יום שישי, 26 בדצמבר 2014

אחרי ימי החנוכה - תקווה להתבגרות ואחריות Post-Hanukkah thoughts on Maturation and Responsibility

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
לצערנו, לא הספקנו לשלוח את הברכה  השבועיות לשבת חנוכה בשבוע שעבר, והנה ימי החנוכה עברו, הגענו לשיא האור ביום שלישי בערב וכולנו מקווים שהאור הזה יוסיף תקווה וטוב  לים של חושך מסביבנו.
נאומו של יהודה, הפותח את פרשת ויגש, מפגיש אותנו עם יהודה הבוגר והאחראי. המפגש הזה גם מאפשר ליוסף,  שהיה ילד המגלומני ונרקיסי, לחשוף את צדדו המבוגר והסולח. יהודה התגבר ונהיה אחראי בזכות תמר כלתו; יוסף בגלל חוויית "הבור".
יתכן שניתן ללמוד מכך שדרכים שונות עשויות להוביל להתבגרות ולאחריות וגם שדרושה בגרות כדי להתפייס.
שבת שלום לכולכם
פנחס, ציפי ומשפחתם
http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.com 
 במקום פרחים: קצת מוזיקה: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/? tab=wm#inbox/116d4fb92fa9c1db 





Dear Family and Friends,

Hanukah is over and we are back with our regular cycle of everyday life and Torah reading.
The first chapter of the section we'll read this Shabbat describes a very courageous and assertive monologue of Yehudah in front of Yossef, actually assuming the responsibility he took in front of his father. Did Yossef know that Yehudah was responsible for his being a slave in Egypt? Is this entire story a corrective experience for Yehudah after the lesson Tamar gave him a few years ago? Maybe this monologue and Yossef's reaction reflect  a mature stage of growth and encounter bewteen the 2 brothers, and also between their archetypes.
Maybe this teaches us also  that there are different pathways of growth and maturation that at the end may lead to a positive encounter and reconciliation.
Shabbat Shalom to all,
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family
http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.com  

 Unstead of flowers, some music: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#inbox/116d4fb92fa9c1db 

Shabbat Shalom from the Leiser family
         

יום שישי, 12 בדצמבר 2014

Traumatic experience as transformative processes . .אירועים טראומטיים כמנוף לטרנספורמציה

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
בפרשה שנקרא מחר, הופכים יוסף ויהודה לדמויות העיקריות. אנחנו עוקבים אחרי התפתחותם. פרידתם מבית אביהם מכניסה את כל אחד מהם למסלול אישי שונה; שניהם עוברים טראומה - יוסף ניצל ברגע אחרון ממוות ונמכר לעבד; יהודה "יורד", מתחתן עם אישה כנענית ושניים מבניו מתים, את הבן השלישי הוא מפחד לתת לתמר כלתו ואז, אחרי שהתאלמן הוא מכניס את תמר כלתו, שהתחפשה לזונה, להריון - שניהם עוברים טרנספורמציה; יוסף לומד להקשיב גם לחלומותיהם של אחרים; יהודה לומד לקחת אחריות על מעשיו. ואולי בא הדבר ללמדנו מהן התכונות החשובות ביותר למנהיג: הקשבה לחלומות, ולמאוויים של אחרים ולקיחת אחריות על מעשים ומחדלים. האם נשכיל למצוא בתוכנו מנהיגים כאלו?
שבת שלום לכולכם
פנחס, ציפי ומשפחתם
http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.com

  


Dear Family and Friends,
Tomorrow, we'll read about  .Yossef and Yehudah.These 2 sons of Yaakov leave their father's home and start their individual journey. Both undergo traumatic experiences: Yossef was almost killed by his brothers and arrived as a slave in Egypt; Yehuda lost 2 of his sons and had intercourse with Tamar, his daughter-in-law disguised as a whore and becamed the father of twins - these traumatic experiences engendered transformations in both of them; Yossef became able to listen to the dreams of others and Yehudah beacme able to assume responsibility over his deeds. Maybe this teaches us what a leader needs; being able to listen empathetically to the dreams, narratives and needs of others and also assume responsibility over his deeds and misdeeds. Will we ever be able to find such leaders among us? 
Shabbat Shalom to all
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family





Shabbat Shalom from the Leiser family
 .

