Counting Without Counting and Tzedakah

February 25th: Pekude and Shekalim
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich

One of the problems in Biblical interpretation is thinking that one verse or passage represents the entirety of the Bible’s opinion on a subject. The Bible has all sorts of opinions for all sorts of situations, and a judicious understanding of “The Biblical Opinion” requires a broadly based review of relevant passages.

As case in point comes up in this week’s special reading. In addition to the weekly portion, Vayakhel (Exodus 35.1 – 38.20), there is also one of the four special pre-Passover portions that Tradition prescribes. This week, we have Shekalim, Exodus 30.11-16: “The Lord spoke to Moses saying, When you take a census of the Israelite people according to their enrollment, each shall pay the Lord a ransom for himself on being enrolled, that no plague may come upon them through their being enrolled. This is what everyone who is enrolled in the records shall pay: a half-shekel by the sanctuary weight—twenty gerahs to the shekel—a half-shekel as an offering to the Lord. Everyone who is entered in the records, from the age of twenty years up, shall give the Lord’s offering: the rich shall not pay more, and the poor shall not pay less than half a shekel when giving the Lord’s offering as expiation for your persons. You shall take the expiation money from the Israelites and assign it to the service of the Tent of Meeting; it shall serve the Israelites as a reminder before the Lord, as expiation for your persons.”

One could look at this passage and think that taxation should be the same for individuals of all income levels: “The rich shall not pay more, and the poor shall not pay less.” Is the Bible therefore against progressive taxation—where higher income individuals pay more than lower income individuals? One could also look at this passage and think that the Bible endorses charging to be enrolled as a member of a community. Does this mean the Bible approves of “poll taxes?”

 The problem with any such extrapolations is that this passage is very narrowly focused—talking about a census and not a system of taxation—and being only one of many passages which discuss contributions to the public good. Moreover, it is affected by a particular belief that “counting people” could bring about a plague: “that no plague may come upon them through their being enrolled.” In order to get a “count” without counting, God instructs the collection of half-shekels and, from the amount collected, an accurate population size can be determined.

This ancient belief is carried on today in what some might call a superstition. The Tradition warns against counting people for a minyan. . Instead of saying, “one, two, three, etc.,” some suggesting saying, “Not one, not two, not three, etc.” Why? As it was explained by one of my teachers, Dr. Jacob Rader Marcus, there is a fear that the Evil One could be listening, and, upon hearing, “We have ten,” would kill one of them. It is akin to the expression “Kaynahorah / Kayn Ayin HaRah / Against the Evil Eye.”  We should never say something good without invoking protection against the dark forces that abound on every side—and look for excuses to hurt us. Another technique for “counting but not counting” is to recite a Biblical verse with ten words—each word corresponding to a person present. For example, Psalm 5.8 has ten words (in the Hebrew): “Va’ani berov chas’decha avo vaytecha, esh’tachaveh el haychal kod’sh’cha b’yir’atecha. Thanks to Your abundant lovingkindness, O God, I am able to enter Your house and, in this sacred place, to bow down reverently.”

As for taxes in ancient Israel and in the Rabbinic Period, there is a lot more to consider. First, their tax system was far, far different from ours. There were mandatory payments to be made to the Temple—tithes of harvests and offerings for worship. Though standard offerings (goats, sheep, or bulls, grain, and oil) are prescribed, allowances were made for those who were without means (turtledoves or just flour instead). As for support for the poor, there was not a taxing mechanism, but there were a number of social mores. Farmers were to leave the corners of their fields unharvested, and they were not to go back and pick fruit that was late to mature. This was all left to the poor. The size of the “corners” of the field was a matter of personal choice. The Mishnah (Peah) suggests that generosity in this life will be rewarded in the next life, but it stands to reason that poorer farmers with smaller fields might have legitimately left smaller corners than a wealthier neighbor. There were also injunctions for those with means to share holy day feasts with the widow, the orphan, the stranger, and the Levite.

The Talmud has many passages discussing the question of propriety and generosity, and some Rabbis are a bit more exuberant than others. In a fascinating passage about how much charity people deserve, one opinion is that poor people should be supported according to the lifestyle they enjoyed before their financial ruin. This means that a person accustomed to eating meat and drinking fine wine every night should be supported charitably the same way—even if the donors eat beans and drink water for their own meals. In one instance, Hillel went so far as to pay for a horse for a formerly rich man so he could ride it through the market—and Hillel, the chief rabbi of all the Jewish community, ran before the horse, announcing the man’s arrival. That is what the man was used to before his ruin, and preventing his humiliation was Hillel’s main priority. Was this just an exaggeration to make a point, or did Hillel really believe that charity should be adjusted to the lifestyle a poor person had before sinking to poverty?

Drawing conclusions from the Bible or Talmud about modern government taxing policy and public assistance is a tenuous affair—with lots of principles that may or may not apply. Better in my mind is to focus on the Traditional Jewish mitzvah of Tzedakah / Charity. Charitable generosity is a matter of personal choice, and God is always watching.

“These are the things that have no definite quantity: The corners [of the field]. First-fruits; [The offerings brought] on appearing [at the Temple on the three pilgrimage festivals]. The performance of righteous deeds; And the study of the Torah. The following are the things for which a man enjoys the fruits in this world while the principal remains for him in the world to come: Honoring one’s father and mother; The performance of righteous deeds; And the making of peace between a person and his friend; And the study of the Torah is equal to them all. (Mishnah Peah 1.1)

The Golden Calf incident: Beware the Mob

February 18th: Ki Tisa
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich

When we study the Golden Calf Incident, we usually focus on the apostasy of the Israelites. Just six weeks after the Revelation at Mount Sinai and just a few months after the miraculous Exodus, they begin worshipping an idol! It is a shocking and terrible sin.

However, there is another shonda (disgrace and scandal) in the story: the mob that seems to take control of everyone and their sensibilities. “When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aaron.” (Exodus 32.1) They do not turn to Aaron, seeking counsel; rather, they gather against Aaron, threatening him. The Midrash fills in the story by telling us that they go to another leader first. When Hur refuses to make an idol, the mob attacks and kills him. Thus do they gather against Aaron.

This unbridled behavior is confirmed by Moses later in the chapter. After he descends from the mountain and shocks everyone by smashing the Ten Commandments, the crowd is still berserk. “Moses saw that the people were out of control…so that they were a menace to any who might oppose them.” (Exodus 32.25). It is a mob scene, and only a violent military response brings order to the camp. (The Cecil B. DeMille film The Ten Commandments highlights this riotous behavior.)

Mob mentality is an unfortunate and dangerous aspect of human social behavior, and there have been far too many outbreaks that have resulted in tragedy and destruction. Something fearful occurs—or is reputed to occur, and anxiety spreads in a group. This anxiety paralyzes logical thinking, and someone directs the anxiety to a “solution to the problem.” Unexamined and undebated—because heightened group anxiety makes such logical thinking impossible, the group follows instructions and lashes out at the perceived/identified problem.

When discussing mob mentality, we usually think about pogroms, lynch mobs, or the Crusades. Sometimes, however, “the mob” is not violent. Sometimes, it manifests in a kind of groupthink—a sensibility which stifles analysis and reasoning. Groupthink can become panic, and the panicked group prizes loyalty and obedience above analysis and strategic thinking. Then, if someone  objects or questions the groupthink, he/she is immediately branded a traitor and is shunned or expelled from the group.

We all feel the power of our groups. It is nice to find like-minded people and to unite to pursue common goals. However, we can sometimes be swept along into opinions or actions we doubt—or we can ignore our critical thoughts for fear of being labeled disloyal to the cause. Imagine wondering aloud about the crowd’s plan to worship a Golden Calf. Would you or I have had the courage to stand up and say No? Would we have survived the experience?

In that ancient context, the problem begins with a misanalysis of Moses’ delayed descent from Mount Sinai. Rather than realizing that he is just staying up with God a little longer, some Israelites panic and decide that he is dead. “When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they said, ‘…that man Moses, who brought us from the land of Egypt, we do not know what happened to him.’” (Exodus 32.1) Not only do they mistakenly assume Moses’ death, but they also ignore the Presence of God—the One who brought them out of Egypt. Once these anxiety-driven and inaccurate thoughts take hold, who can resist? The Midrash says that Hur tries, but his death sends a message to anyone who might oppose the mob.

So often, groupthink and mob mentality begin with misanalysis. The Jews are the reason the Czar’s taxes are squeezing the Russian peasants; pogroms will ease the tax burden. The Jews are the cause of Germany’s economic humiliation in the 1920s; getting rid of them will bring Germany back to life. The Jews killed Jesus back in 28 CE; a crusade through the Rhineland 1000 years later will fix things—and give Crusaders practice in killing as they work their way down to the Muslims in the Holy Land. Imagine a thinking Christian standing up to a pogrom or a crusade or the Nazis. Once the mob forms, evil and destruction are sure to follow.

While there are still actual mobs in some places, the same kind of dynamic can present itself psychically in ideological or political groupthink. On both the Right and the Left, enemies are identified, and attackers are sent to vanquish them. Not convince them; attack them. And, if anyone questions the thinking, he/she is labeled both disloyal and dangerous—another enemy to be attacked and destroyed. Whether in Democratic or Republican circles, real thinking about real problems can be obfuscated by anxiety-ridden calls to loyalty and action.

My impression is that it is just as difficult to question Global Warming or the notion of Systemic Racism on the Left as it is to question Gun Rights or Donald Trump on the Right.

 
Reb Nachman of Breslov used to teach that evil actions are often based on good intentions. What begins as a good inclination takes a wrong turn and ends up causing great harm. The key to repentance is identifying the initial good thought and finding a moral and righteous way to pursue it. So often, people choose one set of values and pursue them vehemently—often to the exclusion of wisdom. Yes, people have the right to defend themselves and their property, but this does not justify getting in our pickup trucks and killing a Black jogger. Yes, everyone should be respected, but this does not justify destroying the career of someone who is not supportive enough of marginalized groups.

When we dial down the emotions and consider our problems with logic, calm, and grace, we have an opportunity to analyze both problems and possible solutions. We can look at both pros and cons and work toward answers that take into account the complexity of our lives and the presence of both good and bad in people and situations.

In Talmudic days, a great tragedy and controversy occurred when one of the most influential rabbis, Elisha ben Abuyah, became a heretic. What did this mean for his devoted students and for all of the wisdom he had taught over the years? The Midrash suggests that even God considered rejecting everything Elisha had ever taught, but then the Divine Mind was instructed by Rabbi Meir. As the Talmud explains, “Rabbi Meir found a pomegranate and ate its contents while throwing away its peel.” (Hagigah 15b)

Will this Golden Calf be the solution to our problems, or should we think though this problem? Thinking, analyzing, judging, and looking for righteousness: these lead to redemption.

Elitism or Purpose?

February 11th: Tetzaveh
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich

The main theme of our Torah portion is the clothing and the consecration of the priests—the Kohanim. Speaking to Moses, the Lord says, “You shall bring forward your brother Aaron, with his sons, from among the Israelites to serve Me as priests: Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron. Make the sacral vestments for your brother Aaron, for dignity and adornment.” (Exodus 28.1-2)

Though the priests are servants of the Lord, there is certainly something elitist and undemocratic about their elevation over the other Israelite tribes. Their tribe, Levi, is chosen from all the other tribes for a special status and role. Then, from among the Levites, Aaron and his sons are chosen for an even more special status and role. Why are these people lifted above the others?

As with any question about Biblical rules, the initial answer should be that this is the way God commands it. Though we may try to figure out God’s reasoning, the importance of obedience to the Divine Will is a major principle of both Biblical and Rabbinic Judaism. We do not have to understand God’s motives or judgments; we just need to follow God’s mitzvot.

Nonetheless, we try. Some commentators look back on the actions of the progenitor of the tribe, Jacob’s son Levi. Perhaps he showed some qualities that are applied to his descendants as inherited merit, zechut avot.

Then, there is a historical possibility—one that revises the Torah’s story of Yetzi’at  Mitzrayim. Though we tell the story and celebrate the miraculous Exodus from Egypt, a number of the details just do not stand up to analysis. First, how could such a large number of people (600,000—or, if you believe the Midrash, 2,500,000!) depart Egypt without any kind of historical record? One could also ask about how a country could withstand all those plagues and the destruction of its army in the Red Sea without any kind of mention in the Egyptian records. There is also the practical matter of organizing, leading, and feeding all those Israelites. Think of the complexity of parking and getting 100,000 fans into Beaver Stadium, and then increase it by six times and take away the walkie-talkies, cellphones, and years of planning. We also have the problem of the tribal society in the Book of Judges—which supposedly happened AFTER the Exodus—closely resembling the Patriarchal society BEFORE the Exodus. And, there are some theological problems in the story. Why does God have two names—the four-letter name we do not pronounce (saying Adonai or The Lord instead) and Elohim, God? The koshis (difficulties) go on and on and lead many to question the historical veracity of the Torah story.

