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?”

Torah Teaches Not to Sin

I wrote this at around the time the rockets began flying and Israel started its retalliation - which I hope turns to an annihilation of Hamas' infrastructure, if not the entire entity. The message is still important - the difference between us and them

Parshat Pinchas                

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Parshat Pinchas contains the Maftir readings for all of the Biblical holidays. Every holiday had a specific set of korbanot (offerings) that were brought in its honor. A similarity running across all of the holidays is a single goat which was brought as a “chatat” (sin offering) to atone for the sins of the people.

                

However, when it comes to the holiday of Shavuot, the Torah does not label the goat as a “chatat.” That word is missing from the description, when it says, “A single goat, to atone for you.” (28:30)

                

The Minchat Shai notes that the way the goat is presented here is as a “s’ir izim” and not with a vov to say “u’s’ir izim.” As only Yom Kippur has a similar formulation (every other holiday says “u’s’ir” – AND a goat), he suggests that Yom Kippur and Shavuot have in common that they are days when the Torah was given. The Tablets were finally presented to the people on Yom Kippur, and the contents of the Tablets were declared to the people on Shavuot. In order to contradict the Sadducees who suggested the Torah was not given on Shavuot, the Torah made the S’ir to S’ir comparison to make it clear that Shavuot is a day when the Torah was given.

                

A number of commentaries point to the Yerushalmi in Rosh Hashana 4:8 which explains the phenomenon as follows: Rabbi Mesharshia explained that the “chatat” not being mentioned in the context of Atzeret (Shavuot) was God’s way of saying to Israel, “Since you accepted the yoke of My Torah, I am considering you as if you never sinned [and therefore don’t need a “sin offering.”]”  

                

This, concludes the Torah Temimah, is the proof that the Torah was actually given on the same date as Shavuot.

                

Of course, in Mishpatim (chapter 24, note 36), the Torah Temimah explains that Shavuot is on the 50^th day of the Omer – which can either fall on the 5^th, 6^th, or 7^th of Sivan. (Rosh Hashana 6b) This is why when we describe the holiday, we call it “zman matan torateinu” (the time period of the giving of the Torah) and not “yom matan torateinu” (the actual day of the giving of the Torah).

                

Rashi notes in Shmot 19:1 and Devarim 26:16 that we must view the Torah as if it was given every day. Pinning the giving of the Torah to a single day, in a sense, cheapens its value – makes it as if it is to be celebrated on an anniversary, as opposed to throughout the year.

                

It is fascinating that the Torah Temimah would suggest that the missing word “Chatat” in the description of the goat offering proves that Shavuot and the giving of the Torah coincided – even as he points to his own commentary in Shmot which suggests that it’s not an exact science.

                

In truth – the matter could be one of simple semantics. The Torah may have been given on Shavuot, but since the date of Shavuot (Biblically speaking) is not always the same date (could be 5, 6, or 7 Sivan), if we celebrate Shavuot as the day rather than a specific date as the day of the giving of the Torah, then everyone is right.

                

Because the truth is that whether a missing vov proves the point (Minchat Shai) or the missing word “chatat” proves the point doesn’t matter. The point is that we have the Torah. The anniversary of its giving is perhaps noteworthy, but to a large degree it is irrelevant.

                

When news came that arrests were made over the murder of an Arab teen after the deaths of Gilad, Eyal and Naftali became known, and that the initial suspects are Jews, my sister told me she was going to attend a “Lo Tirzach” (Thou Shalt not Murder) Rally in Israel. It was postponed, ironically, because of rockets out of the Gaza Strip.

                

A life governed by the Torah’s teachings is one in which the deliberate sin has no place. We are all human, and we make mistakes. But there is a major difference between human failure and human error and descending to depths that are completely antithetical to the Torah’s teachings. [The irony of Pinchas being a vigilante is not lost, but his circumstance was VERY different.]

                

I personally have no sympathy for terrorists and murderers, and I have a very different mindset than the State of Israel generally has about how to deal with those who have Jewish blood on their hands. But if it turns out that those who murdered an Arab teenager were Jews, and that they did it because Arabs murdered Jewish teens (or whatever reason), they were operating under a Hammurabi Code, and not under a Torah code.

                

We rally for our People when our People are in need. And we must also rally for our true beliefs, distancing ourselves from those who conduct themselves in a manner that is antithetical to the Torah’s teachings.

               

If Shavuot’s goat offering was not called a “chatat” because the giving of the Torah made the people sinless, then it is the Torah’s teachings which should always guide us in being sinless. 

Thou Shalt Not Murder

Parshat Yitro

by Rabbi Avi Billet

A civil society in which life is sacrosanct frowns upon the act of murder. It is a heinous crime to rob another person of life itself. In the United States different states have different punishments in place for murderers, usually ranging from prison sentences to a ticket to death row.

And yet, not all acts that bring about death are considered “murder.” Certainly a distinction is made between a car accident or some other tragic accident, and a deliberate murder. Even in “crimes” of this nature, the law distinguishes between murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, wrongful death, etc. There are other categories as well.

