Parashat Vayigash - Encountering our duality (5 min read)

     

רפואה מן התורה
Healing from the Torah

     To begin with, I do hope that during this Hanukkah season you were able to find light during a week that was filled with deadly hate crimes against Jews, and this past Sunday against Christian’s as well.  As we enter 2020 it's tough to swallow that such hate continues right in our back yard (yep here in Los Angeles we have experienced our share), but if anything, we are reminded that even in days of hate our light in this world makes more of an impact that we may think.
     We saw that last week with the horrible acts that the sons of Jacob did against their brother Joseph when they let him be sold into slavery as well as their father who they led to believe that his son was killed by wild animals.  I had suggested that Joseph would learn a lesson despite what happened about being the right type of ruler, thus his dreams were not about ruling over his family with an authoritative hand, but using his power to serve them for their betterment.  That is the power of our light in days of darkness, standing upon the foundation of love and relationships as we make our mark known with those who we encounter.  As such, we will further see how Joseph’s light over the darkness of anger and revenge is a large part of this week’s reading, Parashat Vayigash from Genesis 44:18-47:27, as we further encounter Jacob and his family.
     Although also from last week, we read that Pharaoh selected Joseph to be the overseer of Egypt, only accountable to Pharaoh himself.  And for a little humor, the Pharaoh also gave Joseph the daughter of Potiphar (that is right the same Potiphar who had Joseph thrown into Jail) as a wife and the mother of his children; you can only imagine their family dinners!  Yet, Pharaoh did one other thing, he charged Joseph’s name to “Tzaf’nat Pha’naiach,” or one who “reveals things that are hidden and easily reveals them” (per Gen. R. 90:4); this can also be understood to be an expansion of his Hebrew name, Joseph, which means to “increase.”  Joseph would certainly “increase” the welfare of the people as well as the riches and power of Egypt.  However, there is also a noted difference.  I am not convinced that the power of Joseph’s God that helped to interpret Pharaoh’s dream's had anything to do with the name change to Tzaf’nat Pha’naiach, with Rashi understanding the name to mean the “decipher of the cryptic” (per to ArtScroll). 
     A person who is a “decipher of the cryptic” can do so through various means, and while Egypt had its own sense of the spiritual, it was not monolithic and therefore highly unlikely to ascribe everything to one particular god and/or philosophy.  We therefore mentioned last week that Tzaf’nat Pha’naiach, based on Pharaoh’s dreams (effectively deciphering of the cryptic), used his business aptitude to devise a plan that when the famine came people from everywhere would come to Egypt to buy grain that was stored for the future from the earlier abundance.  But the Hebrew Joseph was a man who was hurt based on the naming of his children, emotional at the sight of his brothers, and in the end generous with his power even though his humanity was at war with itself.  The Hebrew Joseph was also a man who would have called on God for the wisdom required to do his job in Egypt just as he called on God to help interpret Pharaoh’s dreams.  Yes, Joseph was stately with his brothers and used the power of his office to manipulate them, but not for their harm.  In essence, Joseph was a man of two masks, one given and learned whereas the other was innate and nurtured.  The given is learned but the innate is molded by both genetic design and life itself, although it is also has an inner voice that one chooses how to respond to.  Can we say this of Joseph?  Well, given the fact that he did not use his power to punish his brothers but wanted to take care of them as family instead, yeah I think we can say that about Joseph.  In the end Joseph responded to his innate inner voice that would be more robust than the learned given power of Tzaf’nat Pha’naiach; hence the former would help to frame and characterize the latter.
      This week Joseph continues to respond in kind to his brothers (cf. Gen. 45:3).  In this case, however, Joseph is no longer able to hide behind what his brothers did not know and finally reveals his true identity.  Regarding the revelation of Joseph's identity, Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik wrote that Judah, the son of Leah, was gevurah (strength) whereas Joseph, the son of Rachel, was chesed (loving kindness).  Here since this is how “the Almighty” ordained how it would be, gevurah would rule over chesed, thus for Soloveitchik Joseph gave up his power to Judah as predetermined when he let his brothers know who he really was.  This was also interestingly picked up by Mark A. O’Brie who in 1997 wrote an article in the The Catholic Biblical Quarterly suggesting that Joseph was out-done by the wisdom of his brother Judah, who as a foreigner, influenced (and maneuvered) the consciousness of a powerful leader of Egypt.  However, looking at Rashi and Sforno we find another story. Remember, two times previously Joseph was taken over by his own emotions at seeing his brothers despite the previous 22 years (cf. Gen. 42:24 and 43:30).  This time when he shows his emotions outwardly as he reveals himself to his brothers, there is no indication that they responded any other way than what we read in the  Torah, thus when first confronted with Joseph’s identity they become, נבהלו מפניו, “alarmed before him” (Gen. 45:3).  In the case of Rashi, they reacted that way because they were humiliated, Sforno adding that the humiliation was not because of fear but for the shame of what they did.  Rashi goes on to say that Joseph knew, based on how his brothers reacted, that since his “brothers feel ashamed” he spoke to them “with a gentile language, and supplication.”  For Sforno's part, he further comments that while Joseph at first says his brothers "sold" him, in the end recognized that instead they "sent" him so he could embrace his family during their time of need.  Joseph as he healed came to a place that allowed him to see his part in the bigger picture; certainly not a power that he gave away but one that he claimed for himself that could not be taken. Soloveitchik is right that Joseph did give up his power, but he gave up his given power to let his innate humanity be vulnerable and loving toward his family, which is another type of power all together.
     Now, there is truth as well to the other way on some level, meaning that Joseph did relinquish his power given the confusion of the situation.  In this case, Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg correctly notes that Joseph can no longer “control [his] self-contained, observatory power, that has informed his actions till now [so in that moment he] shrivels in the heat of a different way of seeing [things].”  Sure Judah had influence on Joseph, that is the nature of relationships, but in the end Joseph got to decide how he wanted to respond with the power that he had.  The mask of his given power could not run away from the innate person he was, and that person loved his family and wanted to improve the lives of others.  This parasha ends with Jacob and his entire clan coming down from Canaan and moving into the Goshen section of Egypt where they are blessed with peace and abundance.  This however does not end the story of Joseph and his brothers by a long shot, something that we will return to next week.

