Coming of Age Properly

Parshat Vayishlach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

I recently overheard two fathers of teenagers comparing their approaches to their sons' shul attendance on Sundays and other "days off." One of them came to me afterwards to discuss his related concerns about "texting on shabbos."

With a little insight from Parshat Vayishlach, perhaps there is a simple answer to both questions. I accept that I may be hopelessly naïve. But the stand I propose at the end of this will not be, if followed, what turns your children away from Judaism. Much bigger issues bring about such a result. Having said that, let us see how we can find parenting-inspiration from our forefather Yaakov.

One theme in Vayishlach is the coming-of-age of Yaakov's children.

Unlike in Vayetze where they appear as backdrops in the narrative of events in Padan Aram, in Vayishlach, we see an entirely different story. Consider: Reuven and Bilhah, Shimon and Levi in Shechem, all the brothers dealing with the prince of Shechem, and Yosef being singled out as the last son to meet Eisav. Even Dinah's experience in Shechem, while tragic, is arguably her initiation into the "real world." The brothers, collectively, plunder the city of Shechem and are later asked by their father to remove the idols that they have from their midst.

Yaakov's role as parent is fascinating, at times very active, and at times quite passive.

Immediately after dividing into two camps, Yaakov prays to the God of his fathers (32:10-12). Through remembering his roots in front of his children, he is demonstrating his understanding of why he is in this situation and the expectation he has from the God Who promised to watch over him and his children.

           

Whether Yaakov was crippled (end of Ch. 32) in order that he may: experience the promise God made to him (Chizkuni), be shown he would not be defeated (Radak), or ultimately win in a confrontation (Yalkut Shimoni), all help Yaakov realize that you can't run from your fears. In facing his brother with one unified camp, scrapping the two-camps plan, he models and teaches his children that if you boldly face what you think is your greatest fear, you may find that the only thing you really feared, if I may borrow from FDR, was fear itself. Facing one's destiny is more important than running like a coward. 

           

When his injured "gid hanasheh" prevented him from running, he became emboldened and confronted his brother in the open field. Abstaining from eating this nerve of an animal could be a reminder that cowardice is unbecoming of those who are God-fearing.

            

Yaakov takes the sidelines in allowing his sons to deal with Shechem. They speak "b'mirmah" – using tricks – (as did their father to Yitzchak (see 27:35)) and they bring justice against those who defiled their sister (34:27). Their father is disappointed in their choices, but they literally get the final word (34:31). It seems that they take the teachings of their father – to use trickery, to stand up to those who oppress you or who want to make your life miserable – and they run with them. And while they may not be entirely correct, their actions are somewhat justified by the context of the perpetrated deed.

            

In the final tale, when God tells Yaakov to go to Bet-El to make an altar to his God, Yaakov tells his sons to remove the idolatrous images they have (35:2). They listen! They give them to him, and he buries them under a tree!

            

Yaakov has modeled a line of behavior for his children. They learn from his example, they take his lead. They are not perfect, and they make choices he doesn't like. But when he tells them to give him precious items because they conflict with the prayers he will soon engage in, or because they don't fit in to the mood of the household, they acquiesce – no questions asked.

            

Parents of children who are coming of age certainly notice the changes they go through. Hopefully parents give children the freedom to make choices (and to make mistakes!), but hopefully both parents and children respect one another and have the ability to communicate with one another in general and about what is important to them.

Claiming you don't want to make your child go to shul for a 9am (or later!) minyan on a Sunday because you're afraid of losing your relationship with your son seems silly to me. Your kid davens (or attends davening) in school every day of the week. Sunday is the day you show your kid that you daven too! And that it isn't a day off for him or for you!

            

Finally, if Yaakov could convince his sons to give up golden images and jewelry which did not jive with the home he was building, I see no reason why the texting on shabbos "problem" is a problem. Every home can have an "off-limits-on-Shabbos" box, and every cell phone, tablet, etc. in the house is placed there before shabbos.

            

The same parents who pay their kids' cell-phone bills and give their kids credit cards should have every say as to when the phone is on and off-limits.

            

Yaakov buried objects which were far more precious, for the sake of preparing for serving the God that protected him and his family through the years. Shabbos is the day we serve the God that has protected and sustained our families through the years. If we are afraid of our children or can't bring ourselves to put up simple guidelines that brings the family on the same page in terms of prayer and Shabbos, we are doing something very wrong as parents.