There are Traditional answers to all of these questions—the biggest being the miraculous nature of God and God’s works. However, the many koshis have led many thinkers to consider alternative explanations.

Among them is the theory that not all of the Israelites experienced all of the stories. Perhaps most of the tribes stayed in the Land of Israel while only the Tribe of Levi went down to Egypt and experienced slavery, liberation, and the revelation at Mount Sinai. If the Exodus involved only one tribe—and the few thousand slaves fled over a number of years, then the migration would not have been so noticeable. And, if the miracle of escaping slavery were simply that—escaping slavery—then stories like the splitting of the Red Sea might have been exaggerations of something less worthy of special effects but nonetheless existentially amazing. If the route to freedom involved marshes—where pursuing chariots could not follow, the liberation would have certainly been miraculous—just not in the way the legend grew.

This theory may also explain why the Levites never got a territory in Israel. All the Israelites who had stayed in the Land had their territories, so, when the Levites arrived from Egypt, they were landless. What they had, however, was a tradition of a miraculous encounter with the Lord—both in the Exodus and at Mount Sinai, and they became the teachers of religion and the workers of the religion.

So, rather than an election, lifting the Levites above the other Israelites, perhaps this was a special role carved out for a landless tribe—whom the other tribes wanted to include as family, but who needed a special way to provide for itself and be part of the greater community. Their spiritual legacy gave them a special skill that could serve the other tribes.

When I think about elitism—and my reaction to it, I feel a palpable tension. While I may feel rankled or jealous when someone is lifted above me, I generally do not feel discomfort when I am lifted above someone else. Could I be a secret admirer of Napoleon the Pig—who used to say, “All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others?”  Or, is it simply a matter of me feeling special—and of feeling threatened when someone else becomes special?

In our Jewish Tradition, this issue of specialness or chosen-ness has long been a concern. It begins in Exodus 19 (v.5-6) where God says, “You shall be My treasured possession among all the peoples. Indeed, all the earth is Mine, but you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” Some Israelites saw this as a mission-oriented selection, while others began to see it as a statement of racial superiority. Such thinking was anathema to the Prophets such as Amos who made the point that our selection does not make us better. “To Me, O Israelites, declares the Lord, you are just like the Ethiopians. True, I brought Israel up from the land of Egypt, but I also brought the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Arameans from Kir.” (9.7) Though eloquently stated, many Israelites must have persisted in thinking that being chosen by God makes us Jews better than the other nations. So, the Rabbis continued Amos’ message in several Midrashim which assert that we were not God’s first choice. Indeed, the Rabbis teach, we were God’s last choice among all the peoples of the earth.

The point throughout our history has been that our election/selection/sacred calling is for a purpose—as the original Exodus passage clearly states, “Now then, if you obey Me faithfully and keep My covenant, then you shall be My treasured possession…”  We are not talking about elevation for status’ sake; we are talking about a role and a mission. What makes Israel great is not our blood or our selection but rather how we respond to God’s Presence. The same can be said for the selection of the Levites and then Aaron and his sons. Their appointment does not make them better; it just specifies their tasks and holy calling.

Making a Comfortable Home for the Lord (And God’s Children)

February 4th: Terumah
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich

Our Torah portion begins with a shopping list: “The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Tell the Israelite people to bring Me gifts; you shall accept gifts for Me from every person whose heart is so moved. These are the gifts that you shall accept from them: gold, silver, and copper; blue, purple, and crimson yarns; fine linen, goats’ hair, tanned ram skins, dolphin skins, and acacia wood; oil for lighting, spices for anointing oil and for the aromatic incense; lapis lazuli and other stones for setting—for the ephod and for the breastplate.” (Exodus 25.1-8)

Then God explains the purpose of these items: “Let them make me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them.”

This list and the instructions that follow were very important 3200 years ago. The Mishkan, the portable tent-Temple, provided a place for our people to encounter God and worship during their years in the wilderness and their first centuries in the Promised Land. The bulk of this week’s and next week’s portions involve the construction of the tent complex and the crafting of its furniture and utensils. It was not enough to be granted freedom. The freedom was for a purpose: encountering God and living consciously in the Divine Presence.  

One could ask, however, why we moderns need these instructions for a no-longer-used Mishkan. While we did use the tent-temple from around 1200 to 950 BCE, we then moved our worship to the stationary Temple of the Lord in Jerusalem. The First Temple functioned from around 950 to 586 BCE, and the Second Temple functioned from around 516 BCE to 70 CE. Then, since 70 CE, we have worshipped God in synagogues—not a sacrificial temple and not a tent! In other words, we have not needed or followed these tent-temple instructions for a long, long time. Why should we study them every year?!

The answer is that our Tradition has transcended this sacred irrelevancy by looking at the text metaphorically. Though we do not follow these particular details, we are urged to approach our worship with care and respect—realizing that every gesture and motivation is reflective of our encounter with the Eternal One. Every breath and movement can either connect us to God or strain that connection. This is true in the devotional sense and in every other aspect of life. Our attitudes and actions can make God feel “at home” in our midst—or we can alienate the Divine Presence. Remember the affective mitzvah: “Let them make me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them.”

The breadth of our calling to make God feel comfortable in our presence was made clear a few weeks ago in the Ten Commandments. Whereas most other ancient religions focused exclusively on treating the gods right, we were commanded to treat both God and our fellow humans right. More than half of the Ten Commandments deal with ethical treatment of other people. God is invested in all of us and wants all of us treated with justice and compassion.

This double mitzvah—to love God and to love people—is the theological basis of our Prophetic call to social justice. “Let justice well up like water, righteousness like a mighty stream!” (Amos 5.24) In fact, for Amos and Isaiah, prayers without righteousness are affronts to the Lord.

As much as God wants us to live prayerfully—relating to the Divine with sincerity and intensity, God also wants us to establish and maintain a society where our brothers and sisters in humanity can feel safe and secure. Thus are we called to our various social action causes—feeding the hungry, healing the sick, freeing the captives, and keeping faith with those whose lives are dangerously close to oblivion.

Among the many realities that call us to action is the recent arrival of the refugees from Afghanistan. After the tragic fall of Afghanistan’s hope for democracy and progress, thousands of Afghans—people invested in the reforms we tried so hard to establish—found themselves in need of rescue from their homeland. Those who were fortunate enough to escape and arrive on our shores can count their blessings, but their resettlement is not yet complete. They need to be assisted in finding new homes and building new lives.

Fortunately, our congregation’s Social Action Committee is working with organizations both local and national to help in this important resettlement. We recently sent out a description of the work and a call for assistance. This would be a good time to help, and I urge you to contact either Naomi Altman (nsa1@psu.edu)  or David Post (post@psu.edu) to find the best way for you to participate.

One of our synagogue’s hallmarks is the depth of volunteerism and social justice work done by congregants of all ages. Our members are hard workers in dozens of local, regional, and national charities. We take seriously the injunction to be God’s Hands in the world, bringing the blessings of heaven to all the earth.

As Hillel counsels, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But, if I am only for myself, what am I? And, if not now, when?” (Avot 1.15)

The Torah, Religion, and Abortion Rights

January 28th: Mishpatim
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich

When we are faced with a challenging ethical situation, many of us turn to our religious traditions for guidance. Usually based on ancient religious texts, religions offer a range of principle and precedents. Of course, sometimes the ancient texts do not address later questions directly, and we are left speculating as to how our spiritual forebears would have responded.

In Judaism, we have had to consider such things as driving automobiles or using microphones—or Zoom—on the Sabbath. There have also been questions about blood transfusions, medicines made from unkosher ingredients, organ transplants, and other possibilities that the ancients could never imagine. Among these difficult modern questions is what the Halakha (Jewish Law) says about contraception and abortion. Interestingly enough, contraception is not a new concern. One can find the Talmudic Rabbis discussing it in regard to both humans and livestock. Sometimes, they understood, reproduction is not safe for females, and contraception is not only allowed but required.

Abortion is another matter. There is no mention of abortion in the Bible or the Talmud. The first Halakhic reference to it (in my knowledge) is a comment made by Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Itzchaki, 1040-1105). Considering a situation in which continuing a pregnancy endangers the life of a pregnant woman, Rashi compares the fetus to a rodef / a pursuer, and the Halakha allows killing a pursuer to save one’s life.

Of course, Rashi was speaking about life-threatening pregnancies, not unwanted pregnancies. An unintended pregnancy or discontinuing a pregnancy when the woman is not able to care for an eventual child is not a scenario the ancients considered in the legal literature. So, in this modern and very difficult situation, we are left searching for principles and precedents—and there are very few.

Though some claim that a number of Biblical verses relate to abortion, the fact is that the Bible does not address this issue. The only possibly relevant passage is one in which the subject is only sort of approached—and it happens to occur in this week’s Torah portion. In Exodus 21.22-25, we read:  “When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” The loss of the pregnancy is considered an injury to the woman and not the loss of a life. That is it. There is no other place in the entire Bible—both the Jewish Bible (“Old Testament”) and the Christian Bible (“New Testament”)—that is directly and specifically relevant to elective or therapeutic abortion. Anyone who brings another passage to the debate is simply stretching the chosen passage beyond reasonable interpretation.

This is not to say that religious people have no right to be opposed to abortion. Nor should we say that religious people have no right to support abortion rights. What we have here is a situation in which the ancient religious texts do not address a modern situation, and modern people of faith have been forced to come up with opinions on their own—based on factors and opinions outside of the traditional Scriptural proof-texts.

For many, the big question regards ensoulment—that moment when a soul is put into a developing fetus. Medical science has been unable to answer this question, and Halakha (Jewish Law) has respected the uncertainty and not ventured its own speculation. Indeed religions in general have not addressed this question until very recently.

While some believe that “life begins at conception,” their opinion has not been reflected in religious practice. Scientists estimate that 50% of fertilized eggs (conceptions) do not implant in the uterus or are spontaneously expelled. The woman never even knows she has conceived. In such cases, there is no religious observance marking the existence or loss of a human life. Even in the case of an early-term miscarriage, traditional religions respond with sympathy and comfort but not with a naming ceremony, baptism, blessing, or funeral. In other words, the “life begins at conception” idea is not a “traditional” religious belief; it is a modern religious opinion.

There is nothing wrong with modern religious opinions; we all have them. However, honesty requires identifying them as such and not falsely claiming Biblical authorization.

Unfortunately, I do not have an answer to the debate on this divisive issue. And, whatever the Supreme Court rules in the Spring will not settle the matter either. The best we can do is to honestly appraise the reasons for each opinion and to respect how deeply this issue affects individuals.

In the Reform Movement’s thinking—and in the thinking of the many denominations in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, this profound individuality is a major factor. Realizing that pregnancy is a blessing for some and a crisis for others, the Union for Reform Judaism and its affiliates and colleagues have focused on the individual choice that each pregnant woman faces. As much as choice is seen as a right—a matter of legal and moral autonomy, the Reform Movement also regards the choices women make about their bodies and fertility as rites—moral and religious practices as individual women weigh the many and complex factors and make personal decisions.

One of the most hopeful stories in this conflict was a program in Missouri a few decades ago in which anti-abortion and pro-choice groups combined to create a “Venn Diagram” solution that served both sides’ interests. While the anti-abortion forces want less abortions, the pro-choice advocates do not want more abortions. They want fewer unwanted pregnancies. So, the two groups teamed up in promoting sex-education and contraception information in the community—and their efforts worked: there was a marked decrease in the crises that lead some women and girls to see abortion as their only choice. Even in this difficult conflict, progress and cooperation is possible.

Heavenly Law and Earthly Application

January 21st: Yitro
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich

While the highlight of Yitro is the revelation of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai (Exodus 20), the earlier part of the sidra has some more subtle but equally important lessons. The context is the visit of Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro. He brings Moses’ family—wife Zipporah and sons Gershom and Eliezer—from Midian to join the newly freed Hebrews. They had apparently stayed at home in Midian when Moses was off in Egypt. Now, after more than a year apart from Moses, the family is reunited. As important as national liberation is, the Torah reminds us that family and individual relationships are vital as well.