יום שישי, 5 בדצמבר 2014

על דמונים ובני אדם Demonic Projections and Human Encounter

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
בשובו לארץ כנען, יודע יעקב שהוא הולך לפגוש את אחיו והוא חושש מהמפגש הזה. הוא נפרד ממנו אחרי שבעצת אמו הוא גנב ממנו את ברכת יצחק אביו.
לפני המפגש האמיתי, הוא פוגש (בחלומו?) דמות, ספק אדם, ספק מלאך, הנאבקת אתו. דמות זו, לפי פרשנות חז"ל היא "שרו של עשיו"; בשפה שלנו ניתן להגדירו כהשלכה דמונית של יעקב על עשיו אחיו ממנו הוא חושש. הדמות הזאת נותנת לו את השם  ישראל, "כי שרית עם אלוהים ועם אדם ותוכל".
יתכן שזה מלמד אותנו שרק אחרי התגברות על הדמוניזציה של האחר, ניתן לפגוש אותו פנים אל פנים ולראות  "פני אדם".
שבת שלום והרבה טוב לכולכם
פנחס, ציפי ובני משפחתם

http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.com 








Dear Family and Friends,

This Shabbat we'll read about Jaacov' s apprehension to meet his brother Esav, after being separated from him for many years. He doesn't know,  since he actually escaped his brother, what will happen when they meet again; Is his brother still angry and jealous? Hearing from the messengers he sent that his brother is getting close with 400 people, he didn't know what the meaning of that "escort" was and our Commentators read these lines of uncertainty in different ways.
Maybe the way we deal with uncertainty reflects our inner anxieties and maybe these anxieties being projected on others engender a self fulfilling prophecy.
Shabbat Shalom to all,
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family 

יום שישי, 28 בנובמבר 2014

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,

"מלאכי אלוהים" עולים ויורדים ב"סולם יעקב", ה"מוצב ארצה וראשו מגיע השמימה". ואולי לכולנו יש רגעים של התעלות, בהם אנחנו עולים לכיוון "השמים", אל עבר פסגות, אך לעתים, אחרי אותה עלייה, יש גם ירידה. אך, יתכן שירידה זו הכרחית כדי לא לאבד את הקשר עם "הארץ", או כדי להביא קצת מהשמים לארץ.
שבת שלום לכולכם,
פנחס, ציפי ומשפחתם


Dear Family and Friends,

"And he dreamed and behold a ladder stationed on the earth and its top reaches the sky, and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it". … (Genesis 28:12-13)
Maybe all of us experience moments of grandeur, when we are "ascending", but sometimes, after "ups" there are "downs", but maybe these "downs" are inevitable, since as humans we have to keep in touch with the earth and also maybe add some "heaven" to earth
Shabbat Shalom to All,
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family .

יום שישי, 21 בנובמבר 2014

סכסוכים ארציים וסכסוכים "דתיים" - Earthly and Religious conflicts

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
בכל ספר בראשית – וגם בפרשת תולדות בה נקרא מחר על האחים התאומים יעקב ועשיו – יש סיפורים על קנאה ותחרות בין אחים, הנובעות מהעדפתם של ההורים או של אחד מההורים את אחד מהבנים.
בכל המקרים - יצחק וישמעאל, יעקב ועשיו, יוסף ואחיו - התפייסו האחים זה עם זה בסופו של דבר. רק קין והבל לא התפייסו, כי כאן ההפלייה והתחרות היתה קשורה  לאלהים; האם זה מלמד אותנו שתחושת היחס המועדף של אלהים, הקנאה והקנאות מקשות על הפיוס? האם הפיכת סכסוך ל"דתי" מחבלת בסיכויי השלום?
שבת שלום וחודש טוב  לכולכם
פנחס, ציפי ומשפחתם

  עוד על  פרשת תולדות
http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.co.il/2008/11/normal-0-false-false-false_23.htm: 


Dear Family and Friends,
The entire Book of Bereishit tells us about rivalry between siblings due to one or both parents discriminating between them. Does the Torah tell us these stories in order to teach us that it's inevitable, that one of the children has to be "the Chosen" (it even starts when G!d prefers – at least that's the way Kain experiences it – Hevel's offer), or maybe t frustration, offence and rivalry engenders tragic conflicts, sometimes lasting for many generations, or maybe since despite of all rivalries, all brothers were able to reconcile; only the conflict between Kain andEar Hevel led to homicide. Thus that teach us that rivalry rooted in "religion" is more difficult to resolve?   
Shabbat Shalom to all,
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family

 More on Toldot: http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.co.il/2014/11/diggings-and-signs.html 

יום רביעי, 19 בנובמבר 2014

Diggings and signs

The Wells of Isaac: Diggings and Signs.

Pinchas Leiser


In a dispute over cultural superiority, a denizen of Rome proudly proclaimed to a Jerusalemite, "Did you know that in excavations at Rome they found underground wires?!"
"Nu, so what?"
The Roman responded in a victorious tone: "It shows that in Rome, 2,000 years ago, they already had the telephone..."
The Jerusalemite responded, "And do you know what they found in Jerusalem excavations?"
"What?"
"Nothing."
"So what?" was the Roman's response.
"It shows that in Jerusalem, 2,000 years ago, they already had wireless..."