Shabbat Shalom!                  

Parashat Mikaytz - the High Road or the Low Road (5 min read)

רפואה מן התורה

Healing from the Torah

     Happy Hanukkah from My wife, Catharine, and I.  Speaking of Catharine and I, although we watch very little TV, one of our regular shows is The Blacklist.  The Blacklist is a show where Raymond Reddington is an international criminal who is a CI (Confidential Informant) for a division of the FBI where he provides them with leads about big time plots.  Reddington works with Agent Elizabeth Keene who finds out that he is her father (well kind of).  Elizabeth would also eventually figure out a secret that Reddington had been hiding where he is actually another man who was made to look like her father who died some 30 years earlier.  
     Elizabeth was so angry that despite his immunity deal she got Reddington arrested, who if convicted, would be put to death for his high crimes.  Well, Reddington gets out, and makes it a personal mission to find out who set him up. Elizabeth finally confesses that she was the person who turned Reddington in, putting a bad strain between them.   There is then a scene where Elizabeth and Reddington are sitting in some restaurant with her trying to clear the air.  In so doing Reddington responds by saying,  “I live by a code … and in my world even my closest associates who betray me are eliminated.”  Reddington goes on to say that he is conflicted, not over whether he should kill Elizabeth, but that he can’t.  In this week’s parasha, Mikaytz from Genesis 44:1-44:17, we find a similar dilemma for Joseph who wants to punish his bothers for what they did, but in the end he can’t.

