רפואה מן התורה
Healing from the Torah
By Rabbi Adam Ruditsky
I want to write on the
“two regimes” that are in Rivka’s womb in this parsha, her two sons that
will be born within seconds of each other, two children who will represent two
communities of people, two communities who must live in the world together
while they embrace differing views of life. How can I not write about
this given what we are experiencing here in America right now? Governmental
change aside, we will continue down the path of predominantly two groups who have
what appears to be two opposing ideologies regarding how American life should
be lived and therefore conducted. In
fact, this past weekend I was in Palm Springs, CA and experienced what they
call a “Trump Train” caravanning through the main streets. This is a repeat of 2016, although with
different voices, when right after the election protests began that blocked
freeways and city streets. Eventually we
have to stop living life in opposition to our neighbors and friends and figure
out how to coexist. Looking at the parsha
here, while there is not a direct answer to our dilemma, there is a clue to its
solution. Still, like the story below,
we need to seek out its meaning.
This
week in Parashat Toldot we find another story that seems to take a
backseat to the birth and early family life of Esau and Jacob, Isaac and Rivka’s
two children. This additional and important
story is about Isaac, who like his father Abraham before him, argues over land
rights with those who also live in the land with him. Here Isaac and his herdsmen dig three wells, the first two being a source of contention with the herdsmen of Gerar, who claimed
that the water underneath the ground, was theirs (cf. Genesis 26:20). However, at the digging of the third well it says, וְלֹא רָבוּ, עָלֶיהָ,
“they did not quarrel over the well.”
Why? It then goes on to say in
Genesis 26:22 that “Isaac removed himself from there” which seems to have
solved the problem. Question: did he “remove” himself from disputed lands or
from being an personal impediment for peace?
Our Rabbinic tradition does not
speak into that as much as I would like to see it, but there are differing interpretations
regarding the wells. The Ramban teaches that the first two wells refer to the
first two destroyed temples and the third well is the messianic temple, a time
when its expanse will have far reaching consequences for all people. The initial response to the wells and Isaac’s
desire to build a third one according to Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch has to do
with the fact that Isaac recognized the negativity of his own privilege (cf. Gen.
22:14). Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik
teaches that the Philistines were “filling in the wells” because they assumed
that Abraham’s legacy died when he did, only to contend with Isaac, who was
carrying on his father’s work and built his own well to stop the chaos. Rabbi Philip Berg taught that by digging the
wells Isaac was attempting to “restore the water that was present before the
sin of Adam and the flood,” something that was being thwarted by the
Philistines until he dug a third well under the protection of God who caused King
Abimelech to make peace with Isaac.
Honoring the words of Rabbi Jonathan
Sacks, of blessed memory, I prefer the view that he brings to this Isaac
story. In describing Isaac, R’Sacks
distinguishes him from “the drama of Abraham and the struggles of Jacob” by
having a “faith of perseverance” that acted as a “link in the chain of
tradition of generations.” Before
digging the third well Isaac redug what his father had dug before, which for
R’Sacks represented carrying on the family name, hence the “chain of tradition.” But it was more than that for R’Sacks, it was
an act that saw Isaac “achieve the most elusive of goals, namely peace.” The idea of engaging in an argument for
Judaism is called a machalochet, not just any type of argument, but an
argument for the sake of heaven, or purpose. But
there is another type of argument, one that R’Sacks would say is an argument
for “victory” as opposed to “truth,” which is what a machalochet
is. The prime example of this comes from
Perkei Avot 5:17 where the argument between Hillel and Shammai is for truth
and the argument between Korach and Moses is for victory.
Regarding an argument, we saw this a
few weeks ago back in Lech Lecha when Abraham and Lot engaged in their own
quarrel, but there is a difference.
Abraham did the right thing, he allowed Lot to have what he desired for
the sake of a victory of peace only, which is another type of argument to
resolve conflict because mutual agreement is just not on the table. When Isaac and the herdsmen of Gerar argued, in
the end it resulted in peace, just not for the sake of peace but for
everyone’s success. The name of Isaac’s third
well is called Rechovot, which means “wide expanse,” because “For now
the LORD has made room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land.” Abraham let Lot go to Sodom because that
seemed to be the only way to have victory over their quarreling. For Isaac he saw that the “wide expanse” of
the land contained an answer that all could dwell together peacefully and in
safety. In the end R’Sacks concludes
that “being defeated by the truth is the only defeat that is also a victory.” In this parsha the goal between Isaac
and the herdsmen of Gerar was to have peace with one another.
Looking back at Perkei Avot 5:17 the
question is asked, why did the Halakha (Jewish law) go in the favor of Hillel
and not Shammai? The answer: the School
of Hillel took the view of the School of Shammai into consideration before
rendering a decision whereas the School of Shammai did not consider the School
of Hillel in theirs. Jonathan Haidt
concluded that fairness is not just morality, but moral equivalency is based on
looking beyond a sense of rightness and entitlement for the greater good, or “reciprocal
altruism.” In connection with our parsha,
without compromising values, Isaac realized that if stood on a moral platform
of rightness and entitlement he could not achieve a goal of peace with the people
who he shared the land of Gerar with.
So our question, did Isaac remove
himself from the disputed lands over water rights or from being an impediment to
peace? I think it was both. But this is
not about viewing Isaac as some type of messiah figure more so than it reflects
a man who seeks to carry on that chain of tradition, traditions such as הַכְנָסַת או֫רחִים (hach’nasat
ohrchim), "showing hospitality,” or צְדָקָה
(tzedakah), “righteousness.” It
is important to remember that tzedakah is much more than charity, it is
the obligation to social fairness for others around us. Isaac is a picture of menschlichkeit,
he showed hospitality and fairness to others whom he shared the land with, which is why
what we read points to a solution. Yet Isaac
having menschlichkeit underscores all Jewish values in general. We are best to understand menschlichkeit
as the basic ethics of
altruism derived from the human condition, symbolizing love and compassion
towards each other, also to include fairness found in justice, as we deal with both friend and foe. Truth - our nation waits with hope for January 20, 2021. Fact - this is not just about one man, but all
of us.
Shabbat
Shalom
No comments:
Post a Comment