A fascinating field of biblical exegesis and of the philosophy of history is the attempt to learn about the present and future from the past. Yet this area is incredibly complex and filled with problems, so that it sometimes seems that the message gleaned is nourished at least as much by the exegete's world-view as by the reading of the text.
RaMBaN, in his commentary on the Torah, briefly formulates the exegetical principle of "the acts of the forefathers are a sign to the children":

And Abram passed through the land to the place of Shekhem:  This important rule, which should be understood in all the following portions dealing with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, was concisely mentioned by our Rabbis (Tanhuma 9): "All that happened to the forefathers is a sign for the children;" therefore the Bible dwells on the story of the journeys and the digging of wells and the rest of the events. Though one might think that these are extraneous matters with no purpose, they all come to tell the future. For whenever something would happen to one of the three forefather-prophets, he would learn from it what had been decreed to happen to his descendants. (RaMBaN Genesis 12:6)

Rabbi Shlomo Efraim of Lontshitz, the author of the Kli Yakar commentary, applies this principle to the story of Isaac's digging of the wells in our weekly portion:

And Isaac's servants dug in the valley, and found there a well of spring water.  RaMBaN and Toldot Yitzchak and Menorat Hamaor wrote, "since all that happened to the forefathers was a sign for the children," therefore they found it appropriate to expound the stories of these wells as being about the three Holy Temples that were called wells of spring water: Just as they quarreled about the two wells and called the third Rehovot, so with the First and Second Temples the nations fought against Israel until they destroyed her, and the Third, may it be built speedily in our days, was called Rehovot...
And they did not quarrel over the third well, for the Third Temple will be built by the king Messiah of whom it is said (Isaiah 9:6): for the increase of the realm and for peace without end, for there will be only peace and truth in his time. Thus was it called Rehovot, for then the Lord will expand (yarhiv) their borders. When there is strife or two Hebrews fighting, even in a city as large as Antioch, there is not enough room for them both even in a very great area, the lack of space oppresses them, as is the case even today, due to our sins. The opposite is the case when there is peace among Israel.  Even though we multiply and the Land's inhabitants are numerous, nevertheless it is expansive for them and there is no oppressor... Therefore it says for the Lord has made room (yarhiv) for us even though we be shall be fruitful in the land, and its inhabitants will be numerous, nonetheless the land will be expansive before them. Moreover, we know that many left the land during the Second Temple because of conflict caused by the wickedness of its inhabitants.  That is why Isaac said that when peace arrives we shall be fruitful in the land for we will not need to leave it. (Kli Yakar Bereishit 26:19)

RaShBaM, in his interpretation of the first verse of the Binding of Isaac (akeda), gives an interesting twist to the idea of a trial and sees in the akeda a sort of punishment meted out to Abraham for having ceded control of Philistia by entering into a covenant with Abimelech:

And it came to pass after these things: Any time it says after these things, it is connected to the previous section... Here too: after {these things, i.e. that] Abraham signed a treaty with Abimelech, obligating Abraham's children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren as well, and gave him seven lambs, God was angry about this, since the land of the Philistines was given to Abraham, and in the book of Joshua, too, the cities of the five Philistine lords are entered in the lottery as included in the borders of Israel, and God had commanded them you shall save alive nothing that breathes.  Therefore God tested [nissa] Abraham: he provoked him and caused him anguish, [as we see in other verses where the verb nsh connotes provocation.]  It was as if God said, "You were so proud of the son I gave you that you entered a covenant between yourselves and their children. Now go and bring him as a sacrifice and see what good your treaty-signing does."
Similarly I found later in the midrash on Samuel: And the ark of the Lord was in the country of the Philistines seven months. It says [in the story of Abraham and Abimelech],  These seven ewe lambs you shall take of my hand.  The Holy One, Blessed be He said to him, "You gave him seven lambs, I swear by your life that his children will make seven wars on your children and vanquish them." Alternately, "By your life, his children will kill seven righteous men from among your children: Samson, Hofni, Pinhas, Saul and his three sons." Alternately, "By your life, his sons will destroy seven sanctuaries: the Tabernacle, Gilgal, Nob, Shiloh, Gibeon, and two Temples." Alternately, "Because the Ark will remain in the country of the Philistines seven months." (RaShBaM Bereishit 22:1)

In other words, God is angry with Abraham and therefore provokes him and causes him pain.

Of course the devotees of the Whole Land of Israel in our days heartily enjoy this interpretation of RaShBaM and learn from it that there is a prohibition on signing agreements with Gentiles involving concessions in the Land of Israel, which was divinely promised to us.

