I am unworthy of all the kindnesses and from all the truth that You

have become two camps.

(Bereishit 32:11)

for with my staff From here

we learn that a person should recall the bad days in tranquil times in order to

take notice of his advantage and thank the Holy One, blessed be He for it. That

is why King Solomon, of blessed memory, said: On a

day of good, be among the good, and on a day of adversity, ponder

good think of the day of adversity."

(Rabbeinu Behayeiy 32:11)

I am unworthy–

katonti I do not pray and make requests for my own sake; I have

already received much from you, so much so that I am incapable of thanking You

for all this. I have already become small [the literal

translation of katonti] due to the plentitude of Your kindnesses. A

person's stature is measured not in terms of the absolute quantity of his

deeds, but by the quantity of his deeds relative to what he has received. The

more we have, the more we are in danger of being lessened.

(Rabbi S. R. Hirsch 32:11)

And such ought not to be done

Leah Klibanoff

Parashat Vayishlah contains the first

reference to the name Israel. Jacob, who remains alone on the night

before his reunion with Esau, wrestles with an angel – and the angel cannot

subdue him. After the struggle, when Jacob asks for his blessing, the angel answers

him that your name shall no longer be called Jacob,

but Israel. The change of Jacob's name to Israel – the name that

will refer to the nation formed by his sons – was the angel's parting gift to

Jacob before leaving for the threatening encounter with his brother.

The name

"Israel" reappears shortly afterwards. Shechem son of Hamor met

Jacob/Israel's daughter Dinah, slept with her, and abused her. Scripture

describes her brothers' reaction to hearing news of these events upon their

return from the fields: and the men were grieved, and they burned fiercely,

daughter of Jacob, and such ought not to be done. This verse may be

interpreted as referring to the scandalous act committed against their father,

the man Israel (i.e., Jacob); however, since the name "Jacob" appears

immediately after "Israel" the latter should here be understood in a

broader sense. Israel is not yet the name of a people, but it does seem in this

instance to refer to the entire tribe – Jacob and his whole family. Furthermore,

the verse implies that the brothers think their complaint is something broader

than anger over a personal deed; they – Israel – are making a group judgment,

determining for posterity that such ought not to be

done. The commentators disagree as to the meaning of these words,

but RaMBaN clearly explains them along the lines I have developed: "That

is why it says in Israel, because it is not a scandalous act among the

Canaanites."

If so, it is in the course of the events

described in parashat Vayishlah that the sons of Jacob come to recognize

themselves as a distinct group – "Israel." True, their ancestors

already possessed distinct characteristics and a connection with the one god,

but it is at this stage that they crystallize as a separate tribe, a group

possessing its own standards and independent values, different from those of

the other people around them.

The motif of separation from other groups

binds together the parasha's various events. The previous parasha concludes

with Jacob's departure from the house of Laban, father of his two wives. Early

in our parasha we hear Jacob's refusal to join his brother Esau to travel with

him. The emotional reunion that took place only a short time earlier did not

offer good Jacob reasons to question Esau's intentions. Nonetheless, Jacob

prefers to go his own way instead of accompanying his brother. Later we read of

the brothers' refusal to accept Shechem's request to marry Dinah, a request

that includes the offer that they live together with the inhabitants of Shechem

and become one people. The Shechemites are willing to accept the plan and even

comply with the brothers' demand that they circumcise themselves, but Simon and

Levi, enraged by what had been done to their sister Dinah, choose to avenge

themselves against the entire population of Shechem, and not only against

Shechem the man. They kill all the males, taking all the women and children and

property.

The formal purification and separation occur

immediately afterwards. God reveals Himself to Jacob and commands him to build Him

an altar. In preparation for this Jacob tells all the members of his tribe to

remove the foreign gods from their midst and to change their clothing. He

buries the idols and nose-rings in the ground. From here on in, the children of

Jacob will also be distinct from the land's populace in their outwards

appearance.

The series of events described in the parasha

reveals the process of Israel's crystallization: the process by which it became

a tribe, which will eventually become a people; the crystallization of its

faith in one God and of the first foundations of its ethical system. The

dangers associated with the consciousness of separateness also appear

throughout the parasha. This is most strongly expressed by the words of the

brothers quoted above referring to the scandalous act committed in Israel which

ought not to be done. The brothers' urge to protect their sister and

their insistence that the deed that had been committed was scandalous

constitute the beginning of a supremely important ethical outlook (see Rabbi S.

R. Hirsch's comments on the spirit that agitated the hearts of Simon and Levi).

However, in this instance their outlook produces terrible consequences. The

massacre perpetrated by Simon and Levi does not distinguish between guilty and

innocent; they believe that the injury inflicted on Israel justifies every form

of revenge.