     22 years earlier we recall that Joseph’s brother’s let him be taken captive, where he eventually was sold into slavery in Egypt, then telling their father that wild beats killed his son.  After a time in prison, for a crime he did not commit against Potiphar’s wife, Joseph because he interpreted some dreams while in jail was asked in this parasha to interpret the dreams of Pharaoh.  The dreams where about the next 14 years that would see great abundance in Egypt to be followed by famine, which came true.  Pharaoh had Joseph released from jail, and made him his right hand man (meaning the second most powerful person in the entire world), putting him over all food matters in Egypt.  Then when the time of famine came people from other lands would come to Egypt to buy food from Joseph who made sure that out of the abundance large amounts of grain were stored for the future.
     So what do we know about Joseph from Mikaytz?  First, the Divine was a part of his worldview, so when he interpreted Pharaoh’s dreams Joseph made sure to say that the ability to do so came from God.  Second, Joseph was still hurt and needed to build his own family, thus at the birth of his children he would say “God made me forget all my hardships and my father’s household,” even more saying that he was “fruitful in the land of my sufferings” (cf. Gen. 41:51-52).  It is obvious that he was angry at his brothers, but he did not know that his father was not told, so on some level he must have felt as if his father did not love him simply because he did not search for his son.  And third, while yeah he would toy with his brothers. Joseph chose the high road and elected to not eliminate his brothers for their wrongs against him.   In fact, you have to wonder if he even knew how much his family meant to him, so when he sees his brothers coming to buy food he had to turn away from them because he wept (cf. Gen. 42:24).  Therefore, did he weep because they did not recognize him of did he weep because he was overcome with emotions that he forgot he had until he saw them?   Last week we touched on Joseph’s two dreams (see Gen.  37:5-9) and when he saw his brothers this week we further read, “Joseph recalled his dreams” as his brothers now stood before him (Gen. 42:9).  Rashi simply says that when they bowed to him he realized his dreams, with Sforno adding that Joseph needed his brothers to recognize him so his dreams would be fulfilled.  Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik claims that once Joseph realized his dreams were being fulfilled before his eyes his real goal became getting his father to come to Egypt and bow before him.  And Robert Alter in his modern Torah commentary talks about the “psychological” underpinnings to these  dreams, thus the self-gratification of the moment would yield to the agony of the pain experienced.  That all seems very myopic of Joseph I think.  Why would a man who feels hurt and weeps after so many years need his brothers to bow before him in order to bluster his self-worth?  Even more so, this guy was the second most powerful man in the world and he needed affirmation from his brothers who left him?  Each view above expressed about Joseph on some level is about a man who was angry, seeking self-gratification at the fulfillment of his dreams, but is that really it?
     I think there is another way to read this.  We learn in Mikaytz that Joseph was an effectual leader in Egypt, both taking care of the people and allowing Egypt to benefit further financially.  We also read that although he did not reveal his identity to his brothers and played the part of a very powerful man, two times in this passage he cannot control his emotions (cf. Gen. 42:24 and 43:30). Sure he was angry, and being human he sure thought of pay back, but I also want to suggest he learned something about his dreams.  Maybe Joseph got it wrong, it was not about realizing that his dreams were fulfilled when they bowed before him, but in reality it was about what it meant to be a leader, not lording over others but serving and caring for them.  Being a leader of others is not about power, but provision and protection, the hidden meaning of his dreams.
     Jacob, in Canaan, heard about the food in Egypt and sent all of his sons but Benjamin to travel there where they came face to face with Joseph although they did not know it.  Joseph, on seeing his brothers that betrayed him, now has to stand upon his own code of how to handle it.  We can chose to read this as Joseph’s opportunity for revenge or we can read it as a picture of serving others.  No doubt Joseph became a leader, a very powerful man that had a code that guided him, but that code also was to take care of his people in need and do them no harm.  That being so in this text what we see in that Joseph loved his family, and despite all the pain from the past, he just wanted to make sure his family had food in the present.  It is Hanukkah, so maybe we can end by saying that although we saw the darkness of Joseph's hurt, he elected to stand upon a light of love for his brothers, because for him there was no other way.  Peace, happiness and hope during this season.      

Parashat Vayeshev - Choices and Regrets (5 min read)

רפואה מן התורה

Healing from the Torah

