יום שני, 25 בנובמבר 2013

Oמ Otherness

Your Other Brother, In another Year, Another Place

Pinchas Leiser


Despite his hesitation and qualms, at the end of the day our Father Jacob had to send his son Benjamin with his brothers to Egypt.  Jacob hoped that all his sons, Simeon included, would return safely home.  However, Jacob did not mention the captive Simeon by name: That he may send away your brother, the other one, and Benjamin (43:14).  RaMBaN on that verse explains:

In line with the literal interpretation of Scripture, it would seem that Simeon was not a favorite of his father because of the Shechem affair.  This was why he did not say, My son Simeon, and Benjamin, as he would not mention him by name, and as he left him in Egypt for a long time.  Indeed, had there been food in his house, he would not yet have sent Benjamin, and he would have left him [Simeon] in Egypt.
Now Rashi wrote, "the other one: the spirit of prophecy was enkindled within Jacob so as to include Joseph."  In Bereishit Rabbah they also said: "That he may send away your brother: this refers to Joseph; the other one: this refers to Simeon."  This is correct, for at the moment of prayer, Jacob directed his heart to pray in a general manner for the other one [Joseph] also, for perhaps he is still alive. (Chavel translation)

There are many aspects to the "other."  The meaning considered literal by RaMBaN relates to the "other" in a negative light.  This is reminiscent of Rabbi Meir's teacher, the Tanah Elisha Ben Avuyah, who turned bad, and became Aher the "Other," a name given him by "another" woman (Hagiga 15a). Simeon is an "other" because his father disfavored him.  Simeon had adopted the ways of Esau (instruments of violence are their swords) and so Jacob declared at the end of his life, my soul, come not you into their secret deliberation, unto their assembly, my glory, be not you united.  By his actions, he excluded himself from the congregation of Israel and became "other." This otherness is reminiscent of an interesting comment on the expression "other gods" that appears in the Tannaitic Midrash Sifri on parashat Ekev (chapter 43): "And why were they called "other gods"? That they make their worshippers become other." Other gods change their worshippers into "others". "Otherness" here means ‘alien-ness’. The midrashic meaning of other chosen by Rashi to explain the word aher relates to a hidden, unconscious level of communication between Jacob and his sons. The mysterious, and hidden other is Joseph, who Jacob desired to see alive. Joseph was also other (And the boy was with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah), the other, hidden brother, which reminds us of Mordecai's words to Esther in the Book of Esther: Relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place. Balak suggests that Balaam go to another place where he might succeed in cursing Israel (Bamidbar 23). The other place is hidden and mysterious like the hidden and mysterious other brother who exists in Jacob's secret hopes (Rashi brings the midrashic dictum in his comments on Bereishit 37:35: "But he refused to comfort himself - A person does not accept consolation for one still living whom he believes to be dead").

The Holy One, Blessed be He, announced to Abraham that in another year Sarah will give birth to Isaac. When Adam (Avodah Zara 8a) understood that the world continues in its way, and that there exist cycles in the world of nature, he instituted festivals "in another year."  The holiday of Hanukkah was proclaimed to be observed as a festival of thanksgiving "in another year" (Shabbat 21b), a year after the miracle took place. The "other" year is a year for maturation, for gaining perspective, and for fulfilling the potential which leaves room for faith. The potential of "otherness" can sometimes be missed and the "other" year allows us to test the meaning of processes for the long run, together with faith in "another place" that recognizes the possibility of change. Simeon is an "other" because his actions changed him into another, Joseph is an "other" because he was made so by his brothers and also because he represents yearning and the hope for a different world that is unseen of yet. His dreams changed him to an "other" and his ability to adduce the meaning of dreams, to listen to the dreams of others, brought him to the high office he reached in Egypt for the good of Egypt, of his family, and of the entire region.

The holiday of Hanukkah enjoys great popularity in the Zionist myth because the "New Hebrew" (the "other"?) saw himself as heir to the Maccabaeus. The strong and fighting Israeli stands in contrast to the Galut Jew; he identifies with the Maccabeans.  Generations of Israelis have been inculcated with the ethos of "the few against many." This extreme glorification of military power may haves served a necessary motivational and functional role in the first years of Israeli sovereignty. However, the unchanging focus on force and on the holiday's military aspects turns Hannukah into a festival that glorifies Simeon, the "other," instead of turning our attention to the other, more exalted significance of the return to Zion.