Yet it goes without saying that most of our commentators throughout the generations (excepting Hizkuni, who copies RaShBaM’s words on this verse) do not hold that the akeda, the final and most difficult of Abraham's trials, was a punishment. Even if we want to expound on the adjoining of the sections of after these things and find a causal connection between this section and the preceding one (according to the exegetical rule invoked by RaShBaM himself), given that these things were not specified, the reader could connect the adjoining of the section of Ishmael's exile to the akeda just as logically, and thereby come to a completely different understanding of the akeda. We will suffice with this comment, given that out purpose here is not a deep understanding of the akeda section, but in examining the idea of an agreement with a Gentile.

In chapter 26, the Torah tells us of Isaac's dwelling in Gerar, in Philistia, with Abimelech. God there repeats his promise to Abraham and tells him, Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you, and will bless you; for to you, and to thy seed, I will give all these countries and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father (26:3).  We read later in this section (verses 15-23) about the breach of this agreement between Abraham and Abimelech by the latter's servants and about the conflict between the shepherds of Gerar and Isaac's shepherds concerning the water in the wells dug by Isaac.

The Torah tells that these wells were stopped up.  The author of the Sforno commentary explains the phrase the Philistines had stopped them up: "Since they feared Abimelech’s order not to harm Isaac, they stopped up the wells in their hate-filled jealousy." It seems, according to this approach, that the making of peace between Abimelech and Isaac was not to the liking of some Philistines, and these dissatisfied ones were those who broke the agreement.

Verse 22 tells of the other well, over which the shepherds of Isaac and Gerar did not fight, and in verses 28-31 Abimelech and Isaac enter another agreement, following the suggestion of Abimelech. The author of Hizkuni explains: Let us make a covenant with you: even though Abraham and Abimelech already swore for three generations, Abimelech nevertheless wanted to establish a new covenant between them, since he had breached the agreement [both] in the matter of the wells and by sending him away." (Hizkuni, Bereishit 26:28)

The Torah relates that Isaac agreed to renew the covenant, despite its breach in the past, perhaps from awareness that there are ups and downs in any process and from a preference for accord over hostility.

If we examine the above-cited words of the Kli Yakar on these verses, according to the principle of "the acts of the forefathers are a sign to the children," we learn that:
The Third Temple, hinted to by Isaac's third well, Rehovot, will be built only in the days of peace, and expanded borders are largely dependent on the ability of people to live together in peace, with no one clipping the other's wings.

For whatever reason, the signs that the children see in the acts of the forefathers are largely dependent on the values they wish to embrace and pass to the following generations.

Pinchas Leiser, editor of Shabbat Shalom, is a psychologist

יום חמישי, 13 בנובמבר 2014

עוול, תיקון ופיוס Injustice, Repairing and reconciliation

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
בשבת שעברה, קראנו על גירוש הגר וישמעאל ע"י אברהם, לפי דרישת שרה.
איננו שומעם דבר על יצחק, אחרי העקדה,  עד שעבד אברהם חוזר מארם נהריים ומביא את רבקה ליצחק.
יצחק מגיע למפגש עם רבקה מ"באר לחי רואי", ובעלי המדרש רואים באזכור המקום רמז למקום בו פגשנו את הגר וישמעאל אחרי הגירוש והמדרש מספר שאחרי מות שרה, הלך יצחק לשם כדי להחזיר את הגר-קטורה לאביו. כמו-כן, מספרת לנו התורה שיצחק וישמעאל קברו ביחד את אברהם אביהם.
היתכן שהסיפור בא ללמדנו שאחרי תקופה של קנאה, תחרות ואיבה ניתן להגיע לפיוס ע"י תיקון העוול?
שבת שלום לכולכם
פנחס, ציפי ומשפחתם
http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.com 

לקריאה נוספת באותו נושא:  http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.co.il/2008/11/normal-0-false-false-false_728.html






Dear Family and Friends,
Last week we read about Avraham sending Hagar and Yishmael away, upon Sarah's request.
After the Akedah, Yitzhak disappeared and didn’t live with his parents.
Rashi, quoting a Midrash reads in the words "Beer LaHay Roei" an allusion to the place where we last met Hagar and Yishmael and says that after his mother Sarah died, he brought Hagar back to his father, which is identified with Keturah; we'll also read that Yitzhak and Yishmael are burying their common father together.
Does that teach us that after each episode of hatred and rivalry, people are (or should be) able to overcome fear, to reestablish harmony and peaceful coexistence after repairing injustice?

Shabbat Shalom to all,
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family 

More on this topic: http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.co.il/2014/11/hagar-ketura.html 


יום שלישי, 11 בנובמבר 2014

Hagar-Ketura

HAGAR/KETURAH FROM “BE’EIR L’CHAI RO’I”

Pinchas Lazer


Throughout the ages, exegetes and preachers have reflected upon the juxtaposition of biblical events as they are transcribed in the parshiyot “Yayeirah” and “Haye Sara.”  Prof. Uriel Simon, among others, has attended to the linguistic and thematic connections between the expulsion of Ishmael and the binding of Isaac.  Authors of the midrashim point to a causal link between the binding of Isaac and Sarah’s death.