     This week’s parasha, Vayeshev from Genesis 37:1-40:23, is again about Jacob’s story but with a twist.  In fact, outside of a few critical sections that deal with Jacob, this parasha is really about Joseph and his brothers.  But do not get that wrong, the children are a part of Jacob’s legacy, and therefore a part of Jacob’s story.  Also in this parasha there is more than one story line; from Joseph’s two dreams, to the hate of his brothers that sold him into slavery, the brother’s deception of their father as well Judah and Tamar, concluding with Joseph who is imprisoned at the word of Potiphar and while in jail interprets other dreams of two other men who were also incarcerated.  Here, we will continue to look at the life of Jacob from the first part of Vayeshev.
     Joseph has 2 dreams about ruling over his family.  His brothers are upset and hate him, whereas his father - who was also a little dismayed – but, ואביו שמר את הדבר, “and his father kept the matter” in mind (cf. Gen. 37:11).  Jacob was a dreamer if we recall, so perhaps he identified with Joseph and therefore could not dismiss his dreams out of hand.  Even more so, given the importance of Jacob’s dream world, did he ever impart that to the rest of his family?  Regardless, after the dreams, aside from Joseph and Benjamin the rest of the brothers are sent out to shepherd sheep.  Jacob sends Joseph (with his cloak given to him by his father) to check on his brother’s well being.  When Joseph’s brothers see him they immediately devise a plot to throw him into a pit and leave him to die.  Then Reuven stands up and says, brothers “we are not those type of men” (could not resist the Bob Dylan lyrics), and they sell him to a bunch of passing by nomads who then sell Joseph to the Egyptians as a slave.  Then, in one of the more disturbing narratives in the Bible (right up there with Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of Isaac), Jacob’s sons tell their father that Joseph was killed by wild beats and they hand their father Joseph’s cloak with the animals blood all over it.  In response, Jacob rents his cloths and rejects the comfort that his children seek to give him and he swears to mourn for the rest of his days.  Now, Rashi justifies these actions.  First, the 22 years between the time Jacob last saw his son and will see his son again (see. Gen. 45:26ff) reflect the 22 years that Jacob did not show honor to his mother and father.  And second; Jacob did not accept the comfort from his children for mourning because he did not believe that his son was really dead, itself a view that Rashi took from the Midrash (cf. Genesis R. 84:21).
     Turning back to Jacob, then, lets ask the following, what did it mean for Jacob to settle (וישב) in Cannon?  It seems like an innocuous statement, but maybe not.  Keep in mind that in Toldot after Jacob had his dream regarding the angels and the ladders, God makes promises to Jacob who then replies by saying, “If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and clothing to put on ..."  So maybe when Jacob “settled” he believed that it was prophetic on some level, thus God was with him and a new day after a rough 20 years was beginning.  A trio of medieval Rabbis comment on what it meant for Jacob to settle in the land of his fathers. Rashi suggests that after 20 years of wondering and hardships Jacob wanted to settle in the land promised to his fathers in peace (also see Targum Yonathan).  The Rashbam teaches that Jacob claimed the reward (the land) of the birthright he manipulated from his brother, whereas the Ramban writes that Jacob preferred the promised real-estate as opposed to a foreign land like his brother Esau chose (cf. Rashi, Rashbam and the Rambam on Gen. 37:1).  Maybe when Jacob settled his “expectation” was that everything would be better than before and his own wisdom became compromised?  In other words, where was Jacob's wisdom when he sent his son to check on his brothers given how his brothers felt about Joseph?  Of course Jacob could have not imagined what they would do, but still, what was Jacob thinking?  In the past Jacob made impulsive and/or unwise choices, but this one meant the loss of his son Joseph.
     So in a Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni) it is taught that Jacob’s 20 years he sojourned with Laban is compared to the 400 years of Israel’s slavery.  Therefore, when Jacob and his sons “settled” in the land it signified that there was “no more slavery,” thus in Jacob’s “mind” he and his family were now settled.  If that is so can we wonder the following; did Jacob have any inclinations that his older son’s hated Joseph, or did Jacob’s sense of arrival in a place of peace cause him to turn a blind eye to his own family dynamics?  That should not be read as a criticism of Jacob, he clearly loved his family, but it is an observation of what happens when a person’s expectations of how they want things to be can be blindsided by how things really are.  Is it fair to ask that if Jacob had a different mindset he would have not sent Joseph to check on his brothers?  Yeah I think it is fair, and as Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg writes, the “plot” that happened with Joseph “arouses Jacob from his aesthetic composure.” The loss of Joseph jarred Jacob, who wanted to settle in the peace of the promised land, by reopening his eyes and spirit to a world that had not been healed yet.  Rabbi Nachman of Breslev is to have said, “Worldly riches are like nuts; many a tooth is broke in cracking them, but never is the stomach filled with eating them.”  For us, the riches of the world and the sweetness it can add is not the point, more so than getting to comfortable with the wrong things. Jacob got to comfortable and forgot that the world around him, including his own family, still needed to be repaired.  The wisdom of Torah reminds us of such a need.                   