            

Despite all the problems, "Yaakov's sons were twelve." (35:12) With God's help, and properly standing for what "our family believes in," we should merit to raise children who not only follow our examples for the good, but who surpass our expectations in their observance of the Torah, their relationships with God, and their religious experiences.

Veyetze Sermon - Thanksgivings of the Forefathers (Israel and Gaza)

Vayetze: Thanksgivings of the Forefathers

Rabbi Avi Billet

          Over the extended weekend, I was privy to a number of emails, online articles and Facebook postings of what people "are thankful for." This being the Thanksgiving Weekend, this concept is highly appropriate. In our own personal experiences, most of us surely have lists – they may be quite similar to one another, but of course they're not the same.

          Many people are grateful for a home to live in, a free country, family, etc.

          This week was a very emotional week for many of us, thinking about the situation in Israel; some of us have family there, or relatives in the army, and our thoughts and prayers go out to those who continue to endure what no peace loving nation should need to endure.

          Here is a short list of some of the things I am grateful for:

          Love him or hate him – I am grateful for Glenn Beck, one of the only individuals in any form of media who articulately expressed Israel's side and threw all the blame of Hamas and their terror into the corner in which it resides. If you haven't seen or heard thethings he shared during the recent conflict, you must find it on youtube or theblaze.com and listen to what an אוהב ישראל sounds like. (see here where he speaks of the three people killed by rockets)

          I am grateful for a ceasefire only if it really means no more rockets flying into Israel. Beyond that, I am not much of a fan as I would prefer Israel destroy all of Hamas infrastructure and send them back to the Middle Ages where they prefer to live. But I am not a politician and my opinion does not hold any sway in Israel.

          I am grateful for the support given by the State Department and the President to Israel's right to defend itself. I question why they only step in to intervene after Israel strikes back and not while all the rockets are flying, and my conclusion is that even the current State Department does not care much about Jewish blood. They will "allow" Israel to defend itself, but not too much. Once the Jew fights back, no one can stand it. They'll defend the right to self-defense, but they won't defend the right to live in peace without rockets terrorizing peaceful civilians.

          So while I appreciate the things which were said, I still think they were cowards in not stopping the rockets years earlier. Jewish life remains cheap, and "Jewish might" remains something which is admirable, but not something which is allowed to show itself for more than a week at a time.

          While I choose to be critical for all that was unsaid over the years, I am also thankful to the US for its role in supporting the Iron Dome missile defense system which undoubtedly saved many many lives and prevented significant damage in many ways.

          But I planned to talk about the Thanksgivings of the Forefathers – and in that vein, I am referring to their Thanksgiving dinners.

         While they did not likely have Turkey and stuffing or pumpkin pie, there are many meals which are described in the book of Bereishis, and they do share a common theme: Thanksgiving – a note of שהחיינו וקימינו והגיענו לזמן הזה. Surely the Avos ate on a daily basis, but the meals which are noted include the following:

          Avraham's meals – when the three guests came after his bris milah, when Yitzchak is weaned. One might say a meal was hosted for Eliezer when he is making the proposals to Rivkah on behalf of the patriarchal family - it's a sort of "L'Chaim" or engagement meal.

          Yitzchak's meals – when he makes peace with Avimelekh, and the foods Yaakov and Eisav bring to him

          Yaakov's meals – Yaakov serves a meal to Eisav in last week's parsha, and I discovered an approach in the meforshimthat suggests it was a celebratory meal shared with Eisav, to seal the deal ofthe purchase of the bechora, which the Daat Zekenim and others claim was over a large sum of cash. The meal is compared to Yaakov's final meal described in the Torah – the one when he makes peace with Lavan at the end of the sidrah. The other meal in which Yaakov partakes – or at least we assume he does – is at his wedding.

          Avraham's meals are self-explanatory: Post-bris, Avraham celebrates life and the opportunity to continue to do Chesed. He is bringing guests into his home. There's no indication that Avraham pulled all the stops in celebrating Yitchak's bris. But he did make a משתה גדול when Yitzchak was weaned. I guess he appreciated being able to sleep through the night again.

          Yitzchak's meals come when he makes peace with an adversary – Avimelekh, who stole and stuffed his wells, and who made life difficult for him; and at a time in his life when he seems to be looking to pass the baton. He isn't getting any younger, he is concerned he may die soon, and he wants to give Eisav the opportunity to do a mitzvah so he (Eisav) can receive a blessing as a reward. The ability to raise a child and live so long to bless him when he is well on in his mature years – Eisav and Yaakov were 63 when the blessing incident took place – is something to be thankful for.

