And it came to pass, when Jacob saw Rachel, the daughter of Laban, his mother's brother and the sheep of Laban, his mother's brother, that Jacob drew near and rolled the rock off the mouth of the well, and he watered the sheep of Laban, his mother's brother.

(Bereishit 29:10)

 

Rachel, the daughter of Laban, his mother's brother. The expression Laban, his mother's brother is repeated three times in this verse, because she told him her father was a cheat and that he could not contend with him, but he answered that he [Laban] was his mother's brother and most sons resemble their mother's brother (Bava Batra 106a), and I am his brother in craftiness (Meggilah 13b).

(Peirush HaTur haArokh Bereishit 29:10)

 

and rolled - vayigal This conjugation appears twice in Scripture, here and there:

vayigal kevodi - my soul exults (Psalms 16:9). Upon seeing her, the divine presence and holy spirit came over him. That is the meaning of yigal kevodi, as it is written: ura kevodi - awake my soul! (Psalms 57:9).

Another explanation: When does vayigal kevodi occur? When vayigal ha'even - and rolled the rock off - is fulfilled: when the evil inclination, which is like a rock, is removed.

(Baal HaTurim Bereishit 29:10)

 

He Rolled the Stone From The Mouth of the Well: Revelation through the Struggle for Justice

 

To inform you that contemplation, isolation, and avoidance of the bustle of life and the masses are not the identifying features of one who seeks God's nearness and divine revelation; it is rather the carrying of His banner among the people, action - even dealing with daily routine (often trifling) matters, involvement and integration into daily activity in order to impose justice. This is the reason why the Torah tells of such trivial and unimportant matters such as Jacob and the shepherd.

(Professor Nehama Leibowitz, Studies on the Book of Bereishit, p.219)

 

Brothers and Sisters in Bereishit - An Adlerian Perspective

Gil Nativ

In accordance with the "Law of Primogenitor" found in Devarim 21:15-17, the halakha rules that the firstborn inherits twice as much as his brothers. If a man says, "'My eldest son will not take a double share'... he has said nothing, for he has made stipulation [contradicting] that which is written in the Torah" (Bava Batra 5:5). Why is the firstborn favored over his brothers? It is assumed that since the firstborn is more mature and experienced than his brothers he will serve as a natural leader, especially if the father - God forbid - dies relatively early while the younger brothers are still small. He who takes on additional responsibility deserves to inherit more property from his father's inheritance.

The book of Bereishit is a challenge to the fundamental assumption behind the "Law of Primogenitor." Cain, the firstborn, kills Abel after God prefers Abel's offering over his own. Young Isaac is heir to his father while the elder Ishmael is expelled from the house, even though Hagar was not given to Abraham as a concubine, but rather as a wife (Bereishit 16:3). Jacob bypasses the Law of the Firstborn three times in his life: as a youngster he "buys" the birthright from Esau and cunningly receives the blessing meant for the firstborn. As a father he favors Joseph, the son of his favorite wife, over his older brothers. In his old age he grants Joseph the status of firstborn by counting Ephraim and Menasheh as if they were his own sons (48:5). This means that they will both be granted territories in the Land of Israel as independent tribes, thereby giving Joseph a double portion - in complete contradiction of the Law of the Firstborn. Furthermore, Jacob gives the blessing deserved by Joseph's firstborn son Menasheh to the younger Ephraim... Even amongst Leah's sons, it is Judah, the fourth born, who becomes the true leader, rather than Reuben, the firstborn son.

It would appear that Abram is the exception in Bereishit; he was the firstborn of three brothers, and he received the true firstborn's portion! God might have seen it that way, but Abram's father Terah may have had a different view. Terah left Ur Kasdim after his young son died, and the family settled in Haran. Upon receiving the divine command, Go forth... and from your father's house (12:1), Abram broke away from his father and emigrated to a new land. The younger Nahor remained with his elderly father. Terah lived another sixty years after Abram left him! It is reasonable to assume that Nahor, the second son, inherited most of his father's property. Abram became wealthy thanks to his own efforts (and their property which they acquired - and not "and their property which they inherited") and thanks to his wife, but not because of the Law of the Firstborn!

Moses' refusal to accept his mission during the revelation at the burning bush may have stemmed (sub-consciously?) from the fact that he was the youngest of his siblings and did not want to enter in conflict with his brother Aaron. When Moses' refusal reaches its climax with his plea, send now [Your message] with whom You would send, God responds: Is there not Aaron your brother, the Levite? I know that he will surely speak... That is to say: God assures him that his brother will cooperate with him, and that Aaron the firstborn will accept the leadership of Moses, the younger brother.

