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

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

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.