          Which leaves us with Yaakov's meals. In Yaakov's case, irony abounds. There is a משתה when he marries לאה, but no celebration when he marries רחל. 13 years later he has a meal with a man he despises, after he articulates in no uncertain terms why he finds the man to be despicable – and if I could take out-of-context a joke I read-as-a-child in MAD Magazine, perhaps the only nice thing Yaakov could say about Lavan is that he happens to be Yaakov's father in law. Maybe we can also say he likes Lavan's daughters too.

          Just about every other meal celebrates something special – a bris, a chesed opportunity, a weaning, kibud av va'em, peace with a rival.

          Here there's a celebration at one wedding, but no celebration at the one where we would most expect it, and the peace with Lavan is not like with Avimelekh – it's more of the cold peace that exists between two enemy nations who don't really like one another but don't want to fight anymore either. You stay on your side and I'll stay on mine and we will have nothing to do with one another.

          Is this a celebration? Is this a Thanksgiving?

          The answer is that Yaakov's meals were different from everyone else's, because Yaakov was dealing with the biggest trickster the Torah has ever known. The Toldos Yitzchak explains the difference between Lavan and others: we saw clearly with Avraham and Lot (who I did not mention earlier because he is not one of the Avos) that when they serve a meal, they serve FOOD. Lavan, on the other hand, only served משתה – drinks! – so that as the Daas Zekenim points out as well – Yaakov would get drunk and would not notice that Leah was standing where Rachel should have been.

          Lavan wasn't only a low-life, he was cheap! We are told ויאסוף לבן את כל אנשי המקום ויעש משתה.  He gathered all the people together to make this משתה. Why? Since when does the Torah tell us about those who gather for a celebration, beyond the people whom the celebration honors? Never! We don't hear about Avraham's party list when he made a משתה גדול ביום הגמל את יצחק.

          The Malbim explains that Lavan only invited people so they could agree to the "rule" he was making up that "It is not done in our land to marry off the younger before the older." If he just made it up, Yaakov wouldn't believe him. But with the whole wedding party, Lavan stacks the vote in his direction "proving" that that's the custom. Why did he never mention it before to Yaakov? Because it was a fabrication – made up to justify his behavior. And, of course, Yaakov would never suspect a ruse was being pulled in front of so many people.

          And why did he need to justify it? Was he really trying to marry off Leah? The Midrash says it was a ruse to get Yaakov to stick around, because Lavan had been blessed on account of Yaakov's presence. Midrash Sechel Tov fleshes out the story suggesting that Lavan is called Lavan Ha'Arami because he was Lavan HaRamai – the trickster. He reminded everyone that they had been blessed with water ever since Yaakov came (recall the well incident with the stone – having a stone on a well indicates the need for rationing), and Lavan wanted to preserve Yaakov's presence in Aram. To that end, he suggested to his neighbors that he will marry Leah off to Yaakov, knowing he'd agree to stick around for another seven years in exchange for marrying Rachel. He convinced everyone to give gifts so Yaakov would be convinced all was legit - but then he (Lavan) sold the gifts to buy the food (whatever that may have been) for the celebratory meal. Using their own money - a party made from everyone's contributions.

          This is why there was no celebratory meal after the marriage to Rachel. Yaakov was stuck in Lavan-town for another seven years. That’s nothing for him to celebrate. And there was no way people were going to contribute again to help Lavan make a second meal. They had participated in a quote unquote celebration as a charade. Therefore there was no real celebration.

          With regard to the meal at the end of the parsha, after Lavan chases Yaakov, accuses him of stealing his daughters, Yaakov's children, and Lavan's belongings, they have a conversation which concludes with an agreement to leave one another alone.

          At that point, Yaakov sees all of Lavan's people as brothers and invites them for a meal:

The Radak describes Yaakov's intent in this way: עשה סעודה ומשתה כדי שיאכלו ביחד בהפרדם זה מזה לזכרון הברית:

          Lavan leaves in the morning. We never hear from him again. How did he feel? Was he at peace? Or was he stewing over the peace he was coerced into making? We don't know. But we do know that he is out of the picture, and as far as we know he doesn't cross the line he agrees never to cross.

          Is it a celebration for Yaakov? Is it really a Thanksgiving meal?

          In a sense it is! Lavan agrees never to bother Yaakov again, and as far as we know, he doesn't! Whether he is broygez about how it went down – he remains out of the picture and he and Yaakov have peace between them!

