AND ABRAHAM TOOK THE WOOD FOR THE BURNT OFFERING, AND HE PLACED [IT] UPON HIS SON ISAAC, AND HE TOOK INTO HIS HAND THE FIRE AND THE KNIFE, AND THEY BOTH WENT TOGETHER.

(Bereishit 22:6)

AND ABRAHAM SAID, "GOD WILL PROVIDE FOR HIMSELF THE LAMB FOR THE BURNT OFFERING, MY SON." AND THEY BOTH WENT TOGETHER.

(Bereishit 22:8)

 

and they both went together Abraham, who knew that he was going to slaughter his son, was going as willingly and joyfully as Isaac, who was unaware of the matter.

(Rashi Bereishit 22:6 Judaica Press Translation)

 

And our Rabbis of blessed memory said that Isaac was thirty-seven years old when he was bound. If these are words of received tradition, we shall accept them. This does not [however] make sense, since it would have been appropriate for Isaac's righteousness to be revealed and for his reward to be twice that of his father - he willingly gave himself over to be slaughtered, and Scripture says nothing about Isaac! Others say that he was five years old, but that it also incorrect, since he carried the wood for the sacrifice. It is reasonable that he was around thirteen years old, and that his father forced him and bound him against his will. The evidence for this is that his father kept it secret from him, and said God will provide for Himself the lamb, since if he had said you are the offering, he might have fled.

(Ibn Ezra on Bereishit 22:4)

 

And they built the high places of Baal to burn their children with fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command, neither did I speak nor did it enter My mind.

(Jeremiah 19:5)

 

And it is written: Which I did not command, neither did I speak nor did it enter My mind. Which I did not command " - this refers to the son of Misha, King of Moab, as is written - So he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him up on the wall as a burnt offering (II Kings, Chap. 3); neither did I speak - this refers to Yiftah; nor did it enter My mind - this refers to Isaac, son of Abraham.

(Ta'anit 4a)

 

Sodom and Gomorrah: Five Stances before God and People

Dalia Marx

Sodom and Gomorrah persist in our culture as an instance of punishment following upon grave iniquities. Sodom is stationed in the Jewish psyche as a sign giving dire warning of events that must not be repeated.

Let us consider five different stances taken by different characters in the story. Four of them reflect social illness, while one of them embraces dialogue and tikkun [repair]:

1. The people of Sodom - And they said, this one has come to dwell [here] and now he acts as a judge (Bereishit 19:9). Lot wants to protect his guests, even at the bewildering price of his own daughters' well-being. The people of Sodom stand against him as the many and the established against the individual and the different. They are the veteran establishment standing against the new and unknown.

The Torah referred to the Sodomites as wicked sinners (13:13); the Sages understood this as referring to societal crimes. A late midrash has it that God's word haketza'akata [is it as her outcry] (18:21) marks His decision to investigate what was happening in Sodom and to eventually overturn the city. This is said to have occurred after Lot's daughter was sent to be burned to death for helping a pauper in his distress and her cry reached the Throne of Glory.¹

Furthermore, we read in Pirkei Avot (5:11): "One who says: 'Mine is mine and yours is yours' - that is a middling trait; and some say - that is the trait of Sodom." At first glance, this dictum seems strange. It appears to describe a normal society in which individuals see to their own affairs, and that is indeed the main opinion recorded by the Mishnah. However, a society in which individuals remains isolated in their own private sphere, dismissing any obligations towards their neighbors (not to speak of obligations towards strangers!) is a negative and dangerous society. The disregard implied by this "middling" stance bears an element of evil.²

2. Lot's wife - And Lot's wife looked behind him and became a pillar of salt (Bereishit 19:26). It is impossible not to feel some empathy towards this woman who cannot leave her home behind her. Lot's wife takes the stance of someone who cannot change and bring about a tikkun. It is a nostalgic stance that pines for the past and which is incapable of dealing with future difficulties. Her beloved past was no garden of roses. Sodom was a threatening environment, and its social mechanisms had never accepted Lot's family. Nevertheless, when the time came to leave, Lot's wife was smitten with yearning and pity for the past she never had and from which she could not disconnect. She remains in her stance to this very day.