Parashat Vayishlach - Sent it away for our better (5 Min read)

רפואה מן התורה

Healing from the Torah

     Parashat Vayishlach, Genesis 32:4-36:43, continues the story about Jacob.  Last week we said that there were some takeaway’s we wanted to embrace regarding Jacob’s journey, and while there are many, let’s just reflect on two. First, there is Jacob’s expectation. God in the narrative made the same promise to Jacob that was made before to Abraham and Isaac about the land and their descendants.  In response Jacob replied, עמדי אם יהיה אלוהים, If God goes with me …,” a statement that sure seems conditional. Thus the Midrash says that “If God goes with me” means that God would keep Jacob from מלשון הרע, or words of “slander” (Midrash Genesis Rabbah, 70:4).  Second, Jacob’s well known reaction to his encounter with God, יש יהוה במקום הזה ואנכי לא ידעתי, “Surely God is in this place and I did not know it.”  Jacob left his home-town and headed to a place called Haran on the way to his uncle Laban’s home, but ויפגע במקום, “and he encountered a place” on the way that was not on his itinerary, a place that he did not know God would also be present.
     When Jacob had his dream we learn in a Midrash that מעונו של עולמו ואין עולמו של מעונו, or that God’s “dwelling place is the world not the world is God ‘s dwelling place” (Midrash Genesis Rabbah, 68:9).  In other words, God’s reign is not limited to the world as Jacob knew it but the expanse of a universe that he could not fathom. Surely unexpected on his trip was that Jacob would spend 20 years working for his uncle, learning about life, building his family, collecting his wealth, but also finding out that things are not always fair.  Jacob, although he stood up to Laban, was also fearful of what he might to his family (Gen. 31:25-42).  However, prior to that we read that God appeared to Laban in a dream and told him not to harm Jacob.  Maybe for Jacob that was a needed “sign” that God was indeed with him, which gave him the boldness to stand up to Laban?  Likewise, Jacob's earlier encounter with God came in the form of an a angel, so it makes sense the parasha begins by saying that Jacob "sent forth angels" (וישלח) before him in anticipating his meeting with Esau.  Perhaps, the anticipation of this encounter revealed another fear in Jacob that was dormant?
     The nature of Jacob's fear is different depending on who you read (Targum Yonathan says that his fear was based on not being mindful of his father whereas Rashi says it has to do with the potential deaths), but here we will just go with the text itself.  Hence, Jacob's fear is because he is about see his brother Esau after many years, a fear that stems from the same fear he had two decades earlier.  Jacob’s fear caused him to devise a plan based on his perception of what Esau could do to him, his family and all of his possessions.  In his plan Jacob divides everything that he had into “two camps,” theorizing that even if Esau attacks one half, the other half will continue and Jacob's legacy will be secured.  Then after sending away his family, Jacob lays down for what was surely an unsatisfactory sleep in anticipation of his encounter with Esau.  When Jacob finally meets Esau he his pleasantly surprised when Esau hugs him and weeps upon him, glad to see his brother after so many years.  But Jacob seems unsure of the legitimacy of his brother’s response, and even though Esau says no, Jacob has assembled a slew of gifts as tribute to give to his brother for a peace offering.  In the end, Jacob and Esau despite the pain of the past reconcile before continuing on their own separate journeys.  However, prior to that encounter Jacob during the night ends up wrestling with a “man” (angel) as he symbolically is seeking a sense of absolution and/or inner strength regarding his up and coming meeting with his brother.  When the angel cannot defeat Jacob, the angel rewards Jacob by declaring his name change to Israel (Gen. 32:25ff).  The name Jacob, which Rashi says means, “treachery and deceit,” is now Israel, which means “to contend with God.”  We again encounter the same name change when God commends Jacob for destroying the idols and building an alter.  Jacob's actions merited the change of name, a change that comes directly from God as opposed to an angel.  The language of the two encounters differ in that the angel simply announces the name change whereas God tells Jacob that the name change means a dissociation from the past.  The fact is Jacob is still called Jacob, but turning again to Rashi, the name change  “connotes” a decisive change in person-hood.
     Jacob on his journey has learned a few lessons to this point. First, God is everywhere and cannot be outran (we each have to deal with that our own way).  Second, Jacob’s journey required his growth along the way, hence now as a husband, father and property owner, this was not the same Jacob who left his home single, unburdened with possessions and/or expectations, not on a mission ordained by God, but by his own choice.  Jacob has now come to see that the presence of God is an active part of his journey, his own sense of spirituality is operative in his choices (such as the burial of the idols, cf. Gen. 35:1-5).  And lastly, the power of fear and his plans to overcome it.  Jacob concocted this plan of dividing up his household into two because he feared what Esau would do to him. Lets put that another way, might he also have done that because Jacob feared that God who made a promise to watch over him would not fulfill that promise?  Let’s not be naive, and it is really not clear what Jacob thought, but could have this also not have been about offering up some type of test to God and hoping for the best?  Yes, it worked out with his brother, and we can assume that Jacob’s building an alter for God was in response to what he perceived as his deliverance from Esau, thus for Jacob ביום צרתי, was the “day of my distress.”
    In Vayetze, Jacob feared Laban after he left his service after 20 years, and that concluded with a covenant of peace. This week in Vayishlach, Jacob feared what Esau might do (also) after 20 years, a meeting that ended in an embrace and a peaceful separation.  Jacob’s journey for the first 20 years was rooted in hard lessons and perceived dangers, but in the end what stood out was that he operated from a place of fear.  Fear is a big part of life, a part of life that we need to learn to coexist with as opposed to trying to manipulate or even pretend it is not there.  For Jacob, his fear became his teacher, but the lessons kept coming, more than likely because the important lesson of not letting fear control him had not yet been realized.  Fear does not go away but how much credibility is it given?   Last week it was said that Jacob ויפגע במקום, “and he encountered a place” that was not foreseen, but this place should not be read solely as a geographical location, but a spiritual one as well.  Bad stuff happens, but fear can rob us of moving forward.  In the end, can we not learn that Jacob's name change that asks him to disassociate from his negative past can teach us that we need to change our past (and present) narratives that our fear evokes?

Parashat Vayezte - The pain of expectations (5min read)

רפואה מן התורה

Healing from the Torah

     Last week we met Jacob for the first time, a young kid who was a crafty opportunist, clearly needing to grow up.  Still, it is most interesting that for our Rabbi’s the short comings of Jacob did not take away from his righteousness given his desire for God and Torah.  Toldot ended with Jacob’s father (Isaac) and his mother (Rebekah) encouraging him to flee his home.  Now the stated reasons were two-fold.  First, Esau was going to kill him, and second, they wanted to make sure that Jacob selected a good wife.  On a practical level we are reading a story about a young boy who is trying to find himself now as a young man, a development that will occupy the next few Torah readings.  As such, this week we are in Parashat Vayetze, Genesis 28:10-32:3, as we continue to encounter the person and voice of Jacob.