          Every Thanksgiving is an opportunity for us to express out gratitude for the good in our lives, and for the existence we can enjoy if we put the past behind us and move on with our lives. We don't forget the past, but we move on with the status quo. Or we try to improve the status quo with the materials and opportunities that lie before us.

          This is the challenge the State of Israel faces – with an enemy led by a Lavan-style leadership who are deceitful, who lie, who use Israel's humanitarian aid against Israel; who care more that Yaakov suffer than they care to look in their own backyard to address the suffering of their people that is in their hands to prevent or deal with.

          Lavan didn't like what he had to hear, but he did recognize that Yaakov had a right to move on with his life and that after 20 years of struggling with one another, that it was time to move on.

          When real peace was made, Yaakov was so ready to let bygones be bygones that he viewed all his adversaries as his "brothers." For Yaakov, this was a real Thanksgiving. A real blessing. He was now in charge of his own destiny and Lavan would never stand in his way again.

          Lavan is also in charge of his own destiny. He is no longer blessed with Yaakov's presence. But he can learn from the good Yaakov did, the blessing Yaakov brought to Lavan's home, and he can use his experience to make his life better. The ball is in his court.

I strongly believe that aside from the obvious reason, the State of Israel is Yaakov, and the choice Lavan faced is the choice the Arabs face today. They can embrace the reality of Israel בשמחה, or they can be broygez about it while they realize Israel is not going anywhere.

          But until they decide to acknowledge the celebratory meal of peace, there will not be peace in the region. And I do not believe it will be Israel's fault.

          The world has its narrative – some are Israel's allies, and some such as CNN – ChamasNews Network – will continue to be anything but.

Just as the Avos had their Thanksgiving meals celebrating specific events, we too have Thanksgiving and the simchas in our lives to be thankful for. But we continue to look forward to the day when Thanksgiving is not just a once a year celebration, but a year-round celebration for the eternal peace that will one day settle on our homeland and our Holy Land, במהרה בימינו אמן.

When Enemies Make Real Peace

Update 2018: After writing my DT for 2018, I was "shocked" to discover I had the same solution for peace 6 years earlier! Of course while the conclusion is the same, the angle in the parsha is completely different. I guess Hamas leaders don't read my blog. 🙍

Parshat Vayetze

by Rabbi Avi Billet           

There was no love lost between Yaakov and his father-in-law Lavan. Lavan criticizes Yaakov for having "stolen" his family, and Yaakov responds saying he had been cheated numerous times over a period of 20 years working for Lavan.

            

The most telling comment comes from Lavan who says, "I have it in my power to do you great harm. But your father's God spoke to me last night and said, 'Be very careful not to say anything, good or bad, to Jacob.'" Had God not appeared to him, who knows what he would have done? This is surely one of the proof-texts for the Haggadah's notion that "Lavan bikesh laakor et hakol," Lavan wanted to uproot everything.

            

After their argument at Galed, they reached a resolution. They drew a line exactly where they were, they built a pile of a stones and a monument and then Lavan said, "This mound shall be a witness, and the monument shall be a witness. I am not to go beyond the mound and you are not to go beyond the mound and pillar, with bad intentions." (31:52)

            

After forging the agreement, they sat down and ate together as a declaration of peace – as long as the lines will not be crossed.

            

Many commentaries note that the agreement is for no one to cross the line intending to do harm (Rashi, etc). However, crossing the line to engage in business and commerce or for other good reasons that forge camaraderie of differing peoples is acceptable ("l'tovah u'l'pragmatia" - Pesikta).

            

Ibn Ezra points to their each swearing in the name of the God each worships. A real peace treaty contains divergent opinions about "Who" is backing the peace and "Whom" we are serving through coming to peace terms. But the end result is peace – with each committing to it in the name of their respective objects of worship. Which, in essence, ideally makes the treaty inviolable.

            

Radak points to Lavan's having heard from Yaakov's God directly, which helped him arrive at the conclusion that peace was really the best option.

            

Riva raises a minority view that the agreement was a pact that each would cross the border to help the other in the event that the other is facing "raah" – a bad situation brought on by a different enemy (see Chizkuni). But the more common view maintains that they agree to leave one another alone.

