AND ESAU RAN TOWARD HIM AND EMBRACED HIM, AND HE FELL ON HIS NECK AND KISSED HIM, AND THEY WEPT. AND HE LIFTED HIS EYES AND SAW THE WOMEN AND THE CHILDREN, AND HE SAID, "WHO ARE THESE TO YOU?" AND HE SAID, "THE CHILDREN WITH WHOM GOD HAS FAVORED YOUR SERVANT." AND THE MAIDSERVANTS AND THEIR CHILDREN DREW NEAR AND PROSTRATED THEMSELVES. AND LEAH AND HER CHILDREN DREW NEAR AND PROSTRATED THEMSELVES, AND AFTER [THEM], JOSEPH AND RACHEL DREW NEAR AND PROSTRATED THEMSELVES.

(Bereishit 33:4-7)

 

Joseph and Rachel drew near In all cases, the mothers drew near before the sons, but in Rachel's case, Joseph preceded her. He said, "My mother has a pretty figure. Perhaps that scoundrel will set his eyes on her. I will stand in front of her and prevent him from gazing upon her." Because of this deed, Joseph merited the blessing (below 49:22), "over the eye" [meaning that he stood up in front of Esau's eyes]. - [from Pesikta Rabbathi , ch. 12; Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel]

(Rashi on Bereishit 33:7, Judaica Press translation)

 

He mentioned Joseph before Rachel because, due to her great affection for him, she would lead him in her hands before her.

(RaDaK ad loc)

 

...and if you say: why didn't he hide her in a trunk as he had hidden Dinah? Rather, it may be said: All of our Father Abraham's offspring avoided adultery, but Joseph would not rely on this, so he walked in front of his mother.

(Hizkuni ad loc)

 

Rashi's comments, following the midrash, are well known. In addition, it can be said that here Joseph demonstrated that he abided by Jacob's trait, being submissive to his enemies. That is why he prostrated himself first. In this he was unlike the other sons [of Jacob] who acted according to Jacob's instructions, but not did so of their own minds; but Joseph did adopt this particular trait of Jacob's. Similarly, the kings of Israel would submit themselves throughout the generations, as we saw in the way Ahab comported himself with the king of Aram, only that it was not an appropriate time, but Jacob's trait is clearly recognizable.

(Ha'Amek Davar ad loc)

 

Jacob became very frightened and was distressed - on Jewish Morality

 

 

Prof. Moshe Tzipor comments:

I would like to comment on Shemuel Herr's rebuttal that appeared in the Vayeira issue:

The author quotes a passage from the Kuzari (1:115), "You have shamed me, O King of Khazar," and alleges that it comes as a response to the King's statement that the moment the People Israel will be able to kill as do the nations of the world, it will do so as well (114).

This is a partial quotation, of a kind with the "commandment" you shall turn away and serve other gods. In this paragraph, the King of Khazar makes two claims: 1) that the People Israel bears its suffering and torment for lack of an alternative, rather than out of acceptance of divine justice and a desire to sanctify the Name. 2) That when they can kill - they will. It is clear that the Rabbi's comment relates only to the first claim: only a minority of Israelites lovingly accepts suffering out of submission to God's will. The Rabbi admits that on that point the King has "shamed" him. And he adds: if it were not only a minority, the People Israel would hasten redemption. There is not even a hint in anything the Rabbi says that constitutes agreement with the claim that the People Israel favors killing and "turns the other cheek" solely out of weakness.

Earlier (113) the Rabbi rejects the claim that Israel's suffering and abasement indicate its disgrace. Quite to the contrary; the Christians and Ishmaelites praise those who submit lovingly to suffering and "turn the other cheek." That is the background to the King's criticisms and the Rabbi's response.

Is the praise offered by the nations of the world for those who behave this way mere declarations (leaving others to live up to it) - or do they also comport themselves in this fashion? Does their lack of a real response to acts of aggression stem from moral considerations or from fear and expediency?

Moshe Tzipor, Rehovot

 

Dr. Amnon Shapira's response:

Is there a "Jewish military ethics"? (The answer: yes)

As for the debate between Shemuel Herr and Eliav Shochetman (Shabbat Shalom 471) regarding the question whether there exists a "Jewish" morality: a decade ago, Prof. M. Walzer (of the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton, author of the classic book Just and Unjust Wars) marveled at the fact that "Judaism only recognizes two categories of wars ["optional" and "commanded"], and where is the third category ["prohibited war"]? Later, he and Prof. Avi Ravitzky (and let us take this opportunity to all pray for his wellbeing and to wish him a complete recovery) published articles on "The Limits of War" according to rulings beginning from the Talmudic period. In a conversation with Avi, he suggested that I consider Scripture's treatment of the topic. Indeed, after thorough research I published the paper, "On the Tendency to Limit and Ameliorate Warfare in Scripture," in Iyunei Mikra ve'Parshanut 7, (Bar Ilan University, 5765). (Anyone interested in receiving the article should contact me at amnonsh@tiratzvi.org.il).