     Vayetze are the first words we read, ויצא יעקע מבאר שבע, “And Jacob left Beersheba …”  I guess we can take it at face value “why” he left, but let’s develop it a bit more.  Both Abraham and his grandson Jacob would leave their places of birth.  God commanded Abraham to better himself by leaving his homeland with no idea where he was going, while Jacob left at his parents beckoning given the reasons above with a clear destination in store (his uncles home to the North).  Likewise, both Abraham and Jacob would visit Mt Moriah, the place where Abraham took his son Isaac and the place where Jacob would dream a very important dream. But the differences are just as worthy to note.  Abraham left his home as a married man, with an established family in toe, as a pioneer for the future.  Jacob was raised in a home of Torah (tradition), single and unburdened with possessions and/or expectations, not on a mission ordained by God but by his own choice.  Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg would say that for Rashi Jacob’s leaving was to find the right mate, in connection with Genesis 2:24, where Rashi previously taught that the right mate was opposed to those who come from idolatrous homes.  Maimonides differed slightly from Rashi simply because animals also procreate with their partners, thus it was a deeper connection of soul.  Whatever the case, Sforno notes that the “place that Jacob encountered” after he left Beersheba was not a “planned on destination.”  It was there Jacob’s travels would take a new turn.

     This place, Mt Moriah, would be the place where Jacob had a very significant well known dream.  Here, ladders went from the heavens to the ground with angels descending and ascending upon them.  Rashi says that the angels descended to escort Jacob upon his journey and ascended to connect Jacob to God.  Sfrono in the end said that God will  “stand guard” over Israel. But this dream is also significant for Jacob personally and his “expectation” of God.  After the dream where God affirms the Covenant with Jacob as he did before hand, we read, “And, behold, I am with you, and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back into this land; for I will not leave you, until I have done that which I have spoken to you of.”   In response Jacob is recorded as saying, “If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and clothing to put on, so that I come back to my father's house in peace, then shall the LORD be my God and this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God's house; and of all that Thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto You.”  Jacob is saying; Okay God, you’re going to watch over me and that is a deal maker, so I will make the journey as your partner for the sake of the future promises of Israel and the repair of our world. 
     That is one heck of a dream with a pretty hefty meaning, one that for Sforno meant that Jacob believed God would “remove from him (i.e. Jacob) all oppression and obstacles [that] bring [mankind] to transgress the Will of [their]  Maker,” thus we read in the Talmud, “Three matters cause a person to act against his own will and the will of his Maker, and they are: idolaters, and an evil spirit, and the depths of extreme poverty” (BT Eruvin 41b).  In modern day language maybe we can better say; bad people, a lack of morals and ethics and financial burdens.  How can Jacob be protected from life?  How can we be protected from life?  Those life challenges are here to stay, and really it is what do we do with such encounters.   That being the case, the first thing Jacob faces after that dream is 20 years of labor for his uncle that included broken promises and deception.  Now don’t hear that wrong, Jacob got a lot too, the woman he loved (in fact 4 wives), a bunch of children and wealth.  But it did not go the way that he expected and/or wanted.
     I have more than once in my life been faced with challenges that called for rebuilding, and it was during those times I had to take a step back and admit I had expectations of how God should have intervened based on how my view of things.  A life of faith is not about expectation but the openness to let life teach us how faith operates.  There is great story I learned from my Rabbi, Ed Feinstein, about a little boy who wanted to know the secrets of God.  This young boy goes to study with a Rabbi who asks him to find a place to live, secure a profession, find a wife, have children, and to address life after the loss of a loved one.  In the end the student appeared before his Rabbi who tells his disciple that the differing stages of life taught him the mysteries of God, thus God does not exist in what you study alone but what you learn from life's experience.  As we continue to look at Jacob we will see how his perceived expectations of God, and life itself, became two very important teachers.  Call it God, or call it spirituality, but I suspect we all learn to varying degrees from those same teachers.     

Parashat Toldot - A Journey of Choice (5 min read)

רפואה מן התורה
Healing from the Torah

     Torah has taught us so far some reoccurring themes (among others). First, mankind is a partner with God in maintaining and repairing the world.  Second, mankind is called into this role despite being flawed, thus being “righteous” means allowing the higher values and wisdom of Torah to be a guide as opposed to being better than one’s neighbor and/or without error.  We have seen this beginning with Adam and it continues this week.  In a world where we have been conditioned to excel, or conversely think we are not good enough, perhaps the theme of the normality of those who partner with God is a message that makes Torah more accessible in support of our spirituality?   This week we are in Parashat Toldot, Genesis 25:18-28:9, where we further learn from the lives of these early men and women who were partners for tikkun in their world.