            

Some of the commentaries point out that this treaty (as described by the majority position) was violated by Bilaam. The Zohar (166b) identifies Lavan as the father of Beor (father of Bilaam), the Gemara (Sanhedrin 105a) identifies Bilaam's father as Lavan (Beor having several identities), and the Yalkut Shimoni (Shmot 168) identifies Bilaam as Lavan the Aramean from Pethor. While it is not likely that these texts are meant to be taken literally, it is more than likely that some of the texts describing Lavan and Bilaam are similar (such as receiving prophesy from God in the nighttime, and both being from Aram Naharayim – see Devarim 23:5) to indicate either that Bilaam was the spiritual heir of Lavan, or perhaps even a direct descendant.

            

Daat Zekenim boldly claims that "it is the way of the charlatans and liars to be struck down by the witnesses to their offense." Bilaam's leg was struck by the wall which is identified as the pile of rocks created here. And Bilaam met his demise at the sword (Bamidbar 31:8). The anthology Hadar Zekenim explains (quoting a midrash) that the monument had a sword implanted in it, as a symbol of the 'laying down of the sword' between Lavan and Yaakov. Bilaam was somehow impaled on that sword, as his death is described as having taken place on "the sword" – as in, the one everyone knew about.

            

The message is crystal clear.

            

When Israel vacated Gaza in 2005, a line was drawn in the sand. This is your territory, this is our territory. We are happy to have the border crossed "l'tovah ul'pragmatia" – for good things and for business, but not for "ra'ah" – under the intention to do harm. Israel provides humanitarian aid to Gaza – food, supplies, medicines, and graciously treats Gazans in Israeli hospitals.

            

But when rockets fly, there is no "good": the intention is only to harm. The inviolable treaty supposedly brought on by a land swap has been violated over and over again. Those who foment the hatred are not likely to receive revelations from Yaakov's God not to harm Yaakov. This is why they don't know when to stop, or when to count losses (as Lavan did), and go home to live your own life concerned about how to make your own life better, without trying to make the other person's life miserable.

            

Lavan "bikesh" – he "wanted" to uproot all. But when he couldn't, he let go and lived out his life. Bilaam, on the other hand, couldn't let go of his hatred. And he met his end on the sword that was supposed to symbolize a truce between peoples, exactly on the border his ancestor had vowed never to cross for bad.

            

May God bless the soldiers and people of the Land of Israel. May He watch over them through the tests that lie ahead of them. And may all the spiritual heirs of Bilaam meet the same end he did so the rest of those who recognize and value what a peaceful coexistence can look like are given the opportunity to share a border l'tovah – for the sharing of goodness and peace.

In Defense of Yaakov's Purchase of the Bechora

Please note - an important follow up was made based on a question in the comments - be sure to read the comments as well!

Every time I've read the story of "Yaakov purchasing the Birthrite for a bowl of soup," it always left me with an empty feeling – something isn't right. How can this father of the Jewish people take such advantage of his poor, exhausted brother, essentially extorting a sale out of Eisav - one in which he did not wish to take part?

For starters there are a couple of hints in the Torah that Eisav really didn't feel cheated. Firstly, after eating the food the Torah tells us "And Eisav denigrated the birthrite." In other words, now that he no longer felt "exhausted" and "as if he were going to die," he still did not express any "seller's remorse." The "bechora" meant nothing to him at any time.

Secondly, when he complains in Chapter 27 that "Now I understand why his name is Yaakov, first he took my birthrite and now he took my blessing," he is tacking on a sale which never bothered him until that moment. He may have a legitimate complaint about the blessing being stolen, but that's Rivkah's problem (as she said in 27:13). His complaint about the Birthrite at that stage is similar to someone who gets fed up about something - i.e. someone always being late - who complains saying, "You're always late. And by the way, I never liked your car." The lateness is the problem, not the car. But you throw in something that never really bothered you because... why not?

      
Here is my new interpretation, inspired by the thoughts of some of the great Rishonim commentators on the Torah.

      
In 25:27, we are told two things about Eisav and Yaakov, respectively.

וַיְהִי עֵשָׂו אִישׁ יֹדֵעַ צַיִד אִישׁ שָׂדֶה וְיַעֲקֹב אִישׁ תָּם יֹשֵׁב אֹהָלִים:

* Eisav is a man who knows how to hunt; he is a man of the field

* Yaakov is an "ish tam", who is one who "dwells in tents"

      
* An "ish sadeh" – a man of the field – is a farmer.

* One who "dwells in tents" is a shepherd (based on the precedent of Bereshis 4:20)

Ergo, the first description of each refers somewhat to their respective personalities, while the second description refers to their professions.