It is especially interesting to see how Rashi (24: 62) employs the midrash to explain one of the verses leading to the first encounter between Isaac and Rivkah:

Isaac had just come back from the vicinity of Beer-lahai-roi – for he had gone to bring Hagar to his father Abraham for him to marry her.” The midrash in Bereishit Rabbah (60: 14) that serves as Rashi’s source offers a richer description of the connection between Hagar and the place’s name:

’Isaac had just come back from mavo [the vicinity, alternatively, the coming],’ He came from coming, where did he go to? ‘Beer-lahai-roi’ [literally, ‘the well-to-the-living-who-sees-me], he went to bring Hagar, who had sat by the well, and said to the one who lives eternally, ‘see me in my disgrace.’”

’And Isaac went out walking [Heb: lasuah] in the field toward evening.Siha can only mean prayer, for it is written (Psalms 102) ‘A prayer of the lowly man when he is faint and pours forth his plea [siho], and it also says, ‘Evening, morning and noon I complain [asiha] and moan and He hears my voice.’”

The author of Midrash Tanhuma (Hayyei Sarah, 8) praises Hagar extravagantly.  In connection with the midrashic idea that Isaac sought out a wife for his father Abraham, just as Abraham had earlier found a wife for Isaac, Tanhuma states:

”Isaac said: ‘I have taken a wife and my father remains lacking a wife?’ What did he do? He went and brought him a wife.  Rabbi said: She was Hagar, who was Ketura; and why was she called Ketura? Because she was tied up like a wineskin.  And our Rabbis said: He took a different woman.

And what was Rabbi’s reason for saying that Hagar was Ketura? Of Isaac it is written, ‘Isaac had just come back from the vicinity of Beer-lahai-roi’, that [place] of which it is written, ‘And she [Hagar] called the Lord who had spoke to her, ‘You are El-roi’’ (Bereishit 16) from here you learn that she was Hagar.  Another explanation: Why did they call her Keturah?  Because her deeds were as pleasing as incense [ketoret].

Both midrashim find in the words “Beer-lahai-roi” a hint to the encounter of Hagar, Sara’s maidservant, wife of Abraham, and mother of Ishmael, with God.     Beer-lahai-roi is the “place where the prayer of his maidservant was heard” (Sforno), the place where Hagar was granted an epiphany, and the place where Isaac chose to pray Minhah.

The author of Bereishit Rabbah chose to emphasize Hagar’s cry to God, “see me in my humiliation”, while the author of Midrash Tanhumah emphasizes Isaac’s concern for his father. In both midrashim, as well as in the parasha itself, there is a feeling of closure.

Isaac then brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he took Rebecca as his wife.  Isaac loved her, and thus found comfort after his mother’s death.”  With his marriage to Rebecca, Isaac completes the period of his mourning for his mother, and at the same time acts to end his father’s mourning by bringing Hagar/Keturah to him.

The authors of Midrash Rabbah emphasize that by bringing Hagar to Abraham, Isaac achieved a tikkun (“repair”). This deed creates another moment of closure: God had paid attention to Hagar’s suffering (the name Ishmael is explained– “For the Lord has paid heed to your suffering”) and had seen her humiliation when she was banished by Sarah, and this suffering and humiliation required tikkun (see Baal haTurim, Ramban, and ReDaK).  Isaac was the one to bring closure to this cycle of events and afterwards establish (metakein) the Minhah prayer, as is explained in the Gemarah (Berakhot 26b):

“Isaac established the Minhah prayer, for it is written ’And Isaac went out walking [lasuah] in the field toward evening.’ Siha can only mean prayer, for it is written (Psalms 102) ‘A prayer of the lowly man when he is faint and pours forth his plea [siho].’

Isaac’s prayer is both an act of tikkun and an act of establishment [takkanah].  He prays in the place where God attended to Hagar’s suffering and saw her humiliation; he decides to repair the evil caused her by his mother, and afterwards to recite a prayer established for future generations.  Isaac’s prayer is a plea (sicha) that connects with the suffering and humiliation of Hagar, mother of his brother Ishmael, (“A prayer of the lowly man when he is faint and pours forth his plea [siho]”).  He hears her cry in his prayer, the sound of her weeping, and the sound of the weeping of Ishmael, his brother.

Similarly, we see how the Gemarah in Rosh HaShanah (33b) deduces the character of the shofar blasts, teruah and shvarim from Sisra’s mother:

“It is written: ‘It shall be a day of truah for you’ (Bamidbar 29), and this is translated: It shall be a day of sobbing for you.  And it is written in connection with Sisra’s mother (Judges 5), ‘looking through the window, Sisrah’s mother sobbed.’”