     Although there are different story lines in Toldot our concern will be the sons of Isaac and Rebekah: Jacob and Esau.  We are told that when they were born Jacob was grasping his brother’s ankle after “crushing” each other within their mother’s womb.  We are also told that Jacob and Esau would represent two “regimes,” two ways of being (Gen. 25:23-26). Upon their birth Rashi wants us to know that although Jacob and Esau had varied interests growing up, as brothers they were also indistinguishable until they were 13, but then their choices were nothing alike in terms of looks, personality and desires.  Rashi further explains that the word crushing (רצץ) is also read as running (רוץ), so the crushing/running that Rebekah experienced foretold of Jacobs’ role as opposed to Esau.  According to that same Midrash the crushing/running happened when Rebekah would walk by the Ark holding the Torah and Jacob would leap in response.  Likewise, when Rebekah walked past a place of iniquity Esau would leap in her womb.  So when we read that Esau was a large hairy man whose passions were hunting for game, and Jacob was a quiet homebody who “dwelt in tents,” our traditions on this text teach that we are learning something about their sense of spirituality.  This is why Rashi further says that Jacob and Esau after 13 took different paths, hence Jacob went to study Torah at Yeshiva, whereas Esau set out for a life of idolatry.

     Let’s not make any mistakes here, Jacob would take advantage of his brother and deceived his father, not good traits.  However, when given the choice, Jacob and Esau responded to life very differently.  We learn that when Abraham died Jacob grieved and mourned the loss of his grandfather by cooking a mourner’s stew (see. Gen. 26:29; also Bava Batra 16b and M. Tanachuma on Gen. 26:29).  Conversely, Esau’s concern was not his grandfather but his need to fill his stomach.  There is nothing wrong with being an outside person, it’s about Esau's choices not his profession or hobby.  Lastly, Rashi makes another interesting observation.  When Esau is born it says, “and they called him” (ויקראו) whereas when Jacob is named it says, “and he called him” (ויקרא).  Esau was red and hairy so all who saw him named him Esau.  Jacob was actually the first born son to be named by his father alone, so perhaps even after Jacob deceived his father, Isaac did not withdrawal his blessing from his younger son but knew what others did not.  Clearly our Rabbi’s believe that Jacob's negative actions did not take away that he was the better choice, because unlike Esau, Jacob cared about the ways of God and choose Torah (See Rashi on Gen. 27:33). 

     Our tradition has taken these two boys/men and has made them into conflicting standards of being.  This is taught in the Mystical tradition that says while Jacob and Esau are direct opposites they are also adjoining siblings, meaning that in order to win a battle one must know who they are fighting.  Still this battle is not one of external foes but internal conflicts and divisions. We can refer back to the Midrash that says Jacob and Esau had differing reasons why they leaped in Rebekah’s womb; one for Torah and the other for iniquity.  That teaching then illuminates why Jacob and Esau would represent two mighty nations that would battle each other, a battle that continues today (cf. Gen. 25:23).    Rabbi Berg uses the example of the ego for both good and bad to make his point.  On its own the good of the ego is required to regulate how we respond.  Hence Freud would teach that the id is the part of the mind that contains human drives and hidden memories and the super-ego controls our moral conscience; the job of the ego mediates between the desires of the id and the super-ego.  When the ego is compromised (for whatever reason) feelings associated with anxiety are experienced and defense mechanisms are employed (think about how Esau responded to his need to be fed). The result can be selfish behavior that seeks too often the wrong solution, even if personally and/or publicly are bad and destructive. The Ego can be both bad and good based on how it is used. 

     Jacob is presented as a good man who first and foremost puts spiritual things before him, but with Esau his darkness was necessary to wage the battle within.  Simple ... maybe ... but I think we all can identify with the battle of good and bad within us?  The scary part of Esau sent his brother Jacob running away from home and therefore can symbolize the relationship, as well as the perceived fierceness, of the battle (or battles) before us or within us.  The thing is that people can spend a lifetime both accepting the fight and finding the means to overcome. We know later that when Jacob eventually meets up again with Esau he realizes that his fear was misplaced as his own battle within turned out better than he might have imagined.  Another take away from this parasha; we are asked to use our spiritual energies for the right things although they can also be hijacked for the wrong reasons.  Our journey within is one of choices. 

Parashat Chayei Sarah - What can be Expected (5 min read)

רפואה מן התורה

Healing from the Torah

     This week we continue to read about a reoccurring theme that is setting up a pattern. The pattern is simple; the Torah is a full of stories about normal people who are celebrated for being righteous.  It was Rabbi Elie Muck who said being “righteous,” is not the same as being “perfect.” In the bible, and our tradition, the God of creation partners with everyday people to bring repair to the world.  With that, Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg in her commentary on Genesis writes, “The Life of Sarah … in a covert sense, Sarah’s life is germinal to the whole reading.  The problem of her life is manifest just at the moment of her leaving it.”  How does Sarah further the cause of tikkun?
     To be noted the last parasha, Vayeira, ends with the narrative about the Akedah (the binding of Isaac), whereas the last time Sarah is mentioned is when Isaac is born.  In this week’s parasha, Chayei Sarah – Genesis 23;1-25:18, there is no mention of Sarah at all except in the very beginning that tells us that Sarah lived for so many years on this earth before she died, thus we read; ויהיו חיי שרה, “and they would be Sarah’s life" (they being the many years of her life).  We need to read this more so as referring to the years that Sarah lived as opposed to the life she had.  Make no mistake though, she was a busy woman, following her husband to Canaan and their journey through Egypt, being an active partner with Abraham in the future promises for Israel, protecting her family, helping serve their guests and in the end being the mother to Issac and grandmother to Jacob.  But in general the Mikra (Bible) does not say much about her, which is why Zornberg writes that the opening passage about Sarah is “covert,” simply because there is more to Sarah’s life than meets the eye.

