Fighting Divides, Peace Unites

Thoughts and prayers go out for the safe return of Eyal Yifrach, Naftali Frankel, and Gilad Shaar to their families. ה ישמור צאתם ובואם מעתה ועד עולם - ה' ישמרם מכל רע

Parshat Korach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The Kozhnitzer Maggid was known to be a pursuer of peace.

            

It happened that a terrible fight broke out amongst the Jews living in a city close to Kozhnitz, which caused some kind of “breakaway” in the community .

            

The Maggid gathered the leaders of the rabble-rousers, the hotheads of one of the fighting groups, and told them the following:

            

“There are three cardinal sins in the Torah – such as idolatry, murder, etc… The Torah spells out the devastating punishments for these sins.  But there is never a warning in the Torah to separate ourselves from those who commit these terrible sins.

            

“Only one time do we find a warning in the Torah to, ‘Separate from this group of people,’ and that is specifically when it comes to the story of Korach and his congregation.

            

“All they wanted to do, as Onkelos translates, is to make a fight, to stoke the coals of machlokes.

            

“People who want to foment machlokes (fights) in the community – from them we are warned and obligated to separate.”

            

In this past week, since the kidnapping of three teenagers in Israel, we have seen a unity in the Jewish community that has surpassed any reasons we may otherwise have for disagreeing with one another. This is a beautiful thing.

            

What is sad, however, is that it takes such a troubling episode to unify the Jewish people. This has happened before. In more recent history, the captivity of Gilad Shalit, the kidnapping of Nachshon Wachsman, and a hundred years ago, through the blood libel tales surrounding the personalities of Mendel Beilis and Leo Frank.

            

While the Jewish people as a whole may understand God differently and view Torah and/or observance differently from one another, Jewish Peoplehood is one thing that we cannot afford to break apart on account of fights.

            

The OU’s recent Jewish Action magazine had a number of articles responding to the Pew Research Center’s recent survey of Jewish Americans. One of the themes raised by a number of the contributors is that the Orthodox community – while it has a remarkably high in-marriage and retention rate – hasn’t done enough for Jews of other denominations. The synagogue is too intimidating and not inviting enough to those who are not “in the know.”

            

The “kiruv world” has its merits, as it reaches, in some cases, the unaffiliated and the marginally affiliated. But the rest of us have a lot of work to do to spread positive feelings about our faith and our peoplehood, as well as about Torah and inclusivity.

            

Rabbi Efrem Goldberg quoted Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein who wrote in Tradition of Spring 1982, ”Can anyone responsibly state that it is better for a marginal Jew in Dallas or in Dubuque to lose his religious identity altogether, rather than drive to his temple?”

            

The Kozhnitzer Maggid would explain that it is better to have peace that is not for-the-sake-of heaven (a cold peace) than a machlokes-lshem-shamayim (a fight for the sake of heaven – i.e. for the honor of God). If people would just extend a hand of unity and peace, the Maggid would explain, the hands would join together and reach the Heavenly Throne.

            

Let us fight against the appeal of the Korachs who will fight tooth and nail for every detail of what they stand for in order to disenfranchise Jews who view things differently. By all means we need to know what we stand for and we must have standards and lines we don’t cross. But we must also have lines we do cross and barriers that need not be so high, so that we can engage with our Jewish brothers and sisters in a manner that promotes peace in our ranks, not just in troubling times or in times of challenge, but when things are going well as well.

            

We wish, hope, and most importantly pray for a positive outcome from the evil kidnapping which took place in Israel. May God bless the IDF, the incredible families that are experiencing what no family should ever have to endure, and of course the boys themselves – Gilad, Eyal and Naftali, that the IDF should meet with success and the families should be reunited in safety and peace.

            

And may the nation of the Jewish people find the strength to be united as one at all times as we learn the ultimate lesson from Korach. Fighting divides a people, and Peace unites a people. Amen.

                

When In An Argument...

In the parsha, the forefather in question is named Avram until his name change at his circumcision. Following the adjudication of Berachot 13a, he is referred to as "Avraham" in this article.