The extreme opponents of Zionism in the Haredi world from the school of the Satmar Rebbe, saw in it a rebellion against the nations of the world that could not contain the aggressive elements of Jewish society because it contradicts the four oaths that the Holy One Blessed be He made Israel swear to (Ketuvot 111a). The Zionist movement wanted to return the Jewish People to history and was willing to play according to the accepted rules of every movement of national freedom. The danger of glorifying "Simeon," the "other" brother, and turning the Zionist dream into "other" gods, who make their worshippers other, by "cutting down the saplings" (kitzutz ba'nitiyot – heresy, as was committed by Aher, who presumed to understand the ways of Heaven)  is a real danger and must not be disregarded.

The needed "otherness" is an "otherness" which leaves room for the realistic faith that accompanies hope with doubts and fear. True, the Halakhah rules according to Beit Hillel and we are commanded to add light and hope, but we should not forget the Gemara's explanation of why Halakhah rules according to Beit Hillel (Eruvin 13b):  "Why was Beit Hillel worthy of having the Halakhah set according to them? Because they are easygoing and modest and recite their dicta together with the words of Beit Shammai, and even recite the dicta of Beit Shammai before their own."  In a beit midrash run in accordance with Beit Hillel, room is given to Beit Shammai to say that "fewer and fewer" lamps are lit with each new Hanukkah eve.  Such a beit midrash is prepared to accept and respect the other.

Joseph's realistic take on the vision of the future allows him (the "other" brother according to the midrash) to dream, to listen to the dreams of others, and to understand them - but also to translate them into action (and now let Pharaoh find an understanding and wise man).

I feel that we are still in "the other year" in which we can hope for a better world, in which we can overcome the dangers of "Simeonian otherness," in which we can learn to treat others (minorities, aliens, converts, other peoples) with respect.
And in Ehud Manor's phrasing:

I have no other country, even if my land is ablaze.
Only a Hebrew word can penetrate my veins, my soul
In a pained body and hungry heart
This is my home.
I will not be silent when my country changes face
I will not concede to her,
I shall remind her, and here I will sing into her ears

Until she opens her eyes.

יום חמישי, 21 בנובמבר 2013

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים
לחלום או לא לחלום...
כבר בתחילת הפרשה שנקרא השבת, מספרת לנו התורה על חלומות מגלומניים של יוסף.
איכשהו, באופן פרדוקסלי, אחרי חלומות אלו הוא מוצא את עצמו בבור, ולאחר מכן בכלא מצרי, שם הוא מקשיב לחלומות של אחרים. ואולי הוא מבין שגם לאנשים אחרים יש חלומות ושההקשבה לחלומות אלו מלמדת אותו משהו על שאיפותיהם המורכבות של בני אדם.
ואולי, ניתן ללמוד מזה שכדי שחלק מחלומותינו יתגשמו, עלינו להיות מסוגלים להקשיב גם לחלומותיהם של אחרים ולקחת אותם בחשבון.
שבת שלום וחנוכה שמח לכולכם






Dear Family and Friends,
To dream or not to dream…
The Torah section we'll read on Shabbat  tells us quite at the beginning about Joseph's  2 dreams of grandeur. Eventually and paradoxically after these dreams he finds himself in a pit and afterwards in an Egyptian  jail where he listens to the dreams of others and maybe understands that other people dream as well and that listening to these dreams teaches something about the complexity of human aspirations.
Maybe in order to have some of your dreams realized, you have to be able to listen to the dreams of others and take them into consideration.
Shabbat Shalom and Hanukkah Sameach to all

יום שישי, 8 בנובמבר 2013

הסולם - The Ladder

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
אנשים גדולם חולמים חלומות גדולים.
מחר נקרא על חלומו של יעקב אבינו אחרי שיצא מבית הוריו. כידוע, הוא ראה "סולם מוצב ארצה וראשו מגיע השמימה".
ב"סולם" זה  המחבר בין הארץ לשמים ראו חכמים את ה"מזבח" או את "סיני"; הדימוי של "מזבח" מייצג אולי את החלקים בתוכנו המוכנים להיאבק וגם לשלם מחיר עבור ערכים בהם אנחנו מאמינים; "סיני" הוא מקום של התגלות  המאפשר לנו להיות במגע עם "השמים שבתוכנו" באמצעות מאמץ אינטלקטואלי ואתי מתמשך.
שבת שלום לכולכם
פנחס, ציפי ומשפחתם 

