And it came to pass, when Jacob saw Rachel, the

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

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

Destination

Rabbi Abahu said: If

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];

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

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.