Parshat Lekh Lekha

The King of Egypt discovers the woman he has brought into his chambers is married to a different man, and he makes all kinds of accusations. "What have you done to me? Why didn't you tell me she is your wife? Why did you say she is your sister, leading me to take her as a wife? Now – take your wife and go!" Paraoh then commanded and sent him and his wife out of the land. (12:18-20)

            

Avraham's response to this is silence. Either he is not given a chance to respond, or perhaps more likely, he recognized that responding, whether truthfully or in anger, would go nowhere. Avraham knew that having the last word was not only unnecessary, but were it be the wrong word, it may come back to bite him. After all, he did come to Egypt looking for help. He should be grateful he is going free (with many gifts!) with merely a tongue lashing.

            

The king of Sodom arrogantly tells Avraham, who has just saved him and his people at tremendous peril and self sacrifice, that Avraham should give him the POWs as he gives Avraham permission to keep the booty that is rightfully Avraham's.

Avraham does have the last word as he tells the king that he does not intend to keep anything beyond what his men have already eaten. Sometimes you need to give the swift kick and end the conversation. Especially since the gratitude should have come in the other direction – from King of Sodom towards Avraham. (14:17-24)

            

In both cases, Avraham does not have nor does he intend to pursue a longer term relationship with these kings. Though the reason for each encounter likely contributes to how Avraham chooses to deal with the person in question.

Let us look, however, at the two arguments Avraham has with people for whom he does care deeply.

          
When Avraham's shepherds argue with Lot's shepherds, Avraham is the one who intervenes saying, "Let there not be an argument between me and you, and between my shepherds and your shepherds, for we are brothers."

          
He gives Lot a very generous offer – You pick where you want to be. Stay here or pick a direction. Whatever you choose, I will go the other way. (13:8-9) That Lotchooses to go to Sodom is aseparate factor. But they part in peace and Avraham has achieved his objective.

          
After Sarah gives her maid to Avraham, demonstrating tremendous self-sacrifice and concern for her husband so he could have a son, Hagar denigrates her mistress who has been suffering with infertility for years. "I am angry at you," she says to Avraham, "because I gave you my maid, she has become pregnant, and I have become denigrated." (16:3-5)

          
It is ironic that Avraham is blamed for doing exactly what his wife told him to do. But note how he does not say, "Why are you yelling at me? It's YOUR fault! You asked for this! What do you expect of me? I did what you told me! I'm going to be the father I always wanted to be. I'm going to have a child – something you could never provide for me!"

He does say, "Here is your maid. Do to her what is best in your eyes." (16:6) Radak says Avraham did this for the sake of Shalom Bayis (to preserve peace in their home), so Sarah can feel good about herself again one day.

There is a much longer conversation to be had about how Hagar was treated in this incident. The commentaries are split over the choices made here - Ramban is critical of both Sarah and Avraham on account of her treatment of Hagar, the Riva defends them both. Radak says though we normally learn model behavior from the forefathers, here we learn how not to treat someone from the way Hagar is treated.

The question here is, do Avraham and Sarah respect one another in this exchange? It's not like with the kings where you either ignore the person or tell him off. Even more than he cared for Lot Avraham cared for his wife. And as his demonstration of compromise played out with Lot, it played out even moreso with his wife, with whom he intended to live for the rest of his life.

And it is completely in character for Avraham. Remember how he resolved the dispute with Lot. You choose. You decide. I don't need to have the last word. I don't need to be the one sitting on top, sitting on the gold mine, with the choice land or property. I want YOU to be happy. I want YOU to find peace.

It's hard to judge Sarah. She is a woman who has suffered terribly – with infertility, her maid's mistreating her, and her maid getting pregnant right away while Sarah remains barren.

But Avraham certainly teaches us a few things about the "rules of engagement" in an argument.

Ben Zoma concludes a listing of a few important rhetorical questions (Avot 4:1) by asking, "Who is honored? Who is honorable? One who gives honor to all of God's creatures." Certainly the first place to begin is with one's loved ones. Treat them with respect. Preserve their dignity at all times. Don't argue in front of other people.

A person must not say. "You were wrong and I was right. You always do this. You don't care about me. Nothing that matters to me matters to you. Your choices disgust me. I would never do the things you do, treat others the way you do, talk about myself the way you do, or think so highly of myself that I could never admit I might be wrong. But YOU. All the time – always the same. When will you ever learn?"

A person needs to think in the following way. "I am going to express my needs. What I have done, my reasoning, why I did it. I will explain where I am coming from. I will explain my choices. I will emphasize my commitment and dedication to this relationship. I care about you. I care about us. Above all, I want there to be peace between us. I want to hear your side, I want to hear your perspective, and really want us to come to a resolution."