הפעם: גם שיר על סולם יעקב, כתב: יהורם טהר לב, הלחינה ושרה: נורית הירש




Dear Family and Friends,
I guess many great men had a significant dream, related to their vision.
This Shabbat we'll read that Yaacov, after leaving home, on his way to his mother's homeland, had a dream about a "ladder between Heaven and Earth".
Our Sages used 2 metaphors in order to conceptualize that "ladder"; the Altar and Mount Sinai, where the Revelation took place.
Maybe the Altar symbolizes a place, inside us related to our readiness to struggle and sacrifice for the sake of values important to us and "Mount Sinai" would represent our ability to be in touch with Divine and Spiritual dimensions through consistent intellectual and moral endeavor.
Shabbat Shalom to all,
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family 

And a nice song on Jaacob;s ladder, written by Yehoran Tehar Lev, composed and sung by; Nurit Hirsch


Shabbat Shalom from the Leiser family
        

                      

יום רביעי, 6 בנובמבר 2013

ladders, bridges and dreams

“He had a Dream; a Stairway was set on the Ground and its Top Reached the Sky”


On Dreams and Reality
Pinchas Leiser

The ladder in Jacob’s dream is perceived, starting with rabbinic literature, as a significant symbol that depicts two different worlds, and this is the language of the Midrash in Breishit Rabah (part 68):
Here is the stairway - - This is the ramp “set on the ground” –This is the altar (Exodus 20) “You shall make an earthly altar” And its top reached the sky – these are the sacrifices whose scents ascended to the sky. “And here are God’s angels.” These are the high priests “ascending and descending, etc...They ascend and descend the ramp.”(Amos 9:1) “I saw the Lord standing by the altar.”
Our sages deciphered the symbol of the ladder in the dream, as Sinai, “And he dreamt and here was a stairway”- This is parallel to Sinai, “was set on the ground” “And they encamped at the base of the mountain (Exodus 19) and the mountain was on fire up to the heart of the sky” (Deut. 4). Another interpretation is gematria –sulam=Sinai, both equal 130. (Baal Haturim)
The Midrash actually describes two possibilities for a connection between “the ground” and the “sky”:
The world of the altar, the temple and the sacrifices, and the world of revelation at Sinai.
On the one hand, it can be seen that these two images are signs that connect to the historical possibilities. While in the eyes of the sages who lived after the destruction of the temple, they do not have the chance to experience the connection with the spiritual world through the temple and altar, but also the world of prophetic revelation is also not open to them..
It could be that specifically because both the “altar” and “Sinai” are not concrete terms for our sages, it is necessary to interpret their metaphoric meaning of these images.
The altar is a factor that is a part of the elements that atone for man’s sins. “Atonement altar” is presented by our sages (Bavli Berachot, 5:2) in the context of the trials and tribulations that man is subjected to. The Zohar compares fasting to the altar of atonement. It could be that when man is confronted with hardship and suffering, by choice or by circumstance, he is given a chance for closeness (and maybe here is the linguistic kinship of (קירבהandקורבן). Or maybe here we see the explanation that sees in suffering, relinquishing possessions, pleasures and needs as a way to bring man closer to his God.
Sinai is certainly the place in the wilderness where the revelation of God is established, but the expression also serves as a metaphor for renewal and development of the tradition of revelation.i A scholar who served as abundant                                                                         and reliable source of information, in an era where there were no available libraries or computerized information resources, is called Sinai by our sages.
In addition, we are reminded of the Midrash in Viyikra Rabah (parasha 32):  “And even what an advanced student will say to his teacher, has already been said at Sinai.”
That is to say, enlightenment and newness are included in the tradition and is part of the revelation.
And Rabbi Haim from Vilozhin (a student of the Vilna Gaon, 1749-1821) expresses similar thoughts in his book “Ruach Haim,”, and this is what he says:
“Our sages come to teach us that we should not think we are made from crass raw materials, we are not worthy of being building blocks. On this it is said, “and the stairway was set on the ground” –that is Sinai and its top reaching the sky” –The essence of life and being is that they come from above. There are god-fearing souls that are higher than God’s angels, and that is why the soul is worthy to join with the Torah. The complete person is like a tree planted upwards and its body below—this is the body attached to the upper roots.
Rabi Haim from Velozhin, the undisputed representative of the world of Lithuanian Torah, sees in the study of Torah “Sinai”, which is the ladder that connects between the sky and the earth, where it is possible to ascend and descend, and those who are ascending these stairs are likened to angels and even surpass them in virtues.
Emmanuel Levinas (1906-1995), sees in the ethical dimension, the stairway to revelation, and he writes:[i]
“I said this from the start: My work has endorsed   the fact of revelation, to attribute it to what is external to man (my emphasis-P.L.), that he emerges himself with the knowledge. He does not become simple content of internalization, but remains “not able to contain,” eternal, but still in a relationship with it. The thought that this relationship, that is first and foremost, paradoxical, can be found in the model, impassivity to the other, responsibility  to him, that, exactly in this relationship, man becomes “I”: appointed without an opportunity to opt out, chosen, special, irreplaceable and in this sense, a free agent – freedom meaning answerability to a cause that I am the only one who can  respond to it; or I can respond to the place I am called to-[ii] This is  the way I have chose to resolve the paradox of revelation: Ethics are the model for the transcendental dimension, and as an ethical message ,(kerygme ethique) the Bible is the revelation.
It seems to me that Levinas, in translating revelation to ethics, has “laid down” the ladder and has transformed it from vertical to horizontal. The “sky” is not above but in relation to the other who I am committed to.
It seems to me that each of us can dream his own spiritual dream of “a stairway … set on the ground and its top reached the sky,” to delineate for himself the defining experiences that “altar” and  “Sinai” mean to him, to think about the ascending  as an opportunity for internal introspection and commitment, whether personal or social, and on the descending, as an opportunity to transform the real world, the earth  and the human environment that he lives in, to a better and more beautiful one, as in the words of  Rabbi Menahem Mendel of Kotzk: “The heavens are the heavens of God, and the earth was given to man” – to make the earth into heaven.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Notes
 iThe Revelation in Jewish Tradition, in Beyond the Sentence,” p. 194, translated by Dr. Elizabeth Goldwein, Shocken, 2007