While observing the newly freed Israelite society, Jethro notices that Moses is trying to run everything all by himself. “Moses sat as a magistrate among the people, while the people stood about Moses from morning until evening. But when Moses’ father-in-law saw how much he had to do for the people, he said, ‘What is this thing that you are doing to the people? Why do you act alone, while all the people stand about you from morning until evening? ...the thing you are doing is not right; you will surely wear yourself out, and these people as well. For the task is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone.’” (Exodus 18.13-18) Jethro then counsels Moses to set up a hierarchy of administration and justice—advice that Moses takes. In other words, before the presentation of God’s law, the Israelites have to figure out how to organize themselves—and thus set up a system where God’s law can be transmitted and translated from God’s infinity to the individual situations of human life. The law originates with God, but it is put into practice by humans. As the Psalmist observes, “Hashamayin shamayin l’Adonai, v’ha’aretz natan liv’nay Adam. The heavens belong to the Lord, but the earth is given over to humans.” (Psalm 115.16)

This brings us to a less Divine but similarly hierarchical disposition of authority. Theoretically, the U.S. Supreme Court speaks on the law qua law and does not get involved in politics—a realm the Constitution assigns to the Legislative and Executive Branches. However, the law and the realm of day-to-day life are certainly connected, and, if Supreme Court decisions are untranslatable and unapplicable, then we have problems. Consider two examples.

The first is the Shelby vs. Holder decision from 2013. Shelby County, Alabama, and a large number of other (mostly) Southern counties had been under Justice Department supervision in which any changes in voting rules or districts needed approval. Whereas most state and local governments operate with relative sovereignty, these particular districts had a long history of discrimination against African Americans and other racial minorities and were thus penalized with Federal supervision lest they resort to their old discriminatory habits. The counties argued that the determination of their discriminatory conduct was from long ago (the 1960’s), that it was no longer necessarily valid, AND that the list in the statute was unfair because it did not include many other counties (many in the North) where discrimination is routinely practiced. There is logic to this argument, and Pennsylvania is an example. No counties in Pennsylvania are on the list, and yet civil rights advocates object to a number of Pennsylvania rules that are considered unfair—including Voter Identification Laws. The Court sided with Shelby County and the other supervised districts, declaring the law’s provisions null and void and instructing Congress to legislate protections that are fair and up-to-date. It would seem that Congress’ instructions were clear, but the decade-long gridlock in Congress means that an updated list of offending voting districts was and remains pretty much out of reach. So, while the Court’s decision is logical in a theoretical sense, the decision removed all constraints, and counties all over the country began enacting restrictive voting rules. It is like God decreeing things from heaven that are beyond the ability of earthly authorities to effect. Presumably God is aware of what is going on down here. We wonder whether the Supreme Court is locked in its ivory tower and not paying attention—or is ruling in a disingenuous manner.

The second example involves Abortion Rights and the anxiously awaited Supreme Court decision due in the Spring. (Next week, I shall discuss the issue of abortion rights from the Halachic and religious points of view.) For now, let us imagine that the Supreme Court changes the Roe vs. Wade decision and only allows abortions before 12-15 weeks. As Michael Gerson of The Washington Post observes, this is the way most European countries provide abortion rights, balancing the autonomy of a pregnant woman and the sanctity of the developing life inside her womb. If this were to be the decision, part of the logic would be that 12-15 weeks is plenty of time to arrange for an abortion. However, with the practicalities and politics, would this really be the case? Remember all the ways that anti-abortion forces work to impede the decisions and forestall abortion choices: blockading clinics and harassing patrons, threatening physicians, requiring hospital privileges and then refusing them, and fighting public funding for Planned Parenthood and other contraception and abortion providers. (Difficulty raising the money is frequently the cause for delays in getting the procedure.) In other words, if the anti-abortion people do not stand down and allow real clinic access, then what the Court might determine an “adequate amount of time” will not be adequate. Such a decision would ignore the real situations that women in trouble face and will in effect be a prohibition of abortion rights.

Our Constitution requires the Supreme Court to focus on the principles of the law. However, the Court should not be unconnected to the realities that people face—or to the ways that legal principles are actually applied in real life. We cannot expect the Supreme Court Justices to be on the same level of God, but we can expect them to be guided by practical wisdom and an awareness of the whole system over which they preside.

Rushing to Greet the Waters

January 14th: Beshallach
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich

The columnist and broadcaster Fareed Zacharia recently observed that most people do not read the details of policies, laws, and programs. Rather, when asked about their opinions, they respond viscerally. They have a general feeling about the worth or lack thereof, and they trust leaders to take care of things.

Though I might pretend to be a deeper thinker, I must admit that I resemble that remark. Once, back in the 1990s, I was part of a large rabbinic delegation that visited Vice President Al Gore in the White House. As he was speaking, I fell asleep. Yes, asleep. The room was hot, and I had just eaten lunch, but the overriding factor was the excessive and tedious detail of his explanations. As I drifted off into slumber, I remember my visceral reaction: I cannot follow all these details, but this very intelligent man seems to know what he’s talking about. I trust him.

How many other people or ideas do we trust—or distrust—based on visceral impressions or reactions? How many of us really understand the way computers or cell phones work? How many of us understand the complexities of economic policy or the Coronavirus or global warming? We drive our cars and take our medications and enjoy music without really knowing how these things function. We live our lives with a kind of trust that those who know will take care of things. What happens, then, when we find out that the people we trust are abusing the responsibility we have given them?

Our Torah portion this week has an excellent example of trust betrayed. Think of the Egyptian soldiers caught in the Red Sea—individuals who trusted Pharaoh and followed his orders. Think of the ways their trust was betrayed as Egypt was destroyed—morally by the continuing enslavement of the Hebrews and then physically plague by plague. Think of the way they still followed his orders, rushing headlong into the sea after the escaping Israelites. Then remember how they died in a foolhardy attempt to thwart the Will of the Lord. “Moses held out his arm over the sea, and at daybreak the sea returned to its normal state, and the Egyptians fled at its approach. But the Lord hurled the Egyptians into the sea. The waters turned back and covered the chariots and the horsemen—Pharaoh’s army that followed them into the sea; not one of them remained.” (Exodus 14.27-28)

Whenever I read this in the Hebrew, something strikes me that the translation does not catch. The Hebrew says, “U’mitzrayim nasim lik’ra’to,” which is usually translated as “the Egyptians fled at its approach.” However, the word “lik’ra’to” usually means “greeting.” (We sing this every week in Lecha Dodi: “Lecha, dodi, LIKRAT Kallah / Come, my beloved, to GREET the bride…” The Egyptians are rushing to greet the disastrous waters—rushing headlong into a catastrophe that they finally meet. Their trust in Pharaoh’s leadership led them first to moral corruption, and now their trust in him is leading them to terror and physical destruction.

There are many issues confronting our society, and there are many opinions about how to solve them. We should be glad for those who take the responsibility for leadership. However, when we see our society plunging headlong into immorality or corruption, perhaps it is time to put aside our trust and get involved in pursuing justice and fairness.

Among the most complicated issues facing our state is that of fair voting districts. We all know what gerrymandering is, but determining when a district is drawn fairly is often quite difficult. Population is not evenly distributed. There are a variety of different governmental and regional lines that define/comprise communities. And, there are a variety of different interest groups pushing for different maps. Too often, however, and in too many places, large numbers of Pennsylvania voters have been strategically disenfranchised. This is not a benign political exercise; it is a moral depravity, and it indicates that that our trust has too often been misplaced.

We could be encouraged by the fact that the Commonwealth’s Constitution provides guidance—with specific goals and principles for drawing fair district lines. The question, however, is whether our political leaders are following these guidelines with righteousness or with guile. There are certainly the natural consequences of elections, but there is a difference between reasonable partisanship and political hackery.

We are fortunate to have two major state leaders in our community, Jake Corman and Kerry Benninghoff. Each purports to be a decent human being, but each seems to be pulled by the temptation to take unfair advantage of his political power. (This is not unique to these two individuals; it is the ubiquitous human situation whenever any of us attain authority.)  Our responsibility is to insist that they behave decently, honestly, and fairly—staying on the right side of the line and following their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and pursue its goals. Realizing that all leaders are drawn by extreme and tempting voices, we need to support them when they rise above the partisan and do the right thing. This applies to all of us, whether Democrat or Republican.

Judging the comparative redistricting plans is very difficult. Figuring out where to draw the lines amidst the many regions and communities is a headache-invoking exercise. Fortunately, there are resources and opportunities to get involved. The Reform Movement’s Pennsylvania Religious Action Center has identified fair voting districts as its primary project this year, and our congregation’s Social Action Committee is joining in this important work. Our liaisons to the RAC and our Social Action Committee members will be drafting a letter to the Legislative Reapportionment Commission making detailed suggestions with regard to districts in Central Pennsylvania. Please contact either David Post (post@psu.edu) or Emily Fogel Conway (emilyfogelconway@gmail.com) if you wish to be part of this effort.

Brit Shalom is also sponsoring a community-wide discussion on this important matter of justice. On Sunday February 20th, at 4:00 PM, Dr. Lee Ann Banaszak, Head of the Department of Political Science at Penn State, and Dr. Chris Fowler, Associate Professor of Geography and Demography at Penn State, will offer insights on how our current redistricting process is unfolding and how we, as concerned citizens, can continue to raise our voices for justice. See our website for details.

Let us be careful where we put our trust, and let us do our part to make sure that justice is done. To do otherwise is to rush headlong into moral corruption.

Social Justice and the Torah

January 7th: Bo
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich

As we begin our study of Exodus, a number of social justice concerns present themselves. The overarching theme of the book is that of national liberation—liberation from unjust enslavement and oppression and the establishment of a society that is both just and caring. Over the next weeks of Torah study, we shall find social justice imperatives and teachings over and over again.

We begin with Parshat Bo, in which the conflict between God’s Will (“Let My people go!”) and Pharaoh’s (“Who is the Lord that I should heed Him and let Israel go? I do not know the Lord, nor will I let Israel go!”) is in full swing. Pharaoh is clearly cast as the “bad guy,” but there is one disturbing twist: God has “hardened his heart and the hearts of his courtiers…” (Exodus 10.1) We assume that moral/immoral actors have choices, that their choices are freely made, and that moral responsibility comes from these choices. However, if God hardens Pharaoh’s heart, then how can it be fair to exact punishment? What if Pharaoh were to change his mind and decide to free the Hebrews? Would God allow this to happen?

As one can imagine, a Tradition so focused on morality and holiness could never let this issue remain unaddressed, and Jewish thinkers have wrestled with it for centuries. There are several explanations, but the one that makes the most sense to me is embedded right there in the passage: “I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his courtiers in order that I may display these My signs among them, and that you may recount in the hearing of your sons and of your children’s children how I made a mockery of the Egyptians and how I displayed My signs among them—in order that you may know that I am the Lord.” (Exodus 10.1-2)

There was a time over hundreds of years when Pharaoh and his ancestors were moral agents and had plenty of time for repentance. Now, however, that time is over; there are no more second chances. Now is the punishment phase, and God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart and the plagues and humiliation of Egypt are the prices to be paid for the unrepented sins of enslaving and oppressing the Hebrews. Pharaoh and Egypt are no longer moral deciders; they have become object lessons for other moral deciders to consider.

For 400 years, Pharaoh and his ancestors have been oppressors. For 400 years, they have treated their subjects with cruelty and a lack of respect. For 400 years, they have resisted and refused every opportunity to rectify their mistakes and repent for their sins. There is always a reason to put off improvements and resist changes. Change can be difficult. Change can be expensive. But, there is a limit, and sins and oppression are cumulative—expanding and growing more profound as the years of evil or neglect continue.

Are there any problems like this in our lives? There are probably quite a few, but today I would like to look at the conundrum of immigration reform.

For many decades now, the economic flow of immigration has not been adequately handled by governmental systems, and the results involve millions of people considered “illegal.” They are undocumented, but they are here and working and participating. Many have been here for years, raising American children. This is not a problem that will go away. It is not even a problem we want to go away. Sending them back would be terribly disruptive on both the human and the economic levels: American industries and society have come to depend upon these millions of undocumented/illegal immigrants. As human beings, they deserve respect, but their in-between status (economically needed but legally undocumented) results in insecurity and cruelty. As citizens of the United States, we need to manage our country, but we also need to look at the realities—economic, societal, cultural, and moral—of our reality. We need to reform our bureaucratic system to find a resolution. Letting it continue will do no one any good and will continue to inflict unnecessary stress on millions of fellow human beings.

This is a problem where everyone already knows the eventual solution. As it was voiced by President George W. Bush, some kind of legal accommodation/forgiveness has to be structured for the undocumented immigrants, and our government needs to regain control of our borders. Those focused on penalties for breaking the immigration laws need to keep in mind our profound economic need for immigrant labor and treat them as welcome helpers—not as criminal usurpers. Those focused on completely open borders need to calm down and recognize the bureaucratic necessity of knowing who is here—who needs to pay taxes and who gets to vote, etc. Letting this situation fester does no one any good.