As long as communication is done respectfully, resolution is attainable with dignity, honor, respect, and love. After all, "Who is most honored?" Those who want the best for one another, and demonstrate it through treating one another with the utmost respect.

At the Forefront of the Mind

Parshot MATOT-Masei 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Reading through Bamidar Chapter 32, one gets mixed feelings. The Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven (tribes of Gad and Reuven) look at the land the Israelites have recently conquered, East of the Jordan, and they realize they have a match made in heaven. The land is fertile, perfect for farm animals, and wouldn't you know it! – they have many farm animals. (32:4)

Would it be possible, they ask, for these two tribes to settle there, without entering the land of Canaan? 

Formalities need to be worked out. How could they sit back while the rest of the nation is fighting the inhabitants of Canaan?

Moshe instructs them to build homes for their families and animals, and then they are to lead the battles. And then he tells Yehoshua and Elazar that these tribes must lead the battles until all the land is conquered. Only when their mission is complete may they return home. And if they do not complete their mission, they may not settle East of the Jordan – they will have to be divided in the land amongst the other tribes. 

Gad and Reuven agree, and their completion of their mission is confirmed in the book of Yehoshua 22. 

There are different approaches to understanding their request and the subsequent way in which they are viewed. Is it proper for them to specifically want to live outside of the land which will become Israel? Why would their "punishment" (were they to not fulfill their condition) be to live in the land? Surely that is a good thing! How many times does the agreement need to be repeated and reworded and reemphasized? [At least three times!] 

In halakha, the proper form of making a two-sided condition is modeled in 32:29-30 (Talmud Kiddushin 61a). This would be a positive outcome of the exchange. The guarantee that these troops, often considered the best in the nation, would lead is also a positive outcome. 

But many point out that the tribes of Gad and Reuven requested, first and foremost, to be able to build housing for their animals (32:16). Moshe only agreed if they put their number one priority on building homes for their families (32:24). In the following verses (25-26) they agree to Moshe's condition, putting their families before their animals. 

The main question I suppose running through everyone's head at the time was, "Is this good for the Jews?" 

Moshe was certainly not impressed. He felt that the desire to live outside the land echoed the mistake made by the spies and the people in the tale of woe that condemned the nation to their 40 years of wandering. And yet, their promise to lead the battles seems to suggest that it is not that they don't appreciate the land. They just recognize a good thing when they see it, and the land East of the Jordan is good for their financial needs. In this respect, while they do not feel that they specifically need to live in the land of Israel, they do recognize, and clearly plan to militarily support those who will be living in the land. This is certainly good for the Jews. 


The presumed financial loss they will assume were they to break their promise is the reason why their "punishment" will be to live in the land if they do not fulfill their obligations. The punishment is not suggesting the land is no good. But it is aimed at hitting them in their pocketbooks. It is human nature to want to do whatever one can in order to avoid losing the financial windfall that will bring long-term economic security. 

The agreement is repeated over and over because it is important that everyone understand what is expected and what the outcome is. While this did not pre-date the concept of written documents, certainly the public nature of this Gentlemen's Agreement would help assure that there would be no backsliding or reneging in the particulars. 

The halakhic outcome of how to make a conditional agreement – "If you fulfill your responsibilities, the outcome will be X, whereas if you do not fulfill your responsibilities, the outcome will be Y" – serves as a model for all time how to make clear agreements without loopholes, so both sides can avoid being cheated, and can agree in a manner that everyone is clear as to what are the expectations. 

Which leaves us with their lost sense of priorities: how could they think of their animals before thinking of their children? 

I think that they viewed their financial stability as the means to be able to take care of their children. "If I can assure my income is set and stable, I know I'll be able to provide for my children." 

Moshe set the record straight for them, that as much as finances are important, the homes for the children need to be built before the homes for the animals. They "got it" right away, and proceeded accordingly. 

All in all, I think the Gad and Reuven episode was "good for the Jews" on account of the lessons it contains.  