ii Or maybe here there is a translation to modern philosophical language of traditional ideas of our sages, like sworn before Sinai, One is not a free man until he studies Torah, If I am not for myself, who is for me, and when I am for myself what am I, You are not obligated to finish the work, but you are not free to desist from it, etc…

סולם או גשר

"ויחלֹם והנה סֻלם מֻצב ארצה וראשו מגיע השמימה"

על חלומות ומציאות


פנחס לייזר

הסולם בחלום יעקב נתפס, החל מספרות חז"ל כסמל משמעותי המייצג עולמות שונים, וזו לשון המדרש בבראשית רבה (פרשה סח):

"והנה  סולם' -  זה  הכבש,  'מוצב  ארצה' - זה מזבח (שמות כ) 'מזבח אדמה תעשה לי', 'וראשו מגיע השמימה' - אלו הקרבנות שריחן עולה  לשמים 'והנה מלאכי אלהים' - אלו כהנים גדולים 'עולין  ויורדין  בו' - שהם עולים ויורדים בכבש, 'והנה ה' נצב  עליו' -  (עמוס  ט) ראיתי  את  ה'  נצב על המזבח.
 רבנן  פתרין  ליה (פותרים את סמל הסולם בחלום)  בסיני  'ויחלום  והנה סולם' - זה סיני 'מוצב   ארצה'   (שמות   יט) 'ויתיצבו  בתחתית  ההר' 'וראשו מגיע השמימה' (דברים ד) 'וההר בוער באש עד לב השמים' דבר אחר 'והנה סולם' - זה סיני; אותיות דדין הוא אותיות  דדין (הגימטריאות שוות: השוו בעל הטורים – גם סֻלם וגם סיני = 130) ."