In 25:29 -  וַיָּזֶד יַעֲקֹב נָזִיד וַיָּבֹא עֵשָׂו מִן הַשָּׂדֶה וְהוּא עָיֵף – Yaakov is cooking something when Eisav comes in from the field exhausted. A shepherd has a lot of free time, particularly when sheep are grazing. A farmer, on the other hand, has much more physical labor involved in his daily activity. That Eisav comes home exhausted – מן השדה – from the field - indicates he's been working hard.

He makes clear how exhausted he is through being unable to identify the food he asks to eat: Give me some "red red thing."

Eisav's exhaustion indicates an opportune time for Yaakov to discuss something he has wanted to discuss with Eisav. If Eisav's personality is a hunter, and a free spirit, we can suggest that in his free time from working in the field, he WAS a hard man to track down. He'd go out hunting, out for a hike, who knows?  But in other conversations with his twin brother, Yaakov knew Eisav didn't care much for the birthrite (Daat Zekenim). Chizkuni indicates Eisav had no interest in the "responsibility" side of the birthrite – serving in the Temple one day. What follows: all he was interested in was the monetary side – which is why Yaakov said to him, "Sell it to me."

While the Torah does not say explicitly that Yaakov offered him money, Radak, Chizkuni and the anthology called "Hadar Zekenim" indicate there was clearly a monetary compensation offer on the table.

      
In the words of the Hadar Zekenim commentary:

הדר זקנים על התורה בראשית פרשת תולדות פרק כה פסוק לד(לד) ויעקב נתן לעשו לחם ונזיד עדשים. וכי סלקא דעתך שעשו כל כך שוטה שמכר בכורתו ששוה דבר גדול בשביל דבר מועט. דנהי נמי שהעבודה שהיתה בבכורות היא קלה מ"מ יודע הוא שהוא בכור לירש ממון רב והוא מכר הכל כדאמרי' נהי נמי דבכירותיה זבין פשיטותיה מי זבין. וי"ל דיעקב נתן לו ממון הרבה בעבור הבכורה אך הלחם והנזיד לא היה אלא לקיים המכירה כדרך שעושין המוכרים ולוקחים זה מזה ונותנים פשוט או שנים ליין

Perhaps Eisav was in need for "Cash Now" (too bad JG Wentworth wasn't around yet). Maybe Eisav felt, why wait for my annuity to kick in? Who knows if Yitzchak will still have money by the time he dies (Ibn Ezra suggests the family was strapped for cash – though Ramban rejects the notion). In either case, finances are never guaranteed – and there were no trust funds or insurance policies to guarantee any value to the birthrite. Besides, if they were as young as 15 and were observing the death of Grandpa Avraham at age 175, they may be quite realistically believing that their father might not die for another 100 years (he ends up living 105 more years, outliving Avraham by 5 years).

Witnessing the reality of mortality may cause Eisav to say Ecclesiastically הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי הוֹלֵךְ לָמוּת וְלָמָּה זֶּה לִי בְּכֹרָה – if I'm going to die one day anyway, what's the purpose? I MAY AS WELL CASH IN NOW IF THE OFFER IS ON THE TABLE. Besides, if the Midrash that Eisav had just emerged from a fight to the death with  Nimrod is true, who's to say the next fight to the death with someone will go the same way for Eisav? He may honestly believe he'll never live to see that inheritance!

And then, the food which is shared (as indicated by the commentaries quoted here) is not the "price of the sale," but is the celebratory meal that seals the deal. Yaakov and Lavan have a similar meal at the end of next week's parsha. And it was common practice in those days to have such a meal.

      
Yaakov, therefore, did not dupe Eisav. He did not cheat Eisav. He paid him "Cash Now" for what would otherwise be his payoff when Yitzchak died. He bought Yitzchak's life insurance policy, buying out Eisav's rights as a beneficiary.

This explains why Eisav was upset later. His father is blessing him (Chapter 27) at a time that he (Yitzchak) declares "לא ידעתי יום מותי" – I don't know when I'm going to die. Since he indicates he may die soon (though he lives another 57 years), Eisav is feeling the pain of the money he spent in his relative youth, when he could have otherwise been getting it soon (or so he thinks) pending his father's imminent death.

As it happens, he sold those rights legitimately, without regretting it at the time, and his father continues to live anyway. He would not get a windfall, not now, and not in the future, and that reality comes back to bite him at a time when he is particularly vulnerable.