Not every Jew needs to live in Israel, but every Jew should support its army. When a financial windfall passes your way, take it. Make sure you take every precaution in business dealings to give something in order to get something – make all stipulations clear, follow through with your end of the bargain, and make sure that in the end the other side of the agreement is fulfilled. Lastly, we must recognize that our priorities are our families and children. Every deal, agreement, undertaking, venture must be considered for its repercussions in advance, especially as it pertains to reputations and family, so we see that in whatever way possible, our children are taken care of, provided for, and always remain the foremost priority of our day-to-day existence.

The Sword and the Bow

Parshat Vaychi

by Rabbi Avi Billet

In the last verse in Chapter 48, Yaakov promises Yosef the city of Shechem "which I took from the Emorites with my sword and bow."

Up until now the only thing we know about any "taking of the city of Shechem" is that Shimon and Levi took up arms and massacred the males of the city in retaliation for the treatment accorded to their sister Dinah. Yaakov's reaction to their armed encounter was anything but positive and supportive. Some say this is what Yaakov is referring to. But this seems hardly likely.

What could Yaakov be referring to?

The Yalkut Shimoni (towards the end of 133) quotes "our rabbis" who described a tremendous battle which took place – not in the immediate aftermath of the Shechem massacre, but seven years later when the Emorites all gathered against Yaakov's family to avenge the fall of their brethren in Shechem. The passage is quite long, and the details are fascinating. Targum Yonatan also makes reference to this military encounter, as does Rashi in the first opinion he records.

Whether the events as described took place is surely debatable, but from one perspective, Yaakov could be referring to his conquerings in this war with the Emorites. Ramban, however, looks at a model forged by Elisha in the book of Kings II 13, in which he instructed King Yoash to shoot arrows in the direction of Aram to symbolize the victory that was to come over their land. Ramban suggests that Yaakov similarly asserted his power through the same symbolic action.

Some suggest the "taking" refers to the purchase he made in 33:19 "He bought the piece of open land upon which he set up his tent for 100 kesitahs from the sons of Chamor…" But how do we then explain the "sword and bow?" The Targum Yerushalmi introduces an idea others expand upon – that the "sword and bow" are not meant to be taken literally, but refer instead to merits that allowed Yaakov to "take" the land. Rashi, for example, explains the metaphor as his "wisdom and prayers." Rabbi Chaim Paltiel even backs up this assertion explaining Onkelos' interpretation of the phrase "b'charbi u'vkashti" (with my sword and my bow) as to be read [with a 'heh' in place of the 'chet'] "b'harbi u[b]vakashati" – meaning with my prayers and my requests.

Another similar interpretation is offered by the Seforno who says "my sword and bow" refers to "my knowledge and understanding" which are the weapons of the righteous (based on Tehillim 45:4) (see also Shabbat 63a).

Rashbam and Radak surmise that Yaakov is making reference to a future war that Yehoshua will wage when they conquer the land, a fact Chizkuni claims refers to all the battles that will be waged in the conquering of the land. The Emorites are given the credit of ownership, Ibn Ezra explains, simply because they were considered the strongest of the nations. And Radak clarifies that since Yehoshua 24:12 says "sword and bow" were not yielded in order to win, they refer to "the help of God" which act as a sword and bow.

Even if the "sword and bow" refer to the wars of the future in their totality, this does not explain why Yaakov, who is about to die and will certainly not be present for those future wars, attributes the weapons to himself! Rabbenu Bachaye suggests he does so because it will be his merits which will be leading the battles and bringing about success on the battlefield (see Tehillim 44:4 which alludes to the merits of the fathers which deliver military success).

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch sees this verse as the paradigm of Yaakov's proudest moments which he is bequeathing to his children. "That my children, though they were living among the Emorites, did not become Emorites themselves – such that they gather around me and I call them all 'Israel' – these represent my conquests, my victories, which I wrested from the Emorites."

While I don't think any of these are foolproof interpretations, I do believe that Yaakov's comment contains much depth. Whether referring to actual battles of the past or future, or of the battlefield of the mind or spirit in which Yaakov and his family overcame great odds and obstacles to take a stand for what they believed in and to maintain their identities and their way of life, Yaakov does express pride in the journey he and his family have taken to get to where they are.

We too ought to know what we stand for and make great strides to achieve our goals. It is the truly blessed who can confidently bless one's children at one's death bed saying, "I look back on my life and bequeath to you my greatest successes and proudest moments, which have defined my life, and the lives you continue to live in fulfillment of the legacy I set out to create when I began both my life as an adult and the family that I leave behind."