     Zornberg wants to look beyond the three Midrashim that Rashi calls upon, in particular to the Akedah of Vayeira, as she seeks the deeper meaning behind the person of Sarah.  In the Midrash, Perkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, Zornberg says that a theme of this Midrash is about the ongoing purpose of the Shofar blasts that we hear at Rosh Hashanah.  In this case the crying sound of the Shofar represents the crying of Sarah (three sobs) after hearing about Isaac, which itself is apart of our liturgy “as an atonement for her [Sarah] descendants.”  For Zornberg, Sarah’s crying for Isaac was not just connected to a loss, but it was the anguish of a nightmare, teaching us how we need to wrestle with the message of the Akedah ourselves.   Tradition teaches that Sarah died when Satan told her what Abraham did to Isaac, leaving out the ram part of the story and the fact that her son lives.  In another Midrash, Tanachuma also on the Akedah, Sarah is confronted by Satan disguised to look like her son, Isaac.  In this Midrash, although Satan (by looking like Isaac) tells Sarah that “he” is okay, Sarah cannot bear the story of what happened and dies.  In this case Satan does to Sarah what he could not do to Abraham; bring death to their offspring and the future of the Jewish people.  However, despite evils failure so to speak,  the theme of this Tanachuma Midrash is that while “the sacrifice is not carried out [it is] not aborted [either],” meaning that for Sarah (and for us) it still has compromising results.  Finally, in a Midrash from Leviticus Rabbah, Zornberg says that its central theme is the tension of joy in a broken world.  The joy of Abraham that his son lived is mitigated by the sorrow that Sarah experienced that caused her death.  Zornberg concludes that this Midrash teaches us that “joy belongs to the future … not to the troubled middle-distance of temporal reality.”   All this to say that Sarah depicts humanity in a variety of ways by how she reacts to her own feelings and emotions regarding Isaac, which is why “The Life of Sarah” in the Bible is covert.  If that is so, what is it that Zornberg wants us to know?

     Well, each Midrash says something about how Sarah lived.  The first Midrash tells us that Sarah died not of misinformation but a terrible truth that her family would be attacked.  The second Midrash wants us to know that Isaac’s survival contributed to a frightening reality for Sarah, which would be the continuing attempts upon her descendants.  And lastly the final Midrash says, it will be even though it might not, hence even though Isaac lived the next person may not.  All in all, all three Midrashim for Zornberg carry a similar, although slightly different, meaning.   Sarah recognizes that the plot against her son and his father is the same that will plague humanity going forward, just like she separated Ishmael and Isaac as she reflected on what happened between Cain and Abel.  More than that, the death of Sarah also allows us to consider how the power of bad things can impact life in our world.  If Abraham did not do what he did with Isaac, even though Isaac lived,  perhaps Sarah would have not morphed into a woman who allowed the moment to ruin her?   This is based on Rashi who teaches וכמעט של נשחת, “and he was nearly slaughtered,” thus for the Maharal (Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel, 1520-1609) Sarah’s “reaction of panic [came as she realized] that [it is] only a small thing [that] separates life and death.”  Sarah could not get over what almost happened to her son, it took her breath away so to speak. On the positive, when Isaac marries Rebekah, a 14^th century Midrash teaches that every time he entered his mother’s tent he would see darkness but upon entering it with Rebekah he saw light once again.

     That is how Sarah continues to live.  She died in the darkness of fear, panic and anxiousness of what could have been for her son, but also what the world can expect.  With Isaac, his mother was also a means of renewal, a light reappeared in the beauty of his marriage with Rebekah whom he loved.  We can therefore conclude that Sarah suffered a somatic attack that cased her death.  A somatic event is when the power of the mind and spirit, although distinct from the physical body, can impact the functioning of the body itself.  It seems like such a negative message to embrace, but really is just the opposite.  Knowing is a large part of the battle to overcome.  Torah is telling us that we live in a world demanding repair that will impact our mental and spiritual health not always in the best of ways (Sarah's darkness).  Torah does not want us to be ignorant that we live in a broken world, and via its teachings, wisdom and light are revealed (Sarah's light).  Having the expectation that everything is okay all the time has the power of working against us.  Expectation can be our worst enemy or it can be a healthy dose of realism.  Still, do we really need words on a page to tell us that we live in a broken world; of course not!  The words of our tradition simply want us to know that to fix things and rise above the brokenness of Sarah the answer involves her light as well, or a sense of “other” to guide us.