Study of the topic as it appears in ancient near eastern literature demonstrates that none of the ancient legal codes so far uncovered (Hamurabi's code, the New Babylonian laws, the laws of Ashnunah, the Hittite laws, and the laws of Lifit Eshtar) contain even a single law limiting the actions of soldiers in time of war. It appears that Scripture is the first text in world history to legislate a number of morally oriented legal limitations upon the army's waging of war. Thus, while Scripture may give a first impression that it accepts and even demands extended wars, it is possible to point to a contrary current in Scripture involving broad moral limitations on warfare. There are voices in Scripture that add up to a unique morality of warfare, which remains - in part - unique to this very day. While there is not the slightest hint of pacifism (which finds its origin in Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount") in [Jewish] Scripture, it also lacks any militarism. Rashi's (Shemot 22:1) formulation, as per the midrash, can be considered normative: "He who comes to kill you - rise up earlier to kill him"

I shall now forward a view which I believe has far-reaching consequences. In reference to the well-known verse fear not Abram, I shield you, etc. (Bereishit 15:1), Bereishit Rabbah (44:4) brings four interpretations. The first of these has it that Abraham feared "that those groups of people whom I killed [may have] included a single tzaddik [righteous person], etc." That is to say, Abraham was not worried about killing the soldiers of the northern kings who battled against Lot; he was only concerned that there was even a single tzaddik in their number (as per his own words as recorded in the Torah, Will You even destroy the righteous with the wicked?). However, when Rashi quotes this midrash, he drastically changes it, and writes: "I shield you, that you shall not be punished for all the people you have killed, etc."

That is to say that according to Rashi the sin was not merely the killing of a tzaddik, but also the killing of enemy fighters in general. This suggests a completely unique theology which is built upon blatant paradox: it is forbidden to kill people, for a person is a person is a person - not even the enemy, and not even soldiers in time of war (!); nonetheless, there is a duty to kill them, since "He who comes to kill you - rise up earlier to kill him"!

This is a fantastic conclusion, and it is Rashi's own surprising and independent invention (and part of Rashi's "revolutionary character," a thesis developed by Prof. A. Grossman in several of his studies).

I think that Rashi's position may be based upon two scriptural sources: On the verse And when you make for Me an altar of stones, you shall not build them of hewn stones, lest you wield your sword upon it and desecrate it (Shemot 20:22), Rashi writes: "For the altar was created to lengthen man's days, and iron was created to shorten man's days [because it is used to make swords]. It is improper that the ‘lengthener' be wielded over the ‘shortener'" (!) (Judaica Press translation). Secondly, God told David that he will not build the Temple since he waged many wars (all of them "just", of course) and in them he shed much blood (I Chronicles 22). David is not prohibited from building the Temple as some kind of punishment, rather it is a "natural" moral outcome of his deeds, similar to the rule, "A priest who killed a person [even accidentally] - cannot bless the people." Rashi's conclusion (apparently, the product of his reading of the two passages cited above) reflects a unique Jewish military morality unlike any I have found in any other culture or religion.

Prof. U. Simon often says that Rashi's comments on the verse Jacob became very frightened and was distressed (Bereishit 32:8), "He was frightened lest he be killed, and he was distressed that he might kill others" (Judaica Press translation) "constitute the essence of Jewish morality of war." His words are worthy, but I think that he quotes I have brought from Rashi above are even more striking.

In conclusion: if Rashi were asked for a ruling regarding the situation in which the Palestinians are deliberately firing missiles from locations within (their) civilian populations in order to deliberately kill (our) civilians, it may be that he would have responded in this way: "The killing of human beings is always prohibited. However, war is war and since you were attacked return fire with all your might. Whoever is injured - will be injured, and all of the moral responsibility rests upon those who started the fighting." That is what the IDF is doing, despite the world's false and hypocritical protests.

With blessings,

Amnon Shapiro, Tirat Tzvi

 

Pinchas Leiser, editor of Shabbat Shalom, comments:

I thank our member Shemuel Herr and Prof. Shochetman for opening up this important discussion, and to Prof. Moshe Tzipor and Dr. Amnon Shapiro for their enlightening comments. I think that what we have here is an issue of principle that has implications for our life in the independent State of Israel.