The Sages were sensitive to the suffering and tears of mothers, and not only to the crying of Jewish mothers.

The Minha prayer is the final prayer of the day.  One must manage to recite this prayer “towards evening”, before the setting of the sun.  Will we succeed, before the sun sets, while we are reciting Minhah, to listen to the suffering and crying around us and repair that which requires repair?

Pinchas Leiser, the editor of “Shabbat Shalom”, is a psychologist.



יום חמישי, 6 בנובמבר 2014

הר המוריה והר הבית - The Post-traumatic reaction of Lot and his Family

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
האם, כדברי פרנץ רוזנצווייג, פרשת השבוע היא איגרת שנשלחת אלינו כל שבוע וניתן, בלי להיגרר לחשובה מאגית, לזהות בה משהו שפונה אלינו, כאילו הוא נכתב בימים אלו?
הר המוריה אליו הלך אברהם כדי להעלות את בנו יצחק לעולה על גבי המזבח, מזוהה עם הר הבית, שהפך להיות מוקד של מתיחות, במקום שהוא יהיה "בית תפילה לכל העמים". האם  עלינו ללמוד מזה שבניגוד לאברהם שהבין שיש קול אלוהי אחר, האומר לו "אל תשלח ידך אל הנער", עדיין יש אנשים שחושבים שבמלחמת קודש יש הצדקה להרג ושיש ערך דתי  לכיבוש ההר? גם במעמד  המקודש ביותר של התגלות נצטווינו לעמוד מרחוק, לא לעלות להר, ואף לא לנגוע בו. ואולי הקדושה היא בגעגוע ובקשר בין הורה לילד, בין בני זוג, בין בני אדם בכלל?
שתהיה לכולנו שבת שקטה וטובה 
פנחס, ציפי ובני משפחתם
http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.com 

The English is not identical to the Hebrew
  
--------






Dear Family and Friends,
Tomorrow we'll read a story about another family who survived a mass destruction: Lot and his family are post traumatic survivors of Sedom.
Somehow, the daughters believed, while hiding in a cave, that both of them and their father were the only survivors in the entire world and therefore they got him drunk with wine, slept with him, got pregnant and gave birth to Moav and Amon.
I guess that when, like Lot's daughters, our entire world is confined to Sedom, or to our own shtetl, city, community, nation, race etc, our perspective is very limited and our  post-traumatic reaction will narrow our  options even more.
Shabbat Shalom to all,
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family



יום שישי, 31 באוקטובר 2014

אברהם ולוט - Avraham and Lot

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
אברהם אבינו הוא הגיבור של הפרשה אותה נקרא מחר, המתחילה בציווי "לך לך"; בניגוד לנח שהיה צריך "להיכנס לתיבה" כדי להציל את עצמו ואת משפחתו.
יש כאן אולי ניגוד של "שימור, הצלה והישרדות" , לעומת הליכה, תנועה ושינוי. המדרש מפרש את כינויו "העברי" כמי ש"כל העולם מעבר אחד והוא מעברו השני". יתכן שמי שרוצה להוביל שינוי לא צריך לפחד להיות לבד, מול כל העולם. שבת שלום לכולכם
פנחס, ציפי ובני משפחתם,




Dear Family and Friends,
The Hero of the Torah section we'll read tomorrow is Avraham, the first of our Fathers. Somehow, the Covenant we are committed to is called "Berito shel Avraham Avinu".
It's interesting to reflect on how a commitment taken so many years ago is still alive and it of course raises the question about what kind of commitments we are able to take for the next generations and what kind of world are we leaving to our children, grandchildren etc.
Shabbat Shalom to all
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family

More on this topic: http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.co.il/2014/10/ethnocentrism-and-morality.html 

יום שלישי, 28 באוקטובר 2014

Ethnocentrism and Morality


Abraham and Lot
Between Acquisitive Ethnocentrism and Morality[1]

Pinhas Leiser
Abraham and his nephew Lot began their journey together, as it is written: And Lot went with him (Bereishit 12:4). We can understand from their walking together that at the beginning of his road Lot joined Abraham and linked his fate and goals to the fate of his uncle, who walked following God's command from his country and homeland to an unknown land.

The Torah tells us very little about Lot and to what extent he accepted the vision which led Abraham to be willing to leave all that was familiar and build a new culture, a culture of faith and loving-kindness.

Lot accompanied Abraham on his journey from Haran to the Land of Canaan, he apparently joined Abraham when he traveled to Egypt following the famine in Canaan and returned with Abraham to Canaan, when both had accumulated great wealth (Bereishit 13:2-5).