The historian Ellis Rivkin used to comment on the inherent lack of anti-Semitism at the core of Christianity. Clearly, there has been plenty of anti-Semitism among Christians, but Rivkin maintained that Christianity at its core is not an anti-Jewish religion. His proof is the absence of any concentrated effort across Christendom to rid the world of Jews. Whenever one Christian tyrant would rise and attack the Jews of his country or region, other Christian leaders would invite the Jews to come and find refuge. As bad as it has been in many places over many years, Christianity has never united in the goal of getting rid of the Jews.

Similarly, though we hear all kinds of anti-immigrant rhetoric, note the absence of any wide-spread and systematic efforts to drive out the undocumented. We could regard this as a kind of moral index for America, but I suspect the real reason is economic. Too many people would be hurt by the mass expulsion of illegal workers from the building trades, the dairy and meatpacking industries, restaurants, domestic help, and child-care. And so the rhetoric continues, and nothing really happens. Nothing happens in terms of resolving the crisis, but, in the lives of the undocumented, there is insecurity, danger, exploitation, and a profound lack of respect. This is a festering moral mess, and real suffering occurs.

While these workers did immigrate without proper legal procedures, it was economic factors that brought them here and that keep them here. They needed work, and we needed their labor—and focusing on anything other than regularizing these human beings is a distraction and for no one’s benefit. We can focus on the “breaking of the law,” but, after this many decades and this many millions of illegal immigrants, the fact is that “the law” is broken. Now, the question is: How shall we fix it?

We need to insist that our legislators fix the system and fix it now. Our hesitation and inattention have created a moral outrage, and we need to heal this open wound in our social covenant.

Tzimtzum: A Lesson to Learn, Now or Later

December 17th: Vayechi
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich

Our portion begins with the words “Vayechi Ya’akov: And Jacob lived for seventeen years in the land of Egypt” (Genesis 47.28), but it is really about our ancestor’s final days. He blesses his grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh, and implores Joseph to carry his body back to the Land of Israel. He wants to be buried with his family at the Cave of Machpelah near Hebron. He also calls all of his sons to his bedside for some final words.

Often known as his blessing, it is a combination of character analysis and prophecy. In fact, Jacob begins with this in mind: “Come together that I may tell you what is to befall you in days to come. Assemble and hearken, O sons of Jacob; Hearken to Israel your father.” (Genesis 49.1-2) As he progresses with the poem, Jacob/Israel notes characteristics of each son and what he anticipates in terms of the son’s/tribe’s future. Generally, good behavior portends a good future. Bad behavior will beget problems down the road.

In considering this deathbed dynamic, Rabbi Lawrence Kushner once quipped, “Someone who makes deathbed demands does not understand the point of dying.” The point of dying, as he would put it, is that we are no longer active players. Yes, we do live on in the influence which our lives and deeds inspire. Yes, we are remembered—hopefully as a blessing, but the fact is that, when we die, our turn at life is over. Now, it is the turn of others.

In the Kabbalah, we are taught that God once inhabited all of existence—everything, everywhere. There was nothing that was not God. In order to make room for the creation, God withdrew from part of the universe—shrinking Itself in what the Kabbalah terms Tzimtzum. God was still enormous to an ultimate magnitude, but there was then some room for creation and for us and our free choices. In addition to giving our independent existence a chance, God’s Tzimtzum also models a kind of holy behavior: withdrawing from some aspect of existence to give someone else a chance.

It is like parents withdrawing from total authority in the family and giving children room to think and choose and act. There may be mistakes, but, without autonomy, there is no growth or maturity. It is the same with employers who give the workers some latitude in doing their work—in using their training and insights and wisdom to figure out solutions.

One way to look at the death of Jacob—and every other human death—is that it is the ultimate Tzimtzum: leaving the world (and our affairs) to others. Our turn is over. It is their turn.

Of course, no one wants to give up. Like we read in our prayer in the Yom Kippur Yizkor service, “Like a child falling asleep over a bed full of toys, we loosen our grip on earthly possessions only when death overtakes us.” Death is not something we want, but when it happens—and may that be at a ripe old age (Jacob was 147),  there comes a time to let everything go. And trust.

Jacob is at that point, reluctant to give up his leadership, but facing the inevitability of being gathered to his people, and he chooses to speak these last words to his sons. Though described as “what will befall you in days to come,” much of what he has to say involves his observations—and his evaluations of their characters and their past behavior. Can such evaluations be helpful?

As the recipient of many evaluative statements over the years, I must admit that some are more helpful than others. Sometimes, critiques just seem mean: random shots meant to injure rather than help. Other times, they fall on deaf ears—that is, regardless of their intention, I do not see their relevance or applicability; they do not resonate. However, sometimes, these critiques are amazingly helpful. I recall one—at a rabbinical meeting where I made a very cynical comment. One of the older rabbis—who had known me since I was a teenager and apparently had watched me grow and develop over the years—called me down: “That is not the David Ostrich I’ve known all these years. The David Ostrich I know is kinder, more hopeful, and more  constructive.” The comments were not easy to hear, and they stung. My immediate impulse was anger and resentment. Who is this guy to attack me? But, then I answered my own question. He is a guy who knows me and has had hopes for me and has been well acquainted with my thinking and actions. He is precisely the kind of guy to offer an evaluation!

So back to Jacob’s evaluations of his sons. Perhaps Jacob understands Rabbi Kushner’s point—that dying means giving up one’s turn and letting the next generation give it a try. Perhaps the “prophecies” are less instructions trying to restrict his sons’ action than evaluative observations—urging them to make the most of their opportunities. One hopes Jacob approaches his sons with fondness and hope—that the relationships he has with his sons and his perception of what they can hear will make the communication effective.

Every decision of the new generation may not be a good one—just as every decision made by Jacob was not perfect! Nonetheless, Tzimtzum calls on Jacob to trust his sons to plot their own course. And, there is trust in God: God who keeps the human endeavor moving forward, Who helps us recover from missteps, and Who guides us through the messes we invariably make.

A final observation: I think it is a mistake for one generation to think that its challenges and its choices are more important than those of other generations. We may feel the urgency of our decisions, but let us not indulge in the fantasy that we are somehow more important. If we are links in a chain, then each link is important and worthy of respect and trust. The eternal chain depends on every single one. Tzimtzum, humility, and trust: these can lead us to God.

Trying to Understand the Past

December 10th: Vayigash
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich

In a few weeks, we shall read the ominous words, “A new king arose over Egypt who did not know Joseph. And he said to his people, ‘Look, the Israelite people are much too numerous for us. Let us deal shrewdly with them…’ So they set taskmasters over them to oppress them with forced labor…” (Exodus 1.8-11)

This is so different from the wonderful greeting we get in this week’s Torah portion! “Pharoah said to Joseph, ‘As regards your father and your brothers who have come to you, the land of Egypt is open before you: settle your father and your brothers in the best part of the land; let them stay in the region of Goshen.’” (Genesis 47.5-6)

What happens between Genesis 47 and Exodus 1?

One of the interesting things about antiquity is that evidence—textual or archeological—can be both abundant and limited, leaving lots of room for ambiguity and interpretation. For a modern example, consider the American Civil War. There is a lot of evidence, but we do not know everything—leading to a multitude of different takes and interpretations: Why did the North fight? Why did the South fight? Why did the various soldiers fight? And, in a question that recently had a monument in Washington, D.C. removed, were the African slaves freed by Lincoln and other white people, or did the African slaves participate in their own liberation?

There can also be significance in the absence of evidence. A recent article in the The Smithsonian magazine reports on an interesting controversy at the archeological excavations in Timna, in the Arava desert in the south of Israel. In a place that seems to be the site of a sophisticated ancient copper mining operation, there is a surprising lack of archeological evidence of who did the mining. Archeology usually focusses on buildings and other physical artifacts, but there are no buildings. Does this mean that no one lived there—or does it mean that the inhabitants lived in non-permanent dwellings? The current thinking is that a very sophisticated society (based on evidence in the mines) lived there in tents and therefore did not leave the kinds of city ruins upon which archeology so depends. In other words, the lack of evidence may suggest a different take on the story.

In the case of ancient Egypt and the Israelites—and what happened to turn a great relationship into an oppressive one, the key may be in the continuing applicability of the term “the Egyptians.” While someone ruled Egypt, the ruling parties or ethnic groups were not the same over the whole history of “Ancient Egypt.” In addition to “local” power politics, there was an invasion of people from Anatolia (modern day Turkey) back in the Second Millennium BCE. These Hyksos swept down through Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and the Sinai, leaving interesting architectural artifacts as they eventually took over Egypt. Then, a few centuries later, they seem to have been expelled, and Egypt was ruled by a different group of “Egyptians.” Many historians think that both the welcoming of foreigners at one time and the oppression of foreigners at a later time are part and parcel of this larger story of the Hyksos in Egypt.

Another angle of the Joseph story involves a massive societal reorganization that is described in Genesis. First, let us recall how Joseph comes to his high position. Pharaoh has two disturbing dreams which none of his advisers can interpret. Joseph is called from prison and asked by Pharoah to explain the dreams’ meanings. “I have heard it said of you that for you to hear a dream is to tell its meaning.” However, Joseph draws an important distinction. “Not I! God will see to Pharaoh’s welfare.” (Genesis 41.15-16) So, speaking God’s message, Joseph explains the dreams: a fourteen-year situation is approaching—with seven years of plenty and seven years of famine. Joseph suggests that Pharoah use this knowledge to plan and deal with both the blessing and the curse. Pharaoh likes what Joseph says and sees in him an excellent administrator. “‘Could we find another like him, a man in whom is the spirit of God?” So, Pharaoh appoints Joseph as head of the entire royal court. Further, “See, I put you in charge of all the land of Egypt.’ And removing his signet ring from his hand, Pharaoh put it on Joseph’s hand….thus he placed him over all the land of Egypt.” (Genesis 41.38-43)

During the seven years of plenty, Joseph supervises a great collection of grain. Then, when the seven years of famine strike, Joseph dispenses the grain—but at a price, and the coffers of the Egyptian monarchy are swelled. When the people’s money runs out, “…all the Egyptians came to Joseph and said, ‘Give us bread, lest we die before your very eyes; for the money is gone!’” So, Josephs accepts their livestock in payment for the foodstuffs. Then, when the livestock runs out, the people offer all that they have left. “Take us and our land in exchange for bread, and we with our land will be serfs to Pharaoh; provide the seed, that we may live and not die, and that the land may not become a waste.’ So Joseph gained possession of all the farmland of Egypt for Pharaoh, every Egyptian having sold his field because the famine was too much for them; thus the land passed over to Pharaoh.”  (Genesis 47.13-22) The rest of the chapter describes a massive population relocation—with people moving off their farms and into labor pools to work Pharaoh’s land.

In other words, in the face of this major economic crisis, Joseph and Pharaoh effect a major change in the Egyptian social and agricultural structure. This too must be seen as part of the story of the Hyksos dominion of Egypt.

How all these factors mixed and how this dynamic set the stage for the dramatic change of fortune for the Israelites provide fertile ground for theories and doctoral dissertations. As I said before, there is both evidence and lack of evidence—with enough ambiguity for many, many interpretations.

While the historical story is thus relatively malleable, the religious approach has been remarkably stable. In all of this drama—both family and geopolitically, God is present. God is aware of how we react to the stimuli of our lives and times, and God is with us in weathering the difficulties. God is always present, as well, in inspiring us to find purpose, goodness, and holiness. As Joseph will explain to his brothers in next week’s Torah portion, “Though you intended me harm, God intended it for good…” (Genesis 50.20) We may not understand God’s ways or be privy to God’s timing, but we are taught to keep God in our thinking all the time. God is with us, and God has hopes for the ways we respond.

Potiphar’s Wife, Robert Bly, ‘Unorthodox,’ and Ineptitude

December 3rd: Mikketz and Chanukah
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich

In last week’s Torah portion, we read about Joseph’s encounter with his employer’s wife. Joseph is serving as a slave in the house of Potiphar, and, through his own diligence and the favor of God, “the blessing of the Lord was upon everything Potiphar owned…He left all that he had in Joseph’s hands and, with him there, he paid attention to nothing save the food that he ate. Now Joseph was well built and handsome. After a time, Potiphar’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph and said, “Lie with me.’ But he refused…” (Genesis 39)

He refuses and explains his two reasons. First, it would be a betrayal of his master’s trust. Second, it would be a sin against God. Mrs. Potiphar is not persuaded and accuses Joseph of attempted rape. She is believed by her husband, and Joseph is thrown into jail.