Is there any significance at all to birth order? The psychologist Alfred Adler certainly thought so! Differences between brothers stem from the different ways each child understands his parent's expectations of him as the firstborn, second born, or baby of the family. The firstborn arrives in a family consisting only of adults, when the second is born there is already another child in the house. The firstborn views his younger sibling as a rival for parental attention. These factors influence the development of the child's personality.

The paradox of the firstborn's special status reaches its climax in the story of Jacob and Esau. They are not only children to the same mother (unlike the children of Abraham and Jacob); they are twins. The difference of age between them is completely marginal; Jacob emerged from his mother's womb grasping his brother's ankle in his hand! The conflict between them places primogeniture in an absurd light. Every law must be written in formalized terms, and almost every law can create absurdities when literally applied to some special situation; how can one speak of Esau having advantages of "experience" and "seniority" over Jacob? Jacob buys - as it were - Esau's birthright. A "Court of Family Issues" would most likely invalidate such a sale. Esau did not take his own birthright seriously - but why? Because his father loved him! Did Isaac love him because he exited his mother's womb a minute earlier than his brother? No! His father loved him because he developed traits that Isaac lacked himself: strength and skill in hunting. In modern parlance one might say that Esau was a "real man." Isaac was the only one of the patriarchs to work at agriculture; agriculturalists are usually less warlike and aggressive then hunters. And Isaac loved Esau because game was in his mouth (25:28). The plain reading of Scripture makes this out to be a truncated verse: And Isaac loved Esau because game was [placed by Esau] in his [Isaac's] mouth, as is implied by Onkelos's translation. When serving a blind man, one must bring the food almost to his mouth.

Adler claims that "the less competitive a family, the more similar will be the personalities of the children." In the homes of Abraham and Jacob, sibling rivalry sprung from there being more than one mother. They inherited "competitiveness" from their different mothers. Why did Jacob and Esau develop different character traits? Isaac and Rebecca's different personal backgrounds led each of their sons to develop different personality traits. Esau aspired to be his father's favorite. Jacob developed cunning and manipulativeness as tools for survival in a world in which he was surrounded by people stronger than him (Esau in the present, Laban in the future). Rebecca liked those qualities. Women in the patriarchal world had to develop cunning and manipulativeness.

He too shall be blessed (26:33) says Isaac to Esau when they discover that Jacob had received the blessing through trickery. Isaac employs those words to express his feeling that his first blessing enjoyed divine approval. Nevertheless, Isaac is troubled by the blessing's extreme depiction of relations between the brothers: you shall be a master over your brothers, and your mother's sons shall bow down to you (27:29); he therefore balances it with a prophecy for Esau: and it will be, when you grieve, that you will break his yoke off your neck (27:40).

In parashat Vayetzei we encounter a different aspect of the "Law of Primogenitor" - that of relations between sisters. Laban claims to have acted fairly: It is not done so in our place to give the younger one before the firstborn (29:26). Does the "Law of Primogenitor" of sisters apply solely to the question of who gets married first? According to Abbayey and Rava, a father gives each of his daughters a dowry worth up to a tenth of his property (Ketuvot 52b). However, in practice, after the first daughter is married the next will receive a dowry equal to a tenth of her fathers remaining wealth, meaning that she gets less than the firstborn sister...

May the Compassionate One make peace between the descendants of Isaac and the children of Ishmael. May it be His will that Jacob and Esau set aside the illusion that one of them will overcome and enslave his brother. May it be His will that every brother and every nation truly and honestly internalize Esau's words to Jacob: I have plenty, my brother; let what you have remain yours (33:9). May it be His will that the descendants of the sisters Leah and Rachel join together once more as a single tree, as in Ezekiel's prophecy (37:15-19).

Rabbi Dr. Gil Nativ is the rabbi of the Magen Avraham congregation in Omer.

 

Every Journey Can Deteriorate, Therefore One Must Pray for Perseverance Towards its Original Destination

Rabbi Abahu said: If God remains with me, if He protects me baderekh [on this journey] that I am making - [this is protection] from evil speech. How do we know this? From the verse that says Vayidrekhu [they have trained] their tongues to speak falsely (Jeremiah 9). and gives me bread to eat - [this is protection from] illicit sex, as it is written and he [Potiphar] knew nothing accept the bread he ate - [bread,] this is a euphemism [for sex]. And if I return safe [literally: in peace] to my father's house - [this is protection] from bloodshed. The Lord shall be my God - [this is protection] from idolatry.