Abraham had, so to speak, an additional Individual accompanying him on his journey. At each stop along the way, a connection was established between Abraham and God. Sometimes God revealed Himself to Abraham, and other times Abraham built an altar to the Lord who appears to him. God punished Pharaoh, who took Sarai, Abraham's wife-sister, thus indirectly prompting Abraham's return to Canaan. Lot did not share in Abraham's connection with God.

A radical change takes place in the relationship between Abraham and Lot upon their return to Canaan (Genesis 13:6-12). This change is consummated when they separate and each goes his own way. Upon a first reading, it simply appears that overcrowded conditions prevented Abraham and Lot from dwelling near each other.

There is a well-known drasha on the dictum from Pirkei Avot 5:5, "And no man ever told his fellow, 'It is too crowded for me to sleep in Jerusalem.'"  The drasha says that it was certainly crowded in Jerusalem, but no one ever complained about it.  We can understand the following verse in the same spirit: And the land did not bear them to dwell together, for their possessions were many, and they could not dwell together (Bereishit 13:6).  The repeated statement that they could not dwell together hints at difficulties of coexistence that were not merely technical in nature.

What, then, is the root of this inability to dwell together?

Rashi (13:7), following the Sages in Bereishit Rabbah, examines the tension between the herdsmen of Abraham and those of Lot in a different light:

And there was a quarrel - because Lot's shepherds were wicked men and grazed their cattle in other people's fields. Abraham's shepherds rebuked them for this act of robbery, but they replied, "The land has been given to Abram, and since he has no son as heir, Lot will be his heir - consequently this is not robbery." Scripture, however, states: The Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the land, so that Abram was not yet entitled to possession.

According to Rashi, the disagreement between Abram's herdsmen (who apparently accepted Abram's values and followed his instructions) and Lot's herdsmen was concerned with values.

Two different perspectives on God's promise emerge here. Abraham's perspective is influenced by his constant, direct communication with God; that very connection enables him to see the Other.

Lot and his herdsmen understand God's promise as an absolute declaration from which profit and power can be gained; it is a promise that may be immediately acted upon, and it trumps any other considerations. According to this perspective, neither present reality nor those moral considerations which might prevent the promise from being carried out immediately – here and now - should be taken into account, since God's promise transcends everything else and sweeps away all other factors in its path.

In contrast to Lot, Abraham and his herdsmen comprehend the importance of distinguishing between God's promise and the existing reality. They also understand that moral considerations are never overridden by God's promise, since Abraham's God is the Judge of the whole earth and it could not be that He would not do justice.  It is this world view which explains Abraham's negotiations with God regarding the minimum number of righteous people needed to save Sodom.

While Abraham felt gratitude towards God for the promise granted to him, he was also profoundly anxious about the realization of this promise.

When Abraham reached Elon Moreh, God revealed Himself to him and promised him that He would give his descendents the land of Canaan. Abraham responded by building an altar to the Lord who appeared to him. Rashi, following the Midrash, provides this commentary: "for the good tidings that he would have children, and for the good tidings that they would possess the Land of Israel" (Rashi Bereishit 12:7). Abraham's act of building an altar is thus a religious response, an expression of gratitude.

The next verse (12:8) mentions that Abraham builds another altar. Here Rashi again borrows a midrashic idea:

And he built there an altar - He perceived through the gift of prophecy that his descendents would stumble there through Achan's transgression: therefore he prayed for them there.

Abraham understands that in spite of God's promise, his children might misinterpret the moral significance of the promise and be dragged down. They might commit undesirable acts as a result of impulses stimulated by the act of conquering the land (Achan). The second altar that Abraham builds expresses this anxiety and represents both the hope and prayer that in the end his descendents will be worthy of the promise (Achan's transgression during the conquest of the land did indeed occur between Beth-El and HaAi).

When the land was promised once more to Abraham in the Pact of the Cut Pieces [Brit ben HaBetarim], Abraham asks, how will I know that I will inherit it? (Bereishit 15:8). The commentators Rabbi Ovadiah from Solfranu ("Seforno") and RaMBaN provide us with their interpretations. Seforno (15:8) writes:

How will I know? Perhaps my children will sin and not merit to inherit it.

RaMBaN (15:7) writes:
…and so he asked, how will I know that I will inherit it?  This is not like the question, What is the sign? (II Kings 20:8). And the Holy One, blessed be He, did not act as He did regarding the other signs by showing him a sign or a miracle or something wondrous.  Rather, He asked Abraham to know with true knowledge that he would inherit it, and that neither he nor his descendents would commit a sin preventing this from happening, and that the Canaanites would not repent, making applicable to them the prophecy: At one instant I may speak about plucking up, breaking down, or destroying a nation. If, however, that nation turns from its evil ways because of my words against it, I repent of the evil I thought of inflicting upon it (Jeremiah 18:7-8). The Holy One, blessed be He, made a pact with him that he would inherit it in any event.