            
Next up, defending Yaakov's takingthe blessing

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.

Time to Rebuild

Parshat Chayei Sarah

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Since Monday of last week, I have read many articles, sermons, and even listened to some lectures online about "the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy." Most people, particularly those affected, are fairly sensitive to the realities, but no one can speak for another person's devastation. Some had no damage, some had significant damage, some lost everything. Some lost loved ones, and those who were lost are obviously gone forever.

Years ago, I heard a story about the Chafetz Chaim. One year, half of Radin burned down and those who were spared helped those who lost all. They rebuilt, and a little after the rebuilding was completed, the other half of Radin burned down.

As the flames were burning in "Round 2," the Chafetz Chaim was heard saying, "Baruch Hashem. (Blessed is God). There was a decree from heaven that the entire city of Radin should burn down. But the Master of the World, in His kindness, divided the decree in two halves, so people can do chesed (acts of kindness) and help one another."

In our communities, and in the United States in general, we expect nothing less. (Though I have other words for looters.) And as far as a perspective goes, the Chafetz Chaim's response is not only devout, but a reminder of the way he lived his life, truly believing that this world is a "prozdor," a tunnel connecting the pre-mortal existence of our souls to the eternity of the World to Come. This is why he was known to own few material possessions.

For most people, things could be much worse. Thank God, a natural disaster comes and goes – leaving much damage, yes, but leaving us our lives and our abilities to rebuild. Maybe some will be inspired to take on an entrepreneurial spirit. Change professions, open a business, and try to make a go of a new lease on life. Or move to a milder climate.

Avraham was old, the Torah tells us, and God had blessed him "with all." What "all" entails is a discussion. All kinds of blessings (Yonatan); not having a daughter to marry off to pagans (Midrash); having a son that he needs to marry off (Rashi, Radak); Long life, wealth, honor and children, the basic human desires (Ibn Ezra). There are other interpretations as well.

The blessing of "all" does not necessarily mean he had all the material possessions in the world. Rashbam posits that the blessing of "all" serves as an excuse for Avraham's servant to explain why there's no "shidduch" for Yitzchak in Avraham's land: "It's not as if people don't want to marry into Avraham's family – he has everything! It's just that he wants Yitzchak to marry someone from the old country."

We are told in 24:10 that the servant, traveling with 10 camels, took "all of the good of his master." All of Avraham's material possessions, it seems, could fit on ten camels – along with the servants that came along for the journey (which I can only assume lessens the amount of property on the camels).

Parshat Chayei Sarah is the last in the chapter of the life of Avraham. He loses his wife and seems to have no particular relationship with Yitzchak after "the Binding" episode. And yet before he fills the companionship void in his own life (25:1-6), he takes on the project to assure his future, and the fulfillment of "through Yitzchak you will be said to have offspring" (21:12), through building Yitzchak's marriage union with the resources he has left.

It's an amazing lesson in perspective and priorities. I'll deal with myself last, after I make sure everyone else is cared for. My material possessions are not my own anyway, I am giving them to my son (24:36, 25:5). I may not have spoken to him since our Bereshit 22 encounter, he might not even know about his mother's death (Yitzchak was not at the funeral, and a reading of 24:67 may indicate he first discovered she was gone when he brought Rivka to meet her), but I want to make sure he is set up with the best possible wife, so he can build his own family and continue the tradition I have carried in my life. In 9 short verses, Avraham declares his faith in God (24:3&7), concern for his son, and his trust in his friend (especially in 24:2&8).

It's not clear if Avraham was still a wealthy man at his death. He may have given away everything he had in his lifetime. Additionally, there are those who suggest that Yitzchak was wealthy in his youth but lost it all in his older age.

The cycle of ups and downs is therefore not a new phenomenon. Life itself is loaded with challenges, and challenges come in all forms. What are the constants? Avraham said it: Faith, family, friends. An appreciation for the gift and blessing of life itself hopefully comes hand in hand with the faith, family and friends we cherish, all of which make our lives complete.

Electricity, heat, safe homes, good neighbors, and life's amenities are blessings we now appreciate more than ever before. With God's help, and with the help of all those working on the ground to restore a sense of normalcy to local neighborhoods, I wish for everyone to be able to return to warm homes where the work to repair what needs to be repaired, replace what can be replaced, and start with the new lease on life can begin.

We cannot find answers or reasons for nature's wrath. But we can look to the future and see how we will choose to emerge from the storm.