המדרש מתאר בעצם שתי אפשרויות של חיבור בין "ארץ" ל"שמים":
עולם המזבח, המקדש והקורבנות ועולם ההתגלות בסיני.
מצד אחד, ניתן לראות בשני דימויים אלו סמלים המתחברים לאפשרויות היסטוריות. כאשר בעיני חז"ל, שחיו לאחר חורבן הבית אין את האפשרות לחוות את הקשר עם עולם רוחני דרך המקדש והמזבח, אך גם עולם ההתגלות והנבואה כפשוטו איננו דבר זמין עבורם .
ייתכן שדווקא מכיוון שגם ה"מזבח" וגם "סיני" אינם מושגים קונקרטיים אצל חז"ל, יש לדרוש את משמעותם המטפורית של דימויים אלו.
המזבח הוא גורם המהווה חלק מהאלמנטים המכפרים על חטאי האדם. המושג "מזבח כפרה" מובא בחז"ל (בללי ברכות ה, ע"ב) בהקשר לייסורים ולנגעים הבאים על האדם. הזוהר מדמה את התענית למזבח כפרה. ייתכן שכאשר האדם נפגש עם סֵבל ועינוי, מרצון או בתוקף הנסיבות, ניתנת לו הזדמנות של קירבה (ואולי מכאן הקשר הלשוני בין קירבה לקורבן). ואולי יש כאן פירוש הרואה בייסורים ובוויתור על רכוש, תענוגות וצרכים דרך המקרבת את האדם לאלוהיו.
סיני הוא בוודאי המקום במדבר בו התקיים האירוע המכונן של התגלות הא-ל , אבל הביטוי משמש גם מטפורה למסורת מתחדשת ומתפתחת של התגלות. תלמיד חכם המשמש מאגר מידע אמין ועשיר, בתקופה שבה לא היו ספריות זמינות או מאגרי מידע ממוחשבים, מכונה סיני בפי חז"ל.
בנוסף, זכור לנו המדרש בויקרא רבה (פרשה כב): "ואפילו  מה שתלמיד ותיק עתיד לומר לפני רבו כולן נאמרו למשה".

כלומר, החידוש כלול בתוך המסורת והיא חלק מההתגלות.

ורבי חיים מוולוז'ין (תלמידו של הגאון מווילנא; 1749-1821) מבטא דברים ברוח זו בספרו "רוח חיים", וזו לשונו:

"חז"ל באו ללמדנו, לבל נחשוב שמאחר היותינו מלובשים בחומר הגס, לכן אנו נבזים באמת כחומר וכטיט חוצות, לזה אומר "סֻלם מצב ארצה" – זה סיני, "וראשו מגיע השמימה" – דעיקר חיותינו מנשמותינו שהן משמי מרום; ויש נשמות יראי אלוהים שהן גבוהות הגבהה למעלה יותר ממלאכי השרת, בזכות זה הנשמה יכולה להתקשר בתורה. האדם השלם הוא כאילן הנטוע למעלה, וגופו יורד למטה הוא הגוף ומדובק בשורשו העליון."