Thus, Abraham is afraid that the realization of the promise will depend on the actions of his children and therefore he is very concerned. The promise is strengthened by the establishment of a covenant which is reciprocal in nature. Thus, Rashi (17:7-8) writes:

And I will establish My covenant - And what is this Covenant? To be a God unto you.
For an everlasting possession - and there I will be your God.

That is, the promise made because of the covenant is not a guarantee or deed of registry. The existence of the covenant between God and Abraham's descendents is conditional on being a God unto you.  True, there is a lasting imprint of the covenant passed down from generation to generation through the ritual of circumcision, which is "The Covenant of Our Father Abraham." However, the possession which is everlasting in the spiritual realm is not a prize but rather an anchor in reality enabling the fulfillment of the spiritual and moral vision - there I will be your God.

Lot is not a partner in this vision, as Rashi (13:11) writes following the Midrash:

And Lot journeyed from the East [mikedem]: he distanced himself from the Ancient One [mikadmono] of the world. He said, “I care neither for Abram nor for his God.

The absence of Abraham's God - the judge of all the land and the God of loving-kindness - from Lot's journey, is an essential element in Lot's concrete, absolute, and aggressive understanding of God's promise.

Abraham is able to distinguish between the promise he believes in, the promise given as part of a covenant, and the practical and moral possibilities for the realization of that promise. Abraham is very anxious about the potential dangers involved in transforming the promise into reality through force and harm to others.

Abraham's only suggestion for dealing with the conflict is, Please separate yourself from me. Abraham probably understood that the land could not support them to dwell together. The deep ideological conflict between the two views would not enable the continuation of their journey together. These differences could even deteriorate into a state of civil war resulting in bloodshed. Therefore, the separation enabled each of them to choose the path they believed in. This separation enables us to examine the potential results of the different paths chosen by Lot and Abraham:

At the end of the story Lot reaches Sodom, a city full of evil and sinful inhabitants and he needs Abraham's help to save him. The entire land, including that of Lot, was promised to Abraham, who upheld the conditions of the covenant.

This story enables us to make a deep and profound examination of the distinction made by people of faith between God's promise and concrete reality, which requires consideration of moral values as an important element in the promise. Peaceful coexistence may be impossible between "Abram's herdsmen" and "Lot's herdsmen," and so, in order to avoid a bloody conflict (as in the quarrel between Cain and Abel, to which the Midrash assigns a moral character), the two sides should peacefully separate or find an alternate way to peacefully settle the conflict, allowing room for differing opinions and respecting democratic decisions.  Unfortunately, the events in Kikar Rabin (then Kikar Malkhei Yisrael) of Motza'ei Shabbat Parashat Lekh Lekha 5756 demonstrate this all too clearly.  Has Israeli society learned anything since that gloomy night?

Pinhas Leiser, editor of Shabbat Shalom, is a psychologist.



[1] This devar Torah is based on an earlier version, which appeared in issue 54 of Shabbat Shalom.  I think it has lost none of its relevance.

יום שישי, 24 באוקטובר 2014

עולם בנוי, חרב ובנוי - A stable and traumatic world

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
במדרש נאמר  על נח, שהוא ראה עולם בישובו וראהו בחרבנו וחזר וראהו בישובו . אולי אדם המאריך ימים, בוודאי בתקופות בהן יש יציבות יחסית המתערערת ע"י אירוע טראומטי, נדרש להסתגל לתהפוכות האלו ולעולם החדש. יתכן ששכרותו של נח היא תגובה לטראומה הקשה שהוא חווה אחרי המבול.
דור הורינו חי בעולם שהם חוו אותו כיציב (אם כי, אולי זו היתה אשליה) , שרדו את השואה ובנו באומץ עולם חדש אליו היו צריכים להסתגל. ומה איתנו והעולם בו אנחנו חיים? האם הוא יציב? בטוח? האם עדיין אנחנו פוסט-טראומטיים? האם יש לנו את היכולת, בלי להשתכר, לצאת מהזהות הקרבנית הפוסט-טראומטית, גם  בתקופות  המאתגרות את ביטחוננו האישי?
שבת שלום וחודש טוב לכולכם
פנחס, ציפי ומשפחתם




Dear Family and Friends,
Noach, who survived the Flood and the Destruction of the World, is probably the prototype of any person, who lived long enough to experience some kind of stability, who survived a traumatic event and has to readjust in a new world. It does not seem easy to adjust to a new world after a catastrophe of any kind and maybe Noach's getting drunk could be considered as a posttraumatic reaction. The generation of our parents who lived apparently in a world they perceived as being stable (maybe it wasn't really that stable), survived the Shoah and had the courage to rebuild a new world may have experienced the difficulty to adjust to that new world. What about our generation and the next generation?
Shabbat Shalom and Hodesh Tov  to all,
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family