Binding Our Children - A Kind of Sacrifice

Parshat Vayera

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The "Binding of Isaac" is a defining chapter in the story of the Jewish people. It inspires much of our liturgy (High Holidays, etc.). In some respects it represents what it means to sacrifice for one's children. In some of the darker annals of Jewish history, some took it as the inspiration to literally sacrifice their children as Jews to avoid death or the loss of Jewish souls at the hands of others.

It is not for us to judge those who chose the latter path, but it is noteworthy that they viewed Avraham's "sacrifice" as inspiration for such choices, even though Avraham did not ultimately harm his son.

"The Akedah" has inspired millions of hours of study and discussion, as well as countless pages of analysis, feeding conversations that will continue forever.

It is hard to stomach the idea that God "tested" Avraham through a riddle. Rashi is quick to note that he was never told to slaughter his son. He was told "to raise" him. Is the purpose of the test to see how far Avraham will go before being told to stop? Is it to see if Avraham unquestioningly does God's will? Could Avraham have misunderstood what God wanted? Is it possible that God did not give him enough information, and he drew his own conclusions?

What took so long for an angel to stop him, calling his name twice to tell him "Don't send your hand to the lad?" How did it even get that far, especially when just about every interpretation (following the line of "through Yitzchak you will be said to have offspring" – 21:12) understands that God never intended for Avraham to kill his son (Talmud Taanit 4a)?

The study of any Biblical subject as deep as the Akedah is incomplete without reading Abravanel's commentary, simply because he is so thorough, organized, and comprehensive. Here he poses 25 questions which he answers in his lengthy analysis. Some of his thoughts are summarized here as a conversation opener – not so much to understand what Avraham's test was, but what the task was meant to teach father and son.

"None of Avraham's 'tests' are introduced as tests. They were 'tasks,' and they were only derived to be 'tests' later. Borrowing money from a friend, for example, is a request that may indirectly test friendship.

"The 'Lekh Lekha' missive's goal was to get Avraham to the Holy Land, to establish roots there, and to become a model (banner) to all. Avraham's dedication in the Akedah strongly affirms his inspiring role.

"The Torah opens the segment saying, 'After all these things (22:1) AND God [having] tested Avraham…' – all of the preceding tales had been God testing Avraham. He has already passed with flying colors."

"This 'nisayon' was not a 'test' for God to see if Avraham could pass muster. 'Nisah' is from the word 'nes,' as in "Raise up ('nisah') over us the light of Your countenance." (Tehillim 4:7) Avraham's doing God's will is raised as a banner/flag for the nations to look to for inspiration. For us, it is a charge to serve God with all our heart and soul as did Avraham.

"Rav Yonah the Grammarian notes the vague nature of the command issued "V'ha'a'layhu sham l'olah" – which could be understood as "raise him as an offering."

"The "lamed" prefix in "l'olah" could also mean "in place of" – as if to say "he'll be considered an olah offering [in place of one] even though he won't actually 'be' an olah offering."

"God purposely led Avraham to believe that He wanted Yitzchak to be an offering so that Avraham would dedicate his heart and soul to the task. Thus he literally binds Yitzchak and full-heartedly reaches for the knife. The actions Avraham does before being stopped are considered before God "as if" he has actually brought the sacrifice. This elevates Yitzchak spiritually – it confirms his uniqueness and readiness to be the sole "line" of Avraham that carries the promise of God.

"Therefore God did not 'change His mind,' as it were, because He never commanded him to slaughter his son in the first place. And Avraham did not make a mistake or misunderstand for it was God Himself who was purposely vague.

Abravanel rejects a notion presented by the Ralbag (which must be read in context) that the entire episode of the Akedah is meant to be a "chinuch experience" of father teaching son important life lessons. But it is nonetheless most noteworthy that this tale contains the only interaction of Avraham and Yitzchak in the Torah, where father and son relate to one another and converse. [Their conversation is worthy of its own analysis.]

God will never ask us straight up or vaguely to sacrifice our children. But for us to have any notion of success with them, we must be prepared to bring them along, to show them what we do, to engage them in conversation, and to bind them – in a sense – to our way of life. Abravanel suggests that Yitzchak did not struggle as his father bound him because he thought his father was demonstrating how an olah is prepared – almost like they were playing charades.

Maybe if we play charades with our children, they will have the best opportunity to learn from us, to understand why we do the things we do as Jews, as they become bound to the eternal chain that is the lifeblood of our people.