The Torah tells the story as though Potiphar’s wife is a predator. Privileged, with power, she is not to be refused. This is certainly possible, but it is also possible that there was a mutual attraction and some flirting. When the power dynamic is vastly uneven, romantic possibilities can be fraught with complexity and misunderstanding. There is also the possibility that Joseph is at first receptive to her advances, but at the last minute realizes the sins and halts the affair.

There are many stories told about sexual predation—and tragically this is too often true. But, sometimes, the culprit in romantic disasters is nothing more than misunderstanding—or ineptitude.

Take the story in the Netflix series, Unorthodox, where a young woman breaks free from Satmar Hassidism and an unfulfilling marriage. Pushed into an arranged marriage, the young woman and her husband experience “problems in bed.” She has some physical issues, and he is not sensitive or helpful. As the story is told, he is a real problem. But, we should ask, where would a young ultra-Orthodox man get the training or experience to be what his wife needs? She is not the only neophyte in the relationship. Haredi boys do not date or discuss these subjects and get as little information as their wives. For most in the Haredi environment, relationships develop and, with or without happiness, procreation takes place. But, when problems occur, the resources and sensibilities to remedy them are extremely limited. In other words, the young husband may not be the bad guy. He may just be inexperienced, unprepared, and inept.

Enter Robert Bly, the poet and guiding voice of the “Men’s Movement” of the 1980s and 1990s. Mr. Bly, who passed away last week, believed that modern men are emotionally stunted because the skills of how to be a mature man have not been passed down or prized in modern society. His work is both complicated and controversial, but there is much sense in it. The insights are not meant to excuse bad behavior in men but to help men exert responsible and creative stewardship over their animalistic sides, learning how to balance the animal and the angelic.

Rabbi Rami Shapiro did some interesting work on this notion, seeing this conflict between the animal and the civilized in the story of Jacob and Esau. Could every man have both an Esau side and a Jacob side—and must these two innate proclivities wrestle in order for menstchlikeit (full humanity) to be achieved?

I participated in a “men’s discussion group” back in the 1990s, and it was very interesting how these mature and successful men still grappled with a host of competing masculine ideals and definitions of success. While detractors of the Men’s Movement spoke of foolishness (men beating drums in the woods) or wimpiness (grown men whining and weeping), my limited experience was quite mature, realistic, and poignant. Which, among the many models of male success, should a man choose and upon whose insistence? How does one achieve success or confidence in the many and varied realms of life—adjudicating the possibilities of male strength, restraint, courage, kindness, judgment, weakness, and accomplishment?

Joseph in the Bible is certainly challenged in a number of different realms. As a boy, he is the favorite son, coddled and spoiled by his elderly, detached, and grieving father. Oblivious to—or in spite of—his brothers’ jealousy, he seeks continued approval from his father by tattling on his brothers. He prances around in his special clothes (Midrash), refusing to take on the responsibilities of adulthood. Though he cannot control his dreams, he insists on sharing them and lording his visions over his brothers. He suffers kidnapping and slavery and is tempted by his master’s wife. He is imprisoned and abandoned by his friends. Finally, he is raised to a high and powerful office, but he still harbors emotional distress—a turmoil that comes to the surface when his unknowing brothers appear before him to procure food during the famine.

At each step along the way, he is challenged mightily. What should he be or do? Should he be a warrior, or a scholar, or a political manipulator, or a devoted son who—as soon as he gets power and status in Egypt—goes to visit his beloved Father? Does he manage his own family better than Jacob manages his? Does he succeed in Egypt because he is obsequious or because he is clever or because he is a long-term thinker who works with Pharaoh in a mature manner? How does Joseph—at each step along his complicated path—choose virtues and aspire to success? What does he do right, and what does he do wrong?

One senses a complexity within this ancestor—a complexity that is endemic in human personality and experience. He embodies the challenges we all face: managing our diverse inclinations and role models in a variety of situations. While his father wrestles, Joseph juggles.

We all come into this world inept, and we continue to be inept throughout. Those moments and occasions when we manage to succeed are to be prized, and those moments when our natural ineptitude predominates are to be endured and hopefully corrected.

The Sins of Onan

November 26th: Vayeshev
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich

This is one of the Bible lessons they don’t teach you in Sunday School. In Genesis 38, we read a very disturbing story about Judah, son of Jacob and namesake of all us Jews. He marries a woman named Shua, and they have three children: Er, Onan, and Shelah. When Er grows up, he marries a woman named Tamar, but, before they can have any children, Er dies. The Torah does not explain what happens; it just says, “But Er, Judah’s first-born was displeasing to the Lord, and the Lord took his life.” (Genesis 38.7) This explanation may be a matter of post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning—seeing a result and assuming the reason for it. Why else would a young man die? God must have had a good reason. This is disturbing theology even before we get to the rest of the story.

Er’s widow, Tamar, is then plunged into a very awkward ancient custom. When a married man dies without children, his brother is supposed to father a child with the widow—and the child is considered the dead brother’s progeny. This is called levirate marriage or the levirate obligation. When it comes time for Onan to do his brotherly duty, things get complicated. “Judah said to Onan, ‘Join with your brother’s wife and do your duty by her as a brother-in-law, and provide offspring for your brother.’ But Onan, knowing that the seed would not count as his, let it go to waste (spilt it on the ground) whenever he joined with his brother’s wife, so as not to provide offspring for his brother. What he did was displeasing to the Lord, and God took his life also.” (Genesis 38.8-10)

At this point, Shelah is too young for the levirate obligation, so Tamar returns to her family, thinking that she will wait for him to grow up. Judah, however, determines that Tamar is a danger to his family, and he seeks to disassociate from her—sort of “forgetting” about her and Shelah’s obligation to her (and to Er).

Time passes, and even though Shelah grows up, Tamar is never contacted. She then takes matters into her own hands. Hearing that Judah is traveling near her family’s home, she disguises herself as a sacred prostitute (associated with a pagan shrine) and entices Judah to lie with her. When she gets pregnant and Judah hears about it, he suddenly feels a proprietary interest in her and wants her executed for adultery. Fortunately for her, she has Judah’s seal and cord in her possession, and before her execution, she proclaims that she is with child by the owner of these tokens. Judah realizes his sin and says, “She is more in the right than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah.” (Genesis 38.26) She is brought back into the family, bears twins Perez and Zerah, but she and Judah are not intimate again.

What a mess!

There are several ways of understanding the levirate marriage. Some think it is designed to give the widow a place of respect in the family. In a society where a woman’s only significance is as a wife or a mother, having a child garners this settled position and prevents her from being cast out. Others think the custom may be related to Biblical thinking about the afterlife. Though Sheol, the Bible’s explanation of where dead people “live,” is not a place of reward or punishment, there is a notion that the dead are aware of their descendants and can root for them. Providing the widow with a child provides the dead brother with someone to watch and support from Sheol. This explains Judah’s phrasing of the instruction to Onan (and perhaps Tamar): “Join with your brother’s wife and do your duty by her as a brother-in-law, and provide offspring for your brother.” Another possible reason for the levirate obligation is to dissuade brothers from fratricide—killing a brother to inherit his share of the estate. As hideous as this seems, there have been cultures in which brothers killed brothers for tribal/imperial leadership and possessions. If, however, the dead brother’s share would pass to “his son,” then such a terrible option would be less of a temptation.

We then get to the question of Onan’s sin. What exactly does he do wrong? There are several possibilities—and perhaps this multiplicity of sins is what makes the punishment so severe. First, he refuses to provide his brother with offspring. Second, he refuses to help his sister-in-law gain the status necessary for a respectable life. Third is Onan’s callous disregard for Tamar’s intimate sensibility—making her suffer the humiliation of sex with a man she does not love and then preventing her from using the encounter for pregnancy. Notice the habitual nature of his disrespect. He spills his seed upon the ground “whenever he joined with his brother’s wife.” It is not a single incident, but a regular practice.

It says in the Talmud that “God counts the tears of women.” Despite the power that men have in Biblical and Talmudic Law, this teaching reminds men that women’s feelings matter—and that part of the religious life is being considerate and respectful to women.

Despite these other offenses, the focus of traditional commentaries has been on the physical “spilling of his seed”—the deposit of semen in any place other than a woman’s reproductive system. Thus traditional religions have used Onan’s terrible punishment to prohibit male masturbation and—in more modern times—barrier method contraception. The Roman Catholic Church has even carried this grave concern to the opposite of contraception and sees in Onan’s sin reason to prohibit in vitro fertilization—or even testing of semen for potency. The problem, as the Church sees it, is in any production of or collection of semen other than its “natural” context.

In Judaism, there is a different judgment. The mitzvah of procreation is deemed more important than the prohibition of “spilling seed,” and thus collection of semen for testing or fertility techniques is allowed. And, the two mitzvot of pikuach nefesh (saving a life) and of sexual gratification (for both wives and husbands) are deemed more important than the prohibition of “spilling seed, and thus Halachah allows barrier contraception when a pregnancy would be deleterious to the wife’s health.

As with all Biblical stories, there are multiple interpretive possibilities, and it is always interesting how different readers in different contexts draw their conclusions.

A Major Misunderstanding

November 19th: Vayishlach
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich

Our Torah portion begins with a monumental misunderstanding. Jacob is on his way home to the Land of Israel and sends messengers ahead to let Esau know he is coming. “The messengers returned to Jacob, saying, ‘We came to your brother Esau; he himself is coming to meet you, and there are four hundred men with him.’ Jacob was greatly frightened; in his anxiety, he divided the people with him and the flocks and herds and camels, into two camps, thinking, ‘If Esau comes to the one camp and attacks it, the other camp may yet escape.’” (Genesis 32.7-9) The reason for Jacob’s fear is understandable. The brothers parted on very bad terms—with Esau threatening to kill Jacob because of the stolen blessing incident. (Genesis 27.41) This is why Rebekah suggests a trip up to Haran to visit the family. Jacob has now been gone over twenty years, and we do not know if there has been any contact between Jacob and his parents and brother—or if Esau is still furious.

As it turns out, Esau has cooled down. He has grown and become successful and powerful, and he is no longer intent on murdering his brother. In fact, he is coming to greet Jacob with open arms. Jacob may have reason to suspect Esau, but the fact is that Esau has no ill intentions. The threat is all in Jacob’s head.

When I read this story, I think about the term “micro-aggression,” a term that assumes ill-intent—even if it is not present. Those identified as “aggressors” are often surprised that a comment or term is received as insulting or demeaning, and they are also often surprised at the ferocity of the response—both by the person who perceives the insult and those in society who have decided to be the arbiters of such micro-aggressions. Are these terms or comments a priori demeaning, or is it a matter of the listener’s mood or current opinions?

Following the story of Jacob and Esau, is the insult or danger really there, or is it all in the listener’s head? And, if it is all in the listener’s head, how can the perceived insult be addressed without oppressing the innocent speaker?

There has been a recent trend for scholars or journalists to research the origins of a term or ceremony and discover its hidden racist or derogatory roots. Though there may not be a current consensus about the “real meaning” of a term, the researcher seeks to inform everyone of their hidden racism and thus ban the term. A case in point is the term “cake-walk.” Some have traced this term back to slavery days when African slaves would be required to compete in elaborate dance contests to win a cake. Since the white people would watch and be entertained, we are counseled that any modern uses of the term are inherently or at least historically racist and should be discontinued. This is quite curious to me because, whatever the researcher’s understanding of the origins, the term has evolved and developed and is frequently used by African Americans who understand the term differently. Two examples: the acclaimed trumpeter Wynton Marsalis—a significant figure in Black culture—has included in his sets of classic jazz Sidney Bechet’s 1925 “Cake Walkin’ Babies From Home.” It is a cute song—with great opportunities for jazz improvisation, and, since Marsalis does not usually include a vocalist in his band, all the players—most of whom are African American—join in the fun and sing the vocals in unison. Are they “micro-aggressing?”

Another example is from the work of perhaps the most significant African American classical composer, William Grant Still. In his 1940 ballet, Miss Sally’s Party, the final and climactic movement is called “The Cake Walk Contest.” The party is hosted and attended by African Americans, and a contest involving fancy dancing is part of the fun. Whatever the origins of the term “cake walk,” it has evolved beyond its original context of oppression and evolved into a term for fun or frivolity—and is used by perfectly respectable Black people.