(Bereishit Rabbah 70)

 

"And so this stone, which I now set up as a memorial of this moment when I, as a poor man on a bleak moor, stand forth looking forward to such a future richly blessed by God, this stone shall be built up to a house in which such a life shall be lived that God will enter therein." Thereby, and thereby only, by making the Lord into our God, can a place on earth become a house of God. Not to realize this is the mistake so often made by ages which pride themselves more than anything else in building beautiful cathedrals and "houses of God" so often make. They build, as the prophet (Ezekiel 43:8) puts it, their doorsteps next to My Doorstep. They visit God in His House but forbid His entry into theirs - where His presence with His thoughts might certainly be inconvenient. That was not the thought with which the first foundation-stone was laid for the first "House of God." The sanctity of the homes is the necessary condition for the sanctity of the House of God, which is not called Mikdash - "the sanctified" - because it is the place to which holiness is relegated, but because from there holiness is to flow out and penetrate all human conditions and places, to be their center point.

 (Rabbi S. R. Hirsch, Bereishit 28:22, based on Levi translation)

 

Readers respond:

And the Lord saw that it was good - Hope rather than Despair - A Response to A. Kadari's Article

While reading A Kadari's analysis in the parashat Noah edition of Shabbat Shalom, I sensed messages of despair, weakness, and acquiescence to an imperfect and even immoral reality. The writer goes so far as to suggest that Cain's sin "may have been a necessary sin... for without this sinner and without the wanderer who threatens society's tranquility, hidden lands would never have been discovered... " I do not know the basis of the writer's speculation. To my mind, this Nietzschean view of power and the vitality of crime is alien to Judaism - murder is murder is murder.

Kadari writes that "God's sorrow already contained a certain element of acceptance... [of] His creation." The Torah does indeed tell us that God saw that the evil of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of his heart was only evil all the time, but does Scripture only offer us a message of acceptance? I do not think the Torah takes that approach. All of its cognizance of the complications of human existence, including jealousy, competition, passions, and desires notwithstanding, Scripture strives towards a program and advances in a process towards hope and redemption. Erich Auerbach writes in his book Mimesis that Scripture "begins with the beginning of time, with the creation of the world, and will end with the Last Days, the fulfilling of the Covenant, with which the world will come to an end" (pg. 16). Yeshayahu Leibowitz writes that "the world of the Holy One, blessed be He, conducts itself in accordance with the custom that its Creator built into it. That is why its improvement can and should be accomplished only from within it. That is the great mission with which man is charged, for he is the only active and conscious creature within a completely passive reality, and he is also to improve himself within the world as it is" (Sihot al Parashat HaShavua pg. 28). Leibowitz points out that it was not coincidental that the commandments were given to Noah after the flood, and that, therefore, we call the universal commandments the "Seven Noahide Commandments" rather than the "Commandments of Adam." Man's drives and passions can bring him to corruption and to the commission of terrible sins, as happened to the generation of the flood. The Torah's message, however, is that man can control his drives and that, therefore he is given a system of prohibitions and obligations. As against Cain's sin, Noah is told after the flood that your blood, of your souls, I will demand [an account]; ...from the hand of man, from the hand of each man, his brother, I will demand the soul of man (Bereishit 9:5). Human beings will be responsible to try and punish the murderer: through man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man (9:6). (It appears that the image of God comes to explain both the seriousness of the crime as well as man's responsibility to judge the sinner).

If so, the message of the story of the flood is not one of despair and acquiescence, but rather of hope and improvement. It is within man's power to build an ark that will save him and the world; he must reign in his drives and passions through commitment to a system of commandments and his purpose in the world is to do good and to repair the world - tikkun olam. This appears to be the significance of Noah's receiving once again the blessing that had already been given to Adam: And God blessed Noah and his sons, and He said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" (9:1): despite the sin and the flood, do not despair, there is still hope!

Yaakov Schapira

 

Amir Kadari, author of the article, responds

I thank the commenter for his comments; if my words have been read in this fashion - they must be set aright, but I think that an additional reading will place them in a different light. I wanted to describe the long and complicated process of creation; it was not completed with the six days of creation, but rather the world, man, and indeed, even the Creator God had to go through a further process. It was completed with God's recognition that He had created an imperfect world, but that its very imperfection completed its creation. Furthermore, the creation process was completed with the recognition by both God and man that humanity's creative powers could both make and destroy and that it was impossible to separate creation itself from its two aspects. No concession is being made here to evil, but there is recognition of the nature of the world. With this recognition, man is required to do the good and the just. And so it seems that I completely agree with my critic. I thank him for the opportunity to make my meaning clear.

 

 

 

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 payable to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B. 4433, Jerusalem 91043.

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 NIF 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 to either the NIF or PEF should be marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project. For Donations to NIF, please mention that Oz veShalom is registered as no. 5708.

 

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.

4,500 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.