that the men marry women from his hometown - Charan - and not from the women of Canaan.

Esav's wives were Hittite women, and they were a tremendous source of anguish to his parents

However, when he heard that his parents did not approve of such marriages, he immediately went and married his first cousing, the daughter of Yishmael.

Sometimes a subliminal or subversive message can get the point a cross in a clearer way, such that the child gets the message without feeling the need to reject or revolt against what is being said and/or modeled in the home.

Our discussion

We had a lovely discussion between us and focused on the need to not only study, but demonstrate and explain to our children that they are not the only ones attending classes and furthering their Jewish experience and Jewish education.

This is the first ingredient in assuring Jewish continuity: creating a culture of continued learning, as we learn lessons from our ancient texts, as they speak to us in each generation.