There is also the matter of individuals changing their opinions and sensitivities. In a recent interview on Here and Now (NPR and WBUR), Chef Bryant Terry, a food historian and celebrator of the African American culinary tradition, discusses his changing attitudes about watermelon. When he was growing up, “his family talked about watermelon as a sacred fruit that helped newly freed Africans to reach financial stability. But for a long time, he refused to eat watermelon because of the associated racist stereotypes about Black Americans.” He did not want to buy into or reproduce racial stereotypes that were detrimental to his people. However, after some time, he changed his mind and started enjoying watermelon again. As he explains, not eating watermelon was “what I needed to protect myself at that time,” but getting over that hump and really embracing it reflected “my own ability to grow and to live my life without concern for the white gaze. If I like watermelon, I'm going to eat watermelon and I don't care what anybody says about it.”

Is the problem in a racially meaningful food or ceremony or term inherent, or is the problem in the mind and current sensitivity of the listener? To be sure, there are insults that are lobbed as emotional grenades, but, then again, there are many terms which have evolved and no longer mean what a historian declares them to mean permanently and forever. Esau could have been coming for blood, but, as the story unfolds, the fear and danger are all in Jacob’s mind. As Dr. Freud is reputed to have said, “Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.”

As we try to establish a more just culture—with due regard for everyone, we are beset with changeable opinions, sensitivities, and attitudes. And we never know at what point in a person’s developing attitudes a comment will be considered problematic or not. That is why a more judicious approach might be to treat perceived insults (“micro-aggressions”) the way the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission treats off-color jokes in the workplace. While some people find them amusing, and others find them extremely offensive, there is no way to set a standard by which such jokes are judged a priori offensive. It is a matter of individual perception. So, if a person in the workplace finds such jokes offensive, he/she should notify the office comedians—and supervisors—and go on record as requesting that such jokes not be told in their presence. Then, if such a joke is told around them, it can be construed as harassment. These rules call for communication rather than outrage and hostility—and give potential offenders a chance to be nice. Potentially weaponized situations can be humanized.

 When Jacob’s fear and panic come face to face with a gracious and welcoming Esau, Jacob declares, “Seeing your face is like seeing the face of God, and you have received me favorably.” (Genesis 33.10). When Jacob sees the humanity and Divinity in his brother, the family bond is restored.

Taking Our Places With the Angels

November 12th: Vayetze
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich

This week, we read about Jacob’s first encounter with angels. On the road to visit his family up in Haran (Syria)—so Esau can cool down, he sets up camp and sleeps. “He had a dream; a stairway was set on the ground and its top reached to the sky, and angels of God were going up and down on it.” (Genesis 28.12) When mal’achim / angels are sent out by God to perform their various errands and duties, this, it seems, is one of their places of transit. Inadvertently—or by hashgachah peratit, Divine Providence, Jacob finds himself at a portal to the Divine. Though we are taught that God is everywhere, certain places seem to be closer to God. As he says, “Surely the Lord is present in this place, and I, I did not know it…How awesome is this place! This is none other than the abode of God, and that is the gateway to heaven!” (Genesis 28.16-17)

Yes, more than the mal’achim, the angelic representatives and agents of God, God is there, too, and the Lord personally makes a covenant with Jacob. “I am the Lord, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac: the ground on which you are lying I will assign to you and to your offspring. Your descendants shall be as the dust of the earth; you shall spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south. All the families of the earth shall bless themselves by you and your descendants…” (Genesis 28.13-14) Jacob and his future descendants are to be representatives and agents of God—just like the angels.

This sense of angelic sensibility can be described by an interesting ambiguity at the beginning of the last verse. Just before God speaks, the text says that “the Lord nitzav alav. A colloquial translation is that “the Lord was standing beside him,” but the literal translation of the word alav is on, on top of. So, is God next to Jacob, or is God on top of Jacob?

A similar but slightly amusing question comes when this word, alav is used in the Talmudic instructions for Gerut/Conversion. The officiant is instructed to be in the mikvah and stand alav the convert. Does this mean that the officiating Rabbi should be standing on the Convert’s back, holding him down in the water? Certainly not! Water safety and prudence suggest that the standing next to usage is meant by the Talmud—and probably also by the Biblical narrator.

Nonetheless, the thought that God is literally on or on top of Jacob can be psychologically and spiritually instructive. When someone is on a task, he/she is focused on it. When someone feels that another is on him/her, there is a feeling of attention being paid. Whether for good (protection) or for bad (waiting for a misstep), the consciousness of being watched can be palpable. I also think of the old Southern expression, like white on rice, suggesting a presence that is much more than coverage. The observer’s presence can be so on top of someone that it becomes part of the observed’s identity.

If we read the passage literally—that God is on Jacob—like white on rice, perhaps this could be a way of describing what some modern mystics call God Consciousness—an attitude in which one is intently and continually aware of God’s Presence. This is a goal of Kabbalistic thinking and practice, and Kabbalists have developed many techniques for inculcating this kind of awareness. One popular method is to meditate on the Shiviti, a spiritual formulation that begins with “Shiviti Adonai l’negdi tamid / I have set the Lord always before me,” from Psalm 16.8. Whatever life brings, let me look for God’s Presence and God’s possibilities. Whether for a blessing or a difficulty, how can I find a reaction or response that God-inspired—godly? 

We could also approach such a God Consciousness by hearkening back to the story of Creation. When God mysteriously says, “Let us make the human in our image”(Genesis 1.26), among the possibilities for God’s audience are the angels. In other words, God is speaking about putting angelic possibilities in these new human creatures. Like the angels ascending and descending the stairway in Jacob’s dream, we are created to help do God’s work in the world—spreading the blessings of heaven to all the earth. And, there is more. According to the Rabbis who crafted our traditional prayers, we are also given the opportunity to join the angles in their heavenly work.

The next time you are in synagogue for a morning service, pay attention to the Kedushah, the third benediction of the Amidah. In it, the Rabbis construct from three Biblical passages a scene of a heavenly “pep rally”—an eternal assembly praising God. They begin with Isaiah (6.3) and his dream in which the Seraphim (six winged angels) sing out, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts; the fullness of the world is God’s glory.” They then turn to Ezekiel (3.12) and his vision of a roaring assembly of Ofanim and Chayot Hakodesh (flaming wheels and multi-eyed Holy Beasts) who sing, “Blessed is God’s glory in every place!” Then, they bring in the human element, adding the Psalmist’s hope (146.10) that every human soul will join in the praise of God, “The Lord shall reign forever, your God, O Zion, from generation to generation, Halleluyah!” We are all being invited, as it were, to join the angelic chorus, shouting forth an awareness of God’s glory, wisdom, beneficence, and guidance.

The Rabbis conclude Kedushah with our agreement to accept the invitation: “L’dor vador naggid god’lecha! / To all generations, we will make known Your greatness, and to all eternity proclaim Your holiness. Your praise, O God, shall never depart from our lips!” This is our pledge to join in and take our places with the angels.

Rethinking an Old and Well-Remembered Story

November 5th: Toldot
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich

Last week, I referenced the work of the Biblical Scholar, Carol Meyers of Duke University. Part of her work involves seeking the hidden/unrecorded significance and agency of women in Biblical times. In one very interesting article, she accomplishes this by reframing our modern thinking. While many of us may think that the preparation of food is something relegated to those with lesser significance, Meyers makes the point that this task is among the most important. Remembering that our ancestors lived with what we might call “food insecurity,” the members of the family or tribe entrusted with the preservation, storage, allocation, and preparation of food had perhaps the greatest responsibility. In subsistence agrarian settings, the grain harvested in the Fall must last until the next Fall. Eating too much, or letting it spoil, or allowing mice to eat it can prove to be fatal for the family. Likewise, cooking. If one of us spoils a cake, we simply get another bag of flour and another dozen eggs and try again. Not so the ancients whose supply of food was quite limited—and who did not live ten minutes from a supermarket with full shelves. In addition to matters of taste, there was the real challenge of adequate nutrition, and whoever was given this responsibility would have had high status.

In other words, the understanding of women’s social inferiority may need to be mitigated by an awareness of the ways that power was granted and exercised in family, village, and society. Though the written records focus on the status and power of men, it is worth wondering about the way that women participated in the ancient flow of power.

Female agency certainly seems to be at play in this week’s Torah portion. While Isaac seems intent on giving his Patriarchal blessing to Esau, Rebekah thinks that the leadership should go instead to Jacob. Who is in charge? On one level, Isaac is the man and is thus in charge—in which case, Rebekah’s rebellious actions need justification. This seems to be the goal of many Midrashim which “find” in the text hints that Esau is bloodthirsty, impious, and impulsive, and that Jacob is pious, studious, and extremely righteous. Due to Isaac’s failure to understand his sons, Rebekah is forced—for the sake of God’s mission—to intervene and manipulate Isaac’s power. While these Midrashim justify Jacob’s choice as leader, they also justify Rebekah breaking the rules and subverting her lord and husband’s will.

On another level, however, why should not Rebekah have a say in the future of Judaism? She is the mother of both young men, having raised them and seen how they developed. She is a Matriarch and is in just as strong a position to evaluate her sons’ abilities and proclivities as their father—especially since Isaac seems to be experiencing visual and cognitive degeneration. Though he is the one who must ritually/officially give the blessing, she seizes the responsibility of making sure that the leadership is entrusted to the son with the better leadership potential.

From the profound to the comedic, this Biblical story reminds me of the scene in My Big Fat Greek Wedding, where the main character’s mother is explaining female agency in a male-dominated tradition. Toula Portokalos, the daughter complains, “Ma, Dad is so stubborn. What he says goes. ‘The man is the head of the house!’” Her mother, Maria Portokalos, then explains, “Let me tell you something, Toula. The man is the head, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants.” In our Biblical story, Isaac might be “in charge,” but Rebekah has a mind and a variety of techniques to wield in effecting her opinions.

A third way to view this story is less conflictual—at least in terms of the marital dynamic. What if this were not a struggle between Isaac and Rebekah, but rather a strategically orchestrated and mutual plan? The story seems to present the idea that Isaac is fooled by Rebekah’s and Jacob’s chicanery, but there are hints that he is not. When Jacob shows up, all adorned in Esau’s clothing and goat skins on his arms, presenting Isaac with goat disguised as venison, Isaac is surprised at the speediness of the hunt. “How did you succeed so quickly, my son?” Jacob’s response, according to the Midrash, is a dead giveaway: “Because the Lord your God granted me good fortune.” (Genesis 27.20) Esau would never give God the credit for a speedy hunt. He would have bragged about his great skill, and Isaac would have known this about his son. Then is the more obvious tell: Isaac recognizes Jacob’s voice! “The voice is the voice of Jacob, yet the hands are the hands of Esau.” (Genesis 27.22) Then there is a bit of confusion in the text. The Torah says that Isaac “did not recognize him, because his hands were hairy like those of his brother Esau,” but this is unbelievable. Think about it. Is Esau really as hairy as a goat? I have not done an extensive scientific study of human hairiness, but I have seen lots of hairy people—and no one has ever come close to the hairiness of goats. I cannot imagine our shepherd ancestor Isaac being fooled by the goat skins. There is also the matter of a game-lover like Isaac thinking that pastured goat tastes just like wild venison. He would know the difference and would not be fooled. In other words, a case can be built on the notion that Isaac knows whom he is blessing.

Perhaps, then, what we have is a plan shared by Isaac and Rebekah—a plan contrived to explain why they were breaking precedent and awarding the leadership to the “younger” son. There is also the possibility that they are fearful of an angry and violent Esau who will not simply accept their decision. Given that Isaac is infirm—visually impaired and on his death bed (see verses 2-4 of the chapter), he is at Esau’s mercy, and Rebekah is vulnerable because she feels the need to stay near her ailing husband. Only Jacob is in a position to flee the wrath of Esau and then return later. A plan is then hatched: they pretend that Jacob fools old blind Isaac and receives the leadership blessing—and then Jacob can visit the family in Syria until Esau cools down.

Family stories are often messy, and everyone is not always happy. May we manage the many and competing issues in our own families—giving respect and agency to all members and trying to be understanding when things do not go our way.  