We see many such pillars of salt around us; people who cannot leave the clichés of the past, even those clichés which have failed to prove themselves for some time. These modern-day wives of Lot have assumed a styptic stance.

3. Lot's daughters - Our father is old and there is not a man on earth to consort with us in the way of all the world (19:31). Lot's daughters sit in the cave, exacerbating each other's terror until they finally rise up and act. Despite the fact that the Sages praised their incestuous deed (see below) and despite the fact that the older daughter's resulting son was Moav, the ancestor of Ruth and of King David by way of Ruth (and, according to tradition, the ancestor of the Messiah by way of David), their stance reflects a sick society which has abolished the prohibition on incest,; this constitutes an abolition of the past.

Lot's wife could not divorce herself from the past and her daughters cannot look the future in the face. They are possessed by such awful existential terror that they decide to willfully transgress one of the most serious prohibition of our culture and of the other cultures of the world.

This kind of existential fear overturns all the rules, including categorical rules, and it also poses a psychological and societal danger. Prophets of doom (whether from within or without) rise up ever afresh, trying to sew fear and trying to keep us from acting in a worthy and rational fashion; they would keep us from actually dealing with our existential challenges.

4) Lot - He was unaware of her lying down and her rising up (19:33). Lot's stance is no stance at all. There he slouches drunk on wine, choosing not to know what his daughters are doing to him. While they are motivated towards drastic action by fear and concern for the inhabitation of the world, it is difficult to show any understanding for Lot's own choice. If this father failed to protect his daughter when he was not "as drunk as Lot," he can be trusted not to display responsibility when inebriated. While the Sages offer round-about praise for the daughters' actions, they have nothing but harsh rebuke for Lot - even though the daughters took the active role in the incestuous acts and Lot himself appears to have been passive.³

Many choose not to know. Many choose to dull their senses with wine, with chemical and psychological means or with mass media, to dull their senses and not to know. What significance is there to the existence of those who choose to be drunk and sleepy and to wait until matters take care of themselves?

5) Abraham - And Abraham remained standing before the Lord (18:22) - Abraham does not flinch, he does not lower his eyes, he does not equivocate. Abraham is even prepared to behave in a manner that appears disrespectful when he stands before his God. He is a committed person, mit'hayev b'nafsho ["mortally committed"], his stance is one of reverence, but also of dignity.

The Holy One blessed be He is responsiveness to Abraham. He demonstrates His pleasure with Abraham's assuming the stance of a subject standing in awe and faith, looking his Creator "straight in the eye." The Talmud tells us in the name of the Amora Rav: "One who prays - when he bows, he bows at the word barukh [blessed], and when he straightens up, he straightens up when uttering the Name (Berakhot 12a). We are to learn from this that when we stand before our Creator, we must comport ourselves with holiness and awe, but not with abnegation and servility. God Himself seeks a relationship of dialogue rather than mere submission from His creatures.

R. Simon presents an even more extreme proof of Abraham's steadfastness: "This is a scribal emendation; the Divine Presence waited for Abraham [rather than vice-versa, as described in our text of the Torah]."⁴ According to this, it was not Abraham who stood before God, but rather God who stood before Abraham. These strong words can teach us that God is not only willing to sometimes "stand" before humans when they are deserving, but that He is prepared to change His mind when faced with the correctness of their human stance.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah shows us five postures taken in the face of crisis - four and one more: there are those who refuse to accept the other, the one who cannot leave the past behind, those who have completely abandoned past restraints and act out of complete insecurity regarding the future, and one who chooses not to know. Abraham's stance is different and distinct - Abraham is the man of faith and the man of dialogue.

The story of Sodom teaches us that the proper stance to take on the continuum between past and future, facing both self and community - is itself the proper stance to take before God.

Today the children of Abraham are called upon to be prepared to assume the courageous stance of Abraham of old. The stance has nothing to do with bent necks and abnegation; it is all courage and faith. The proper stance of those towards those, in steadfastness and dignity is also the proper stance of faith. May the Holy One blessed be He look into our hearts and respond to that stance!