"There are seventy aspects to the Torah," and it could be that the passage from the Kuzari which Shemuel Herr brought to illustrate his argument can also be read in the manner suggested by Prof. Tzipor, although I find it more reasonable to understand the Rabbi as responding to everything the King said in paragraph 114. Certainly, there is no intention there to claim that Israel seeks killing. Rather, the point is that the trial of "normal" life will force any nation to meet different moral challenges than those posed by a life of exile and dependence. In paragraph 115, the Rabbi admits to the King that in the present [medieval] circumstances Israel does not have to contend with the challenges of independence and power, and that no one knows how they will behave once they regain power. Since the quotation from the Kuzari was brought merely to illustrate a thesis, there is no need to choose between the different possible interpretations.

Amnon Shapiro interprets Scripture, the midrash, and several of Rashi's comments to reach the important and convincing conclusion that there is indeed a Jewish morality. His words imply that this Jewish morality is more demanding than any other - perhaps that is the significance of the appellation am segulah [a special, precious nation]. That is to say, its point is not that the People Israel posses a particularistic and tribal morality which revokes the categories of universal ethics as embraced by the "nations which are restricted by the ways of religion" (to borrow the Me'iri's phrase), but rather that the Torah of Israel, which wants to teach the People Israel to live in holiness, requires special additional moral strictness of us, even in time of war.

I am not certain that any of us can speak in Rashi's name or can guess "how Rashi would have ruled" if he were alive with us today. Rashi was an important and original exegete with a moral world view, but he was not a posek {halahkic decisor] in the usual sense of the term (see Avraham Grossman: Rashi, chapter 7, pg/ 150.)

I think that Rashi's great humility and the passages cited by Amnon Shapira point towards a clear position which always condemns bloodshed but sometimes accepts it as an unfortunate necessity.

It is clear to all of us that we have enemies firing missiles at us and that it is impossible to resign ourselves to this situation.

Does that mean that we must automatically grant any decision of the government or any IDF operation a priori justification without asking ourselves questions about the morality and effectiveness of the operation, even if it involves the killing of innocent civilians? I wonder.

Our minds and hearts are with our member, Prof. Avi Ravitzky, a pursuer of peace, morality, and justice. We long to hear his clear moral voice and pray for his complete recovery.

 

 

So that the socket of his hip was strained as he wrestled with him - A time of war and a time of peace.

As he wrestled with him - seems to be redundant. This is the basis of the Sages' exposition in Hullin (91a). According to the plain reading, the meaning is "as Jacob wrestled with him", for until now, the angel fought with Jacob, and now he wished to break off contact, but Jacob took the offensive and resumed the struggle with the angel; therefore, he was punished and his hip was displaced. This was because Jacob's attribute was profuse love of peace, as we had noted above. Therefore, he, too, should have rested - as did the angel who ceased to fight. Jacob, however, betrayed his own attribute, and therefore, he was punished in his hip, which controls walking and which signifies man's customary behavior. We have a major generalization - when a person is used to exhibiting a fine attribute, it takes on the status of a vow; should he later be unfaithful to this attribute, he is punished. Furthermore, it may be said that this comes to teach a lesson for all generations - the behavior of the fathers is a sign unto the sons - as will be later explained.

(Ha'Amek Davar, Bereishit 32:32)

 

...and it comes to teach us how one should behave with his adversaries, not challenging them too much, and when the fright has passed, it is best to let the pursuer go on his way. (Haamek Davar, Bereishit 32:32)

 

The Deed of Simon and Levi

And Dinah went out - This story was written in order to explain what Jacob said in his blessings: Cursed be their wrath for it is mighty (49:7).

(ShaDaL Bereishit 34:1)

 

Shall he [Shechem] make our sister like a harlot? That is to say, it was correct for us to avenge our honor upon him since he insulted our honor. However, they did not respond in this way. Rather, Simon and Levi acted out of anger and wrath, and they made no sense; once he [Shechem] took her [Dinah] as his wife, their honor was not besmirched but rather magnified, especially so in light of the fact that he agreed to be circumcised. They also had no cause to fear that some evil would befall them from this in the future; from the moment they were related by marriage to the prince of the land, who would conspire to harm them? If so, this was nothing more than a torrent of wrath and vengeance. That is why their father kept the matter in mind until his dying day, and then cursed them.

(ShaDaL 34:31)

 

Jacob's two sons, Shimon and Levi: The word two is superfluous... it comes to teach us that although they united in great wrath to destroy a city and its inhabitants, and also united to enter themselves into great danger, in any case they were two, that is to say that they bore different motivations that ignited this conflagration. One of them was driven by human motivations of jealousy for the honor of their father's house, which brings about a fire like this which is, as is known, a strange fire. The other acted out of zealousness for God, free of any [personal] interest or desire. This is the flame of the Lord. However, one must be very cautious of this fire as well, in ascertaining its appropriate time and place. Without this [caution] it causes much damage. Our father Jacob mentioned both motivations in his rebuke, and rejected the superior fire as well, as will become clear in parashat VaYehi.

(Ha-Amek Davar, Bereishit 34:25)

 

 

 

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.