What We Can Learn From Ignorance

October 29th: Chayeh Sarah
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich

Sometimes information shows us how little we know. We get a tidbit and, upon reflection, realize that we have opened a window into a whole realm of ignorance. A case in point comes in an almost forgettable paragraph in this week’s Torah portion. After the elaborate stories of Sarah’s death and burial and the acquisition of Rebekah as a wife for Isaac, we are told about Abraham’s additional wives and children.
“Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah. She bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. Jokshan begot Sheba and Dedan. The descendants of Dedan were the Asshurim, the Letushim, and the Leummin. The descendants of Midian were Ephah, Epher, Enoch, Abida, and Eldaah. All these were descendants of Keturah. Abraham willed all that he owned to Isaac, but to Abraham’s sons by concubines Abraham gave gifts while he was still living, and he sent them away from his son Isaac eastward to the land of the East.” (Genesis 25.1-6)

There were, apparently, whole swaths of Abraham’s life unrecorded in the Torah. We know nothing about his first 75 years (before God told him Lech Lecha), and all we know about the next hundred years are contained in a dozen or so stories. In other words, a lot about Abraham’s life is unknown to us. This does not mean that we cannot have an understanding of Abraham or an appreciation of him. As with every other person we know, what we know is inevitably limited, and the fact that there are mysteries should inspire with humility. We can have relationships, but we must not think that our limited knowledge grants us any kind of control. Is this not the same as our knowledge of and relationship with God? Though God is infinite and ultimately unknowable, we can nonetheless have a meaningful relationship with the Divine; we just need to approach It with humility and a sense of awe. Whatever we think, God is greater and more complex—both immanent (Elohaynu) and transcendent (Adonai).

We should also realize that the stories in the Bible are there for a reason. Someone—either God or human authors or editors—chose the stories to include and the stories that remained “on the cutting room floor.” What was included are there to present certain ideas, principles, and sensibilities. They are the messages and lessons of the Bible.

There is also this to consider. The fact that a large realm of Biblical life is not recorded does not mean it did not happen. Just because women, for example, are not featured as important actors in most Biblical stories does not mean that they were not integral parts of Biblical life. An example comes in next week’s Torah portion when Rebekah takes leadership in the family and instructs Jacob to pose as Esau and steal the blessing intended for her larger and hairier son. Another recorded example would be in Numbers 20 where Miriam dies, and Moses’ and Aaron’s leadership falters. Could Miriam have been an important part of the social network of ancient Israelite society—with such importance that her absence brings disaster? Though there are only a few recorded exceptions, it stands to reason that women, by strength of character and family and community agency, would have been just as important as men—though the male-written records generally ignore them. For some more insights to this dynamic, I suggest the work of Biblical archeologist and historian Carol Meyers of Duke University. She reads the Bible very carefully, looking for hints of female agency and power—and she finds them.

This kind of thinking is the basis of The Red Tent, a wonderful book by Anita Diamant. Picking up on a few Genesis passages about Leah, Rachel, and Dinah, she imagines the life of the women in Patriarchal times. Though not historical, it is very realistic and believable—a modern Midrash that reminds us of the significant but unrecorded lives of our Matriarchs.

For a modern example of this kind of hidden female agency, there a story told about the famous anthropologist Margaret Mead. She was once part of a team studying a primitive tribe, and, one day, all the men in the village began excitedly preparing for an important ritual. As they walked off for the ceremony, all the anthropologists grabbed their notebooks and eagerly followed. The male villagers, however, stopped and forbade Dr. Mead from accompanying them. As a woman, she was not allowed at the important ritual. Though she tried to explain that her role was that of an anthropologist—and not a female, they would not relent, and she was left frustrated in the village with the women. To her surprise, however, as soon as the men were out of sight, the female villagers began scurrying around and getting ready for something big. When Dr. Mead inquired what was happening, the women explained that the men’s ritual was just a bunch of foolishness. The real ritual was what the women would do, and they proceeded with their own ritual to propitiate the gods and bring about the blessings the village needed. Thinking she was left out, she got a front-row seat to a ritual unknown to the men—and that would not have been part of any history the men would have transmitted.

Let us not be fooled by the incompleteness of historical sources. They are, to be sure, all that we have, but let us realize their limitations and not be constrained thereby.

 
One final insight from our lack of knowledge. The heroes of our Tradition were probably not heroic and successful every step of the way. As human beings, they probably had both good days and bad, and there were no doubt times when they succumbed to selfishness, cowardice, immorality, or lethargy. Why would they be any different? But, to their credit, there were also days when they responded with nobility and righteousness and holiness. These are the examples presented by the Biblical Author/authors—examples preserved for us. Even though our lives are incomplete and flawed, we can nonetheless rise to the occasion and bring goodness and holiness into the world.

Wife or Sister?

October 22nd: Vayera
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich

Amidst the many and faith-defining stories of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, Genesis also gives us three very curious and rather repetitive stories. One was last week, in Lech Lecha (Genesis 12.10-20); the second is this week, in Vayera (Genesis 20.1-18); and the third will come in two weeks, in Toldot (Genesis 26.1-16).

In each, the Patriarch journeys to a new place and is worried that the locals will kill him to take his beautiful wife. This happens when Abram and Sarai visit Egypt (in Lech Lecha), when Abraham and Sarah visit Gerar (in Vayera), and when Isaac and Rebekah visit Gerar of the Philistines (in Toldot). To avert this danger, they concoct a ruse: the wife will pretend that she is his sister.

In the first two cases, the local ruler—Pharaoh in Egypt and Abimelech of Gerar—is struck by Sarah’s beauty and takes her into his harem. In the third case, all the Philistines in Gerar are attracted to Rebekah. However, before anyone can cohabit with her, the truth comes out. In the first two cases, God visits some kind of plague on the leaders, and, in the third case, Isaac and Rebekah are a little too affectionate in public and raise suspicions.

The local ruler confronts the Patriarch. “Why did you do this?!” The Patriarch then explains that he was unsure whether the local inhabitants were God-fearing, and that this unusual strategy was for protection. The local ruler then returns the wife and favors the Patriarch with gifts and business connections. Finally, the Patriarch and Matriarch depart much wealthier than when they arrived. Very similar stories, three times.

 Among the lessons we can derive from these stories are:

(1)  Apparently, this survival strategy was taught to Isaac by his parents. It worked twice for them, and they recommended it. Then, it worked for Isaac and Rebekah.

(2)  The Patriarchal families’ faith in God was mitigated by their fear of unknown people. Inasmuch as God protected Sarah twice and then Rebekah from the advances of men other than their husbands, one might wonder why God would not have protected Abraham and Isaac from murderous wife-stealers. The Patriarch’s faith in God was great, but they had human doubts and fears as well. This reminds us that, despite our own doubts and foibles, we too can achieve spiritual significance.

(3)  God is quite inventive in dispensing punishment. The nature of the plague in Egypt is unspecified, but, in Gerar, the plague involved the reproductive systems. The Torah only says that, after Abimelech returned Sarah to Abraham, “Abraham then prayed to God and God healed Abimelech and his wife and his slave girls so that they bore children; for the Lord had closed fast every womb of the household of Abimelech because of Sarah, the wife of Abraham.” (Genesis 20.17-18) However, the Midrash speculates that the infertility was more male-oriented—that God had rendered Abimelech impotent so he could not commit adultery with Sarah. This certainly got his attention!

(4)  The Halachah was not operative yet: in Vayera, Abraham explains that the “she is my sister” story is not a complete lie: “Besides, she is in truth my sister, my father’s daughter though not my mother’s; and she became my wife. So when God made me wander from my father’s house, I said to her, ‘Let this be the kindness that you shall do me: whatever place we come to, say there of me: He is my brother.’”  (Genesis 20.12-13)  When the Torah was given at Mt. Sinai around 1200 BCE, this consanguineous relationship was prohibited, but 800 years before that, it was apparently not a problem.

(5)  There are God-fearing people outside of the Hebrew tribe. Pharaoh and Abimelech claim that they would never have killed Abraham or Isaac to get to their beautiful wives—that they adhered to basic morality. Further, when God speaks to them about Sarah’s marital status, both listen to the word of God. It is also important to note that God’s communication is not limited to the founder of Judaism: God speaks to these non-Hebrews—indicating a Divine interest in more than just the Hebrews. Indeed, our special role in the world is not just for our own internal perfection. God’s mission for us is to teach the whole world and bring blessings upon them. As God explains earlier in the Torah portion, “Abraham is to become a great and populous nation and all the nations of the earth are to bless themselves by him. I have singled him out, that he may instruct his children and his posterity to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is just and right…” (Genesis 18.18-19) God is the God of all humanity—and all the universe!

(6)  Finally, Sarai/Sarah and Rebekah were beautiful and fetching—a gift they bequeathed to all of the Jewish girls and women who follow them. Moreover, Sarah’s beauty was so great that, even in her seventies and eighties, she attracted the amorous attention of both Pharaoh and Abimelech. It seems clear: the beauty of Jewish women is a Torah fact!

Why Abram?

October 15th: Lech Lecha
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich

One of the great mysteries of the Torah is why God chooses Abram to start the religion that eventually becomes known as Judaism. The text tells us nothing. In the closing paragraph of Parshat No’ach (Genesis 11.27-32), we are only told that Terach fathers three sons, Abram, Nahor, and Haran, that Abram gets married to Sarai, and that the family moves from Ur of the Chaldeans (the port at the north end of the Persian Gulf) up the Tigre-Euphrates Rivers Valley to Syria (Haran). Their intention is to continue their migration to Canaan, but they settle in Haran and Terach dies there. That’s it. There is nothing to explain anything about Abram’s character or accomplishments or how he somehow merits being put in such a significant position.

Then, seemingly out of nowhere, God says to Abram,
“Lech lecha: Go forth from your native land
And from your father’s house
To the land that I will show you.
I will make of you a great nation,
And I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
And you shall be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you;
And all the families of the earth shall bless themselves by you.”
(Genesis 12.1-3)

Perhaps this mystery should be no more curious than a thousand others. God seldom explains the reasons for Divine decisions, and we are not really in a position to understand. Is not God on a much, much higher level than humans? As God explains to Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Do you know who fixed its dimensions or who measured it with a line…? (Job 38, 39, and 40; the answer goes on for three chapters!)

On the other hand, it seems that the Rabbis have a great desire to pattern themselves after spiritual masters—and therefore they need to know what it is about Abram that attracts God’s particular attention and trust. One way to figure this out is to go to the future and work backwards. Looking at Abram/Abraham’s life and actions after Lech Lecha can show us qualities which God could know ahead of time: great faith and compassion, spiritual enthusiasm and obedience, and generosity and courage. Perhaps God sees these virtues and realizes that Abram is the man to start the new religion?

Another avenue to understanding is to imagine Abram’s formative theological thinking. Born into a world of polytheism and idolatry, the Midrash speculates that Abram figures out the singularity of the Creative Force on his own. In one, Abram is traveling through the desert and camps at night on a ridge overlooking a city. Noticing the city’s illuminated and organized street grid, it occurs to him that such a well-ordered city could not have happened without a plan and a planner. And, if a city’s organization reflects a singular plan, then how much the more so would the interlocking complexity of the world also reflect a singular Creative Force. In other words, despite what he had been taught as a child, Abram realizes that there is only One God. It is at this point that God recognizes Abram’s unique spiritual insights and says, “Lech lecha…” 

Another Midrash is equally insightful but a bit more entertaining. In this one, Abram’s father, Terach, is in the idol business. He has a shop that sells idols to all the polytheistic idolaters. One day, Terach has some errands to run and asks young Abram to watch the shop. Abram agrees, but, when Terach returns, the shop is in shambles: the idols are strewn all over the place and broken in pieces. “Abram, what happened?!” Terach cries out. Abram then tells the tragic story. “You remember that big idol that was over in the corner? Well, he decided that all of the little idols should bow down to him, and they refused. He got so angry that he took a stick and broke them all. Then I got angry at him and knocked him off his pedestal and broke him.” Terach is incredulous. “But, Abram, that is impossible. Everyone knows that the idols are just wood and stone; they cannot do anything!” “Exactly,” replied Abram. “Then why do we worship them?!” As with the previous Midrash, God sees Abram’s religious understanding and realizes that he is the one to start the new religion. “Lech lecha…”

Then, there is a possible explanation inspired by the poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning. Writing about the similar mystery in God’s choice of Moses (also not explained in the Torah), Ms. Browning writes:
“Earth’s crammed with heaven, and every bush afire with God;
But only he who sees takes off his shoes—
The rest sit around and pluck blackberries.”
(Aurora Leigh, 86)
Perhaps the call of God is spoken to every human and continually. Abram’s (and Moses’) uniqueness lies in the spiritual ability to perceive the Divine invitation.

Similarly, there is this more egalitarian possibility. Perhaps Abram’s unique qualifying characteristic lies not in his preparation or ability but rather in his response. All are called, but only some respond. Rather than searching for intellectual gifts or lifestyle habits, perhaps the answer is no more than that Abram responds when God invites and commands.

Translating this insight to our situation, perhaps it is not a matter of preparing for the great call from God but simply responding to the Torah that God places in our midst. We are all called, and we are all invited, and we can all respond. God is continually saying, “Lech lecha: Go, get thee up…and become a blessing.” The call is not restricted to Abram or Sarah. It is spoken to us all. Remember: pursuing both God and godliness is our family tradition.