[1]. Yalkut Shimoni, VaYeira, 83; Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer [Heigger] Horev, 25.

2. R. Yohanan said: "Jerusalem was destroyed only because they judged there according to [the strict] law of the Torah" (Bava Kama 30b). Meticulous adherence to the law that neglects kindness, absorption with pure legalism that forgets the moral dimension - are destructive.

3. "Rava bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbit Yohanan: Why is it written: For the ways of the Lord are straight; the righteous walk in them and the sinners stumble in them (Hosea 14)?....It is like Lot and his two daughters. They intended to perform a commandment - the righteous walk in them. His intention was to commit transgression - and the sinners stumble in them. [The gemara asks whether Lot may have also intended to perform a commandment and brings R. Yohanan's explanation to counter that possibility:] Why is there a dot on the [letter] vav of the word uvekuma [and her rising up] [in the verse describing the deed] of the older daughter? [He is referring to the large dot over the letter vav] It comes to say that he was unaware when she lied down, but he was aware of it when she arose." (Nazir 23a).

4. Bereishit Rabbah 49:7, and See Rashi's commentary on the verse. R. Simon's words invoke the question of whether this was his own opinion or whether he had a different version of the verse.

Dr. Dalia Marx teaches at the Hebrew Union College and at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

 

 

Readers Respond

Turning the Other Cheek - A Jewish Notion?

While relating to the question, "Is there a Jewish morality?" - against the background of things heard in the course of the past several weeks regarding a Jewish morality of revenge versus a Christian morality of "turning the other cheek" - Shemuel Herr writes that there is only one morality, neither Jewish nor Christian, and that, "the idea of "turning the other cheek" is actually a distinctly Jewish notion." The author even brings citations from Scripture and the writings of the Sages to substantiate his thesis. He quotes the verse from Isaiah (50:6): I offered my back to the floggers and my cheeks to those who tore out my hair. I did not hide my face from insult and spittle and from Lamentations (3:29): He offers his cheek to those who strike him, satiated with humiliation. The author sees the verse from Lamentations as expressing the virtues befitting a man. He brings a number of sources from the Sages, such as, "A person should always belong to the pursued and not to the pursuers" (Bava Kama 93a), and the Gemara in Gittin (36b), which praises "those who suffer insult but do not insult."

In my humble opinion, the author is mixing up things that do not belong together. The statements referring to Jewish morality to which the author alludes in the beginning of his article and that I have mentioned above refer to the Jewish morality of warfare. However, the biblical and rabbinical sources which he cites in the continuation of his article do not relate at all to the Jewish morality of warfare but rather to the proper relations between man and God and between man and his fellow, which has nothing to do with the morality of warfare.

Take, for example, the verse from Isaiah mentioned above, in which the prophet, who has gone of on a mission from God to preach to the People Israel, is not deterred by those who strike him, spit at him, or humiliate him. Can we extrapolate from this the proper way to relate to enemies in the midst of battle!? It is most important to mention, that in prophesizing about God's war against Edom, the prophet Isaiah speaks explicitly about vengeance: For a day of vengeance was in My heart, and the year of My redemption has arrived (63:4). Here the prophet alludes to the verse from Ha'azinu: Vengeance is poised with Me, and it will pay (Devarim 32:35).

As for the verse from Lamentations: here the prophet is saying that a man must lovingly accept the troubles that come from God and not complain against God. Is this a moral instruction given to a soldier going off to battle, that when standing before the enemy which is trying to destroy him, he should turn the other cheek!?

The quotes that the author brings from the Sages do not relate to the morality of warfare either. Rather, they are lessons that one should apply to one's interactions with human beings: to be humble, to be among those who are insulted but not among those who insult, etc. Is this instruction directed to a soldier in battle!?