רבי חיים מוולוז'ין, נציגו המובהק של עולם התורה ה"ליטאי" רואה בלימוד התורה את "סיני", שהוא הסולם המחבר בין שמים וארץ, בו ניתן לעלות ולרדת והאנשים העולים במדרגות אלו נדמים למלאכים ואף עולים עליהם במעלתם.
עמנואל לוינס (1906-1995) רואה במימד האתי את "סולם ההתגלות", וכך הוא כותב[1]:
"אמרתי זאת מהתחלה: המחקר שלי מוסב לעובדת ההתגלות, ליחס עם מה שמחוץ לאדם (ההדגשה שלי – פ.ל.), שהוא מקיף את עצמו בו בידיעה, אינו הופך לתוכן פשוט של הפנימיות, אלא נותר "בלתי ניתן להכלה", אינסופי ובכל זאת ביחס אתו. המשחבה שיחס זה, שהוא בראש וראשונה פרדוקסלי, יוכל למצוא דגם באי-אדישות לאדם האחר, באחריות כלפיו, שבדיוק ביחס הזה האדם נעשה "אני": ממונה בלי אפשרות להשתמט, נבחר, מיוחד, בלית ניתן להחלפה, ובמובן זה בן חורין – החירות משמעה לפיכך היענות לשליחות שאני היחיד שיכול להיענות לה; או יכולתי להיענות במקום שבו אני נקרא - [2] זה הנתיב שאני נוטה לבחור בו כדי לפתור את פרדוקס ההתגלות: האתיקה היא הדגם לממדי הטרסצנדנציה, ובתור בשורה אתית (kerygme ethique), התנ"ך הוא התגלות. "
נראה לי שלוינס, בתרגום ההתגלות לאתיקה,  "השכיב" את הסולם והפך אותו מאנכי לאופקי. ה"שמים" אינם למעלה, אלא ביחסיי עם האחר אליו אני מחויב.
דומני שכל אחד מאתנו יכול לחלום את חלומו הרוחני על ה"סולם שמוצב ארצה ומגיע השמימה",
להגדיר לעצמו את החוויות המעצבות שהן בגדר "מזבח" או "סיני" עבורו, לחשוב על העליות כהזדמנות לעבודה פנימית ולמחויבות בין אישדית וחברתית, ועל הירידות כאפשרות להפוך את העולם המציאותי , את הארץ ואת הסביבה האנושית בתוכה בוא חי, לטובה ויפה יותר, כדברי רבי מנחם מנדל מקוצק : "השמים שמים לה' , והארץ נתן לבני אדם" – לעשות ממנה (מהארץ) שמים.



************************************************************************************************






[1] ההתגלות במסורת היהודית, בתוך "מעבר לפסוק", עמ' 194 בתרגום  דר' אליזבט גולדווין, הוצאת שוקן 2007
[2] ואולי יש כאן תרגום לשפה פילוסופית מודרנית של  מושגים מסורתיים  מספרות חז"ל  כגון: מושבע ועומד מהר סיני, אין לך בן חורין אלא מי שעוסק בתורה, אם אין אני לי  מי לי , וכשאני לעצמי מה אני , לא עליך המלאכה לגמור ואי אתה בן חוירן להיבטל ממנה ועוד.







יום שישי, 1 בנובמבר 2013

דחייה, העדפה, שנאה והתפיסות - rejection, discrimination, hatred and reconciliation

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו,
שני אחים תאומים נולדו לרבקה וליצחק; יעקב התפתח ליעקב-ישראל, הלא הוא "יעקב אבינו"; לעומתו עשיו גדל להיות "עשיו", וחכמים ופרשנים מוסיפים לו הכינוי "הרשע".
בהנחה שבאמת היה רשע, האם יתכן ש"רשעותו" נוצרה כתוצאה מהעדפתה הברורה של רבקה את אחיו התאום. ואם כן, האם מרגע לידתו, משהו בו עורר אצל רבקה תחושות קשות שגרמה לה לדחות אותו? נראה לי,אבל, שהתורה מלמדת אותנו (ועל כך נקרא בשבוע הבא) שגם אחרי ניתוק של למעלה מ-20 שנה, אפשר להתפייס, למרות המטענים הקשים שהצטברו.
שבת שלום לכולכם
פנחס, ציפי ומשפחתם
http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.com


Dear Family and Friends,
Rivka gave birth to  twins; Yaakov, became Yaakov-Israel, "Our Father Yaakov"; Esav  grew and became , according to our Sages "Esav Harasha - the Evil".
If we assume that he was "evil" indeed, could we assume that it was generated  by his mother's clear preference for his twin-brother and his rejection. Maybe that from the moment he was born, he aroused strong unpleasant feelings in his mother, causing her to reject him?
Nevertheless, it seems to me that the Torah teaches us (and we'll read it next week) that, even after more than 20 years, reconciliation is possible, despite of strong riivalry and jealousy,  
Shabbat Shalom to all,
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family
http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.com 


יום חמישי, 31 באוקטובר 2013

Signs in Biblical History

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 waterRaMBaN 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 forpeace 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 Bereishit26:19)
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 andAbimelech], 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,HofniPinhas, Saul and his three sons." Alternately, "By your life, his sons will destroy seven sanctuaries: the Tabernacle, GilgalNobShilohGibeon, 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'sorder 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, Abimelechnevertheless 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." (HizkuniBereishit 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.