The legal terminology is learned by those who are in the predicament of being charged with the death of another, and the distinctions between the different circumstances has its own basis in the halachic and Biblical terminology.

Justice Justice You Shall Pursue (Deut. 16:20)

A related essay on this subject can be found here

Measure for Measure

There is justice, and there is "justice." The Torah (usually) advocates that justice take the form of "middah k'neged middah" (מדה כנגד מדה) a.k.a. "measure for measure." While Rabbinic law has explained that "an eye for an eye" (Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20) refers to monetary payments, such punishment is a payment for the monetary value of the lost organ or limb. How the value is determined is a subject of a different discussion.

The Torah unequivocally has a capital punishment system embedded in its laws. When, how and how often it was evoked is also a subject of a different discussion. The Talmud describes that in the event a murderer subverts the system through a technicality such that the court could not execute him, they had other methods to ensure his inevitable demise.

There was no such thing as 'death row' or a long-term prison sentence for murderers. Accidental murderers went (of their own accord) to cities of refuge to avoid retribution from relatives of the deceased. In some cases their exile may last for the rest of their lives. [See the footnote below for an example of an accidental murder and a situation that would warrant this exile.]

Punishment was meted out immediately, whether it be a fine, restitution, lashes, or the death penalty. And none of the death penalty punishments were costly - court orders were not a burden on society.

The Modern World

While I do believe in the death penalty for murderers, I understand that not everyone agrees to this. But I also believe that a person who takes a life in any way other than defense (of self or of another), in battle, or through a pure accident - a pure accident might include a car accident on a slippery road, or a doctor who does everything right but loses a patient - has lost the privilege to live in society. A drunk driver, for example, might not be a "deliberate murderer," but getting behind the wheel after drinking is not a pure accident. The driver made a choice that was not beyond his/her control.

Certainly a deliberate murderer should get no mercy. Even if s/he finds religion when s/he is in prison, and even if s/he can become a contributing member of society. By Torah law, s/he should have been dead shortly after s/he was convicted, so what s/he accomplishes later in life is enough of a "freebie" for a person, to my mind, that anything beyond bread and water to continue to live out his/her life, is a gift the person does not deserve.

Pan Am 103

The Lockerbie bomber was released from prison.

[Note from 8/20/2012 - I just revisited this page and noticed that all but one of the links I had left here are now inactive. They were articles about the Lockerbie bomber being released, as one article put it "Scottish authorities released him on compassionate grounds because he is dying of cancer."]

Where was his compassion for his victims? Why is this man still alive? Eichmann wasn't given compassionate jail time. He was killed after his conviction.

Is it possible that His Murderousness was a tool for an economic deal? Nothing disgusts me more.

I hope this man rots. 270 people died, including one person I knew growing up - Joseph K. Miller - on account of this monster's actions. He is undeserving of any compassion and he ought to die in prison. He should have been executed, but that is not "compassionate enough."

I heard one talk-radio host put it this way: If Bernie Madoff (who ruined many lives and may have caused a few suicides and crimes to be committed) were to be dying of cancer, would anyone tolerate his being released from prison in order to die with his family? Obviously that wound is very fresh, but the wound of Lockerbie and Pan Am 103 is still fresh for the relatives of the victims, those who knew them, and all of us who saw a first glimpse of how our world was changing when terrorists started using or destroying planes to make their "freedom fight" known to the world.

Ecclesiastes was right when he said (10:19) - "Money is the answer for everything." In other words, the pursuit of money justifies every dishonest or dishonorable behavior perpetrated by man.

England, you should be ashamed.
**********************************************
What is an "Accidental Murder"? - two kinds

An "accidental murder" (shogeg or שוגג) is when someone does an action that is potentially dangerous to someone else, without bothering to check if someone is in harm's way. It may include a gross negligence on the part of the "perpetrator."

Examples might include:

• someone purposely running a red light and hitting a pedestrian who had the right of way
• shooting a person while hunting
• throwing rocks over a precipice, unaware someone is down below
• dropping anything from a high place where there is no designation to do so, such as at a construction site

According to the Torah (Numbers 35, see also Joshua 20 and 21), people who do this must go to exile, where they will establish residence until the High Priest passes away.
Other examples of accidental murder in which there is no culpability (o'ness or אונס) are when the person did nothing wrong or negligent and circumstances were completely beyond control. Other than the examples mentioned above, other instances of this would include:

• Driving normally on a highway, and someone jumps in front of your car from an overpass (assuming they survive the jump)
• When the victim goes into a clearly marked restricted (DANGEROUS) area, such as at a shooting range, or a high voltage facility, or underneath a roller coaster (I mention this because there was a case last last year when someone was killed doing this), and the shooter, worker or operator does what they are supposed to and don't know of their victim's presence until it is too late

As soon as it becomes clear that there was no way for the accident to be avoided, the responsible party is deemed exempt from any punishment or retribution.