The Torah's instruction to soldiers going off to battle is not "turn the other cheek," but rather: "He who rises to kill you - rise up earlier to kill him." As the midrash (Bamidbar Rabbah, 21) puts it: "Assail the Midianites - Why? For they assail you. From here the Sages said: 'He who rises to kill you - rise up earlier to kill him.'" True, the Torah's command to fight is accompanied by moral commandments, such as: the call for peace, the prohibition against wanton destruction, etc. However, as for combat itself - the goal is to destroy the enemy and the ultimate consideration is how to beat the enemy while suffering a minimum of casualties. As for one who does not act in accordance with these criteria and instead takes pity on the lives of our enemies who rise up to destroy us - even paying with the lives of our fighters - of him it has been said, "Anyone who becomes merciful towards the cruel shall eventually become cruel towards the merciful" (Tanhuma, Metzora 1), and as the RaMBaM put it: "Mercy towards the wicked is cruelty towards people in general" (Guide of the Perplexed 3:39).

Eliav Shochetman, Jerusalem

 

A Response to the Response by the author of the article, Shemuel Herr

My thanks to Prof. Shochetman who points out to me that the way a person comports himself in his home with his family and friends - or even with people who happens upon in the marketplace - is unlike the way he comports himself towards his enemies who rise up to kill him; even more so when he is a soldier protecting his people and homeland in battle.

He is also correct in pointing out that the context in which I made my statements could lead people to misunderstand them, as if I meant to say that the Sages intended to be offering "instruction directed to a soldier in battle." That, however, is not the case.

The above is also true regarding the famous verses from Christian scripture. They too were never directed towards soldiers in the battlefield or to enemies that rise up to kill you, but rather towards the sonei [enemy] in the sense given that term in the laws of returning lost property found in the book of Shemot.

The writer is also correct when he states that "the Torah's command to fight is accompanied by moral commandments," but I am not sure that I understand the sentence - "However, as for combat itself - the goal is to destroy the enemy and the ultimate consideration is how to beat the enemy while suffering a minimum of casualties." It is well known that modern warfare gives rise to difficult and complicated ethical questions. Who is enemy being referred to? Are civilians included? What of women and children? What of civilians who serve as hostages in the hands of the "terrorists"? Can the explication of the verse about the Midianites supply us with answers to these difficult questions? I wonder.

Here is the place to state that the Torah lacks any kind of tidy doctrine of "military ethics"; all of these issues are treated by the Sages in widely dispersed bits of Scriptural exegesis (of many passages containing few laws) - in contrast to what some scholars of recent times have imagined.

To tell the truth, I did not really intend my article to treat the war itself, but rather the discourse that came in its wake. I think that I disagree with Prof. Shochetman's assessment of the significance of that discourse. In my humble opinion, its significance is much broader than just talk about war and the ethics of warfare.

The distinction between "Jewish" and "Christian" morality finds its significance both in anti-Semitic discourse, and, paradoxically, in certain rabbinical discourse which claims that the God of Israel and the morality of Israel has no truck with human morality; rather - allegedly - they have a special morality, as the wicked Balaam said, a nation that dwells alone and pays no attention to the nations. My words were directed solely against such notions.

In the end of the first section of his Kuzari, R. Yehudah HaLevi mentions the New Testament verse about "turning the other cheek" as proof of the praise deserved by Israel for being the humblest of nations. The King of Khazar answers that this is no reason for praise, because that condition is forced upon them; "When they find themselves able, they [too] shall kill." The Scholar answers: "You have found the place of my disgrace, O King of Khazar."

 

 

 

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $700
• English edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

In Israel, checks made out to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B. 4433, Jerusalem 91043. Unfortunately there is no Israeli tax-exemption for local donations.

US and British tax-exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through:

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, Great Britain

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NEW ISRAEL FUND IS NO LONGER ACCEPTING DONATIONS UNDER $100.

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemption. Donations should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

All contributions should be marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project.

 

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts that have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

5,000 copies of a 4 page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom's educational forums draw people of different backgrounds, secular and religious, who are keen to deepen their Jewish knowledge and to hear an alternative religious standpoint on the subjects of peace and social issues.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom fills an ideological vacuum in Israel's society. Committed both to Jewish tradition and observance, and to the furthering of peace and coexistence, the movement is in a unique position to engage in dialogue with the secular left and the religious right, with Israeli Arabs and with Palestinians.