Tapping the Mind of God

October 8th: Noach
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich

This is Rabbi Ostrich’s Yom Kippur Morning D’var Torah.

There is a notion—in both Jewish Tradition and ancient Greek legend, that all the knowledge we ever learn is actually already in our heads—that we already sort of know it, and that learning is actually remembering. There is even a Midrash about souls in heaven learning everything in the Torah before being put into human bodies at birth. Just before we are born, however, an angel presses an indentation on our upper lips and makes us forget everything we have learned. That is why babies cry when they are first born; we are grief-stricken at all the Torah we have lost.

These thoughts seem attempts to explain why things we learn often seem particularly familiar—as though they were lurking in the corners of our minds all along.

 Add to this the insight from Ecclesiastes (1.9),
“Only that shall happen which has happened, only that occur which has occurred;
there is nothing new under the sun!”

When one considers the infinity of God—the true infinity, it follows that all possibilities are included in the limitless potential of Creation. If something happens or if wisdom is discovered, it is something that existed in possibility all along.

This is not to downplay the brilliance of authors or artists or scholars but just to observe the fact that whatever they compose or discover was, all along, composable or discoverable. The answer was there along along, just waiting for them to see it. Indeed, one often hears such an insight expressed by composers or artists. Rather than actually creating their art, they feel mere channels for its flow into the world.

This kind of thinking led my mentor, Dr. Ellis Rivkin, late of the Hebrew Union College, to speak of all intellectual growth and creativity as tapping the Mind of God. Our blessed situation is that we can gain access to the infinity of God’s mind and access some of the precious Divine Wisdom.

So, with this dynamic in mind, let us consider the poetic and pious words of a very familiar prayer, Ahavah Rabba, the second prayer after the Bar’chu, the one that immediately precedes Sh’ma in the morning service.

 Here is the text which you may follow on page 81 of our Machzor:
With a great love have You loved us, O Lord our God, and with enormous and overflowing
compassion have You cared for us.
It begins with the acknowledgment that God loves us and shows us love. It also speaks of the overwhelmingness of God’s blessings to us.

We then get to the prayer’s theme of how God shows that love.
For the sake of our ancestors, who trusted in You and to whom You taught
the laws of life, may You also grace and teach us.
There is a tradition—between our God and our families—of instruction in חֻקֵּי חַיִּים / the laws of life, the information necessary for living in a meaningful way. One could even say that teaching and learning are the ways that our relationship with the Divine takes place:
O compassionate One, have compassion upon us and help our minds to know, understand, listen carefully, learn, teach, guard, observe, and lovingly maintain all the words and teachings of Your Torah.
We are not just talking about book learning; we are talking about encountering Divine Wisdom at every level.

The next passage is often chanted in a very popular musical setting by Reb Shlomo Carlebach:
Enlighten our eyes with Your Torah; cause our hearts to cleave to Your mitzvot;
unite our hearts and minds to love and revere Your Name.
We are speaking to an even deeper involvement, one in which contact with God affects and improves our humanity.

We then sing of faith:
We shall never be shamed because we trust in Your great, holy, and awesome Name,
and we rejoice and find happiness in Your salvation.
It is a hallmark of our faith that our relationship with God is ultimately trustworthy, and we are urged to invest ourselves in this certain and secure and eternal connection.

Finally, we are reminded that our participation in God’s Wisdom—in tapping the Mind of God—helps not only us but also the Divine Itself.
For You are God Who brings deliverance and Who chose us,
drawing us near to Your great Name in utter truth
so that we may give thanks to You and unite You in love.
Our role is to actualize God in the world—to be a channel for God’s wisdom and godliness, and, in doing so, we can actually help לְיַחֶדְךָ בְּאַהֲבָה  /unite God in love, that is, fix the divisions in the cosmos.

Learning and intellectual activity are second nature to us. We are curious and analytical and thrilled when we find clarity or understanding or profundity. What we may not realize, however, is that our minds are an access point to the Infinite, and that thinking is a way of participating in the Divine.

 We celebrate this dynamic—this blessed process—in our tradition of Torah and in our sacred rituals: they are at the heart of our relationship with the Holy and Infinite One.
We praise You, O Lord our God, Who imparts of Your wisdom to flesh and blood,
Who lovingly teaches Torah to Israel, and
Who gives special wisdom to those who live in reverence.

Race, Israel, and Sukkot

October 1st: End of Sukkot, Simchat Torah, and Beraysheet
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich  

Much of our legal and moral thinking revolves around classifying situations or phenomena. We see something to eat and want to say a blessing, but Vas ist dos? What exactly is this piece of food? Is it a vegetable, פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה, “fruit of the earth?” Or, is it פְּרִי הָעֵץ, “fruit of the tree?”  When we open up our prayer books, do we pray the morning service, the afternoon service, or the evening service? We need to determine the time of day. When we are counting a minyan, who are these people in attendance? Are they Jews or Gentiles, and are they over the age of thirteen? All are welcome, but only the adult Jews comprise the minyan. We need to know what we are beholding.

When we think about the continuing conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors, our opinions generally depend on what we think we see. Vas ist dos? Is the Modern State of Israel as Zionism understands it, an ancient people returning to its ancestral land? Or, is it as the Arabs understand it, Jews stealing Arab land?

As the thinking on race has developed over the last few decades, there has been a great emphasis on determining the whiteness or non-whiteness of groups—whiteness being equivalent to evil and non-whiteness being equivalent to innocent victimhood. This has been particularly delicate when conflicting parties are both non-white. In such cases, determining which non-white is to be deemed white and therefore evil, and which non-white is to be deemed non-white and therefore innocent is very important. This distinction was at play a number of years ago in the narrative of the tragic death of Trayvon Martin in Florida. Among the many issues in the public telling of the story, the ethnicity of the shooter, George Zimmerman, seemed to be important. Though Peruvian—and therefore Hispanic, i.e., non-white, many observers felt the need to classify him as “white Hispanic,” that is, more white than Hispanic.

This focus on color as well as ethnicity was also part of the public discussion of the recently released film In the Heights. Though the film (and the very popular stage musical) focused on Hispanics (Dominicans in the Washington Heights neighborhood of New York City), criticism descended because of the absence of Black Dominicans. Even though one of the main characters is Black, apparently he was not a Black Dominican and therefore not representative of the true multi-racial nature of the community.  

A similar distinction within the Hispanic/Latin community can be seen in the news coverage when Justice Sonia Sotomayor ascended to the Supreme Court and was declared the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. Those familiar with Jewish history were surprised because we always thought that Justice Benjamin Cardozo (who served on the High Court from 1932-1938) was Hispanic. He was not a poor Hispanic nor the child of immigrants, and the discrimination his family suffered was at the hands of other Hispanics—the Christian authorities in 15th Century in Portugal and Spain, but his family certainly identified as Sephardic Jews and were part of a historic New York Hispanic/Latino/Jewish community. (For details, see The Grandees by Stephen Birmingham, 1971). So, in the parsing of racial/ethnic identities, did his Jewishness somehow negate his Latinness? Did his family’s longtime American residence (from the 1600’s) make him white and therefore non-Latin? His story is clearly different from Justice Sotomayor’s, but it is curious to me how the words Hispanic and Latin are defined and used.

In any event, recent decades have seen a re-rhetorization of the Arab position on Israel. Instead of characterizing the conflict as between Jews and Arabs, the Jews are cast as white European colonizers, and the Arabs are cast as non-white/indigenous victims. This rhetoric is very powerful, and it has convinced many people—including many in the Progressive Caucus of the Democratic Party. They feel the need to call out white oppression wherever it rears its ugly head, and, since Israel is white, they see it as evil—something to be stopped.

The irony of this characterization is that Jews have traditionally been considered non-white (not part of the majority and privileged culture): Jews have experienced racial, religious, and cultural oppression under Roman, Christian, and Muslim regimes for some 2000 years! (That was certainly the experience of Justice Cardozo’s family!) As one astonished observer quipped: The Jews are the only people who were brown when they left Israel, and white when they came back. Did we Jews change, or did the rhetoric change?

In Canada, this Jews are white categorization has been challenged by a Canadian Indian activist, Ryan Bellerose, a member of the Metis nation in Alberta. The Metis nation is recognized by the Canadian government as one of the country’s official aboriginal peoples, and Mr. Bellerose sees the Jewish situation as parallel to that of aboriginal peoples everywhere. He observes that Indigenous Identity is based on five pillars: land, language, culture, blood, and spirituality. Though the ravages of time may have removed some of these pillars, they remain as part of the tribal identity and are held up as aspirations for tribal renewal.

For example, Cherokee removed from their native lands in the Southeast nonetheless maintain their tribal identity in exile in Oklahoma. Similarly, though the gene pool of “pure” Sioux blood has been mixed with other groups’ genetic material, tribes can nonetheless maintain enough of their ethnicity to have a real tribal identity. Though some native languages have been lost, many remain, and many can be reclaimed. And, though aboriginal spirituality may have changed or been influenced by other spiritual approaches, clear connections and a sense of continuity with ancient forms can nonetheless be maintained.

Mr. Bellerose sees these kinds of dynamics of aboriginal identity as exceedingly similar to the processes of Jewish Identity.

He makes the point that Jews are the indigenous people of Eretz Yisrael, and our links to the land run deep. He even brings in a Sukkot connection. Indigenous Canadians have as one of their rites a sacred Medicine Wheel in which four plants—Tobacco, Sage, Sweet Grass, and Cedar—are put together and waved in the four directions to symbolize the Creator’s Presence throughout the land.  We, the indigenous people of Eretz Yisrael, have our Arba Minim, the four native Israeli species which we celebrate on Sukkot: the Lulav/Palm, the Arava/Willow, the Hadas/Myrtle, and the Etrog/Citron. We hold them together and wave them proudly in six directions, connecting the Creator to earth.

The five pillars of our tribal Eretz Yisrael indigeneity were greatly challenged when we were exiled by Babylon in 586 BCE and later by Rome in 70 CE, but we kept them close. Though we learned to speak other languages, we always kept Hebrew in our spiritual and legal settings. Though we encountered many other ethnicities and races, we kept our sense of kinship—actively congregating and expressing our group identity as Am Yisrael, the Jewish People. Non-Jews might have married in or converted in, but this non-Jewish genetic input did not dissipate our sense of peoplehood. Indeed, these newcomers were welcomed in and made part of us—becoming, in the parlance of Native American culture, blood brothers/sisters. We were and remain a people, Am Yisrael.  

Many indigenous people see the Jewish story—the Zionist story—as a miracle of indigenous and tribal rebirth. We, the true Indigenous of Eretz Yisrael, revived our language, retook our lands, continued our culture, expanded our tribal family, and express our spirituality daily. We are examples—both in the Diaspora and in Eretz Yisrael—for other oppressed and exiled peoples: Native American Indians, Tibetan Buddhists, even Africans.

As Rabbi Leigh Lerner of Montreal, Quebec, writes, “Let’s change the conversation about Israel. The question is not whether Israel is a blessing to humanity – high tech, green, medically and agriculturally miraculous. No, today’s battle is to show that we are above all Indigenous.” While we may choose to live in North America—away from our native lands, we nonetheless relate on deep and tribal levels to Eretz Yisrael and its people. “To say we are colonists is an attempt to destroy Am Yisrael once again.”

There is much to discuss and perhaps criticize about the Modern State of Israel and its policies. Our hopes for peace for our Israeli brothers and sisters should be combined with hope for peace and justice for the Arab peoples who, since the mid-1960s, have taken the name Palestinians. Even though their claim of indigeneity is refuted by the massive Arab population movement into Israel in the early 1900s, they are nonetheless human beings and deserve to be treated fairly. The complexities of a modern state in a difficult neighborhood are challenging indeed. However, the bulk of the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish rhetoric these days is much more existential, declaring that Israelis are outsiders, colonizers and settlers, who are displacing aboriginal peoples. The problem with analogies is that they are not always accurate. Casting the dynamics of Zionism as identical to White oppression in South Africa or North America is much more a rhetorical position than a real, historically accurate description. Vas ist dos? It is a mischaracterization.

The Jews are the indigenous inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael, with bona fides going back 2500 or 3000 or 4000 years. Let’s not allow unscrupulous and unlearned haters to twist this discussion and manipulate good hearted people. If one believes in indigenous rights and the autonomy of traditional tribal groups—in the returning of aboriginal peoples to their native lands with their original and ancient national autonomy, then supporting Israel is the right thing to do.