At the next stage violence

is directed inwards; we will see the continuation of the process in next week's

parasha – Vayeshev – when Joseph is sold into slavery. The plain meaning of the

text has it that the brothers were jealous of Joseph and therefore plotted

against him. The midrash, however, offers the alternative explanation that the

brothers wished to kill Joseph because they knew that Jeroboam ben Nevat was

his descendent, the same Jeroboam who split off the Kingdom of Israel from the

Kingdom of Judah, "marrying" the former to the Baals, that is to say,

causing them to commit the sin of idolatry. The crystallization of the

brothers' faith led them to feel free to injure their own brother when he

threatened the national – and perhaps spiritual – historical process, as they

believed it was meant to proceed.

At first glance, this is an

odd chain of events: Jacob's desire to distance himself from his brother;

followed by the story of Shechem and Dinah and Simon and Levi's terrible revenge

against the people of Shechem, and later the selling of Joseph. It is even more

difficult to group the events together as being irrevocably linked to the

process of Israel's crystallization as a tribe possessing a monotheistic faith

and an independent moral outlook. Nevertheless, this is clearly implied by

Scripture – the first time the term "Israel" is applied to a group is

in a story that ends with a massacre.

It seems that the

association between these incidents contains a great warning that danger lurks

within the very heart of the process of self-construction and the creation of

an independent self-consciousness. Even when the rejection of foreign gods and

accepted dress is welcome and desirable, it always brings with itself a dark

and threatening shadow – the danger that the separated group will hold itself

to be superior, and that the feelings of superiority will give rise to the

belief that those who do not belong to the group are worth less than its

members. This becomes especially salient in cases when group members are

harmed; then all restraints are thrown off and the feeling of superiority

justifies unlimited counter-harms. Joseph's sale teaches us that vengeance can

be especially ruthless against someone (even if he is a member of the group)

who is thought to undermine – or even might undermine – the group

members' national and spiritual outlook, that very same outlook which

established the group's crystallization.

It is difficult but

important to contemplate and understand the message implied by the way these

events appear sequentially in the parasha. The act perpetrated against Dinah

was indeed outrageous. Furthermore, Scripture and the commentators depict the

choice to seek purity and devotion to one God as a deep spiritual process

through which the Israelites developed solidarity in that historical period.

However, it is precisely there that the great lesson is to be found, that

feelings of superiority are no less dangerous when it appears that the members

of the group have legitimate warrant to believe they have achieved, in certain

aspects, a higher level of spiritual or moral development. Sometimes it is the

feeling of belonging to something higher, and even the faith that one enjoys a

special connection with God in Whose name one acts and from Whose power one is

sustained, that can lead to a feeling of freedom to act without limitations or

measure. This feeling can replace natural human morality, leading members of

the group to fall into a yet deeper moral chasm.

Leah Klibanoff writes

and produces documentaries.

Jacob became very frightened and was distressed

Thoughts on Current

Events

Rashi, following Bereishit Rabbah

and Midrash Tanhuma, explains the double formula of became very frightened and was distressed:

He was frightened lest he be killed

and he was distressed that he might kill others.

So simple! So clear!

We received numerous and varied replies

to the article I wrote this year marking the anniversary of Rabin's

assassination.

I decided not to publish the replies,

because I think that each of them opens a discussion that lacks relevance to

the simple and clear message I wanted to express.

Some make claims for a conspiracy theory.

They say that despite his confession and his being found guilty by a court of

law, Yigal Amir did not murder Rabin, and therefore every attempt to link the

murder with the atmosphere of demonization and delegitimization found in part of the public is irrelevant.

I lack any common basis for discussion with those who hold this view.

Similarly, there are attempts to equate

Rabin's murder with the thousands of victims of terrorism and to link the

increased incidence of terror with policies of the Rabin government. Beyond the

tremendous sorrow we all feel regarding the loss of human life in terrorist

attacks and wars, I think that this comparison takes us off track from the main

issue I wanted to consider.

There are deep differences of opinion

within Israeli society regarding issues of security and foreign policy. General

elections bring to power governments which promote policies that are usually

opposed by part of the public. It is the right of those opposing government

policies to work towards its replacement and to protest – in a democratic

fashion – against any governmental decision that is not to its liking.

However, an atmosphere of delegitimizing

the views of the "other" has developed in Israel, even to the point

where justifications are offered for the use of violence.

Phenomena such as the murder of Emil

Grunzweig, the massacre carried out by Baruch Goldstein in Me'arat HaMakhpela,

the Rabin assassination, the Teitel murders, and especially "Torah"

writings such as Torat HaMelekh which excuse the murder of non-Jews and

which receive statements of approval (haskamot) from famous rabbis, undermine

our existence as a democratic society. When such things are done by "religious"

Jews and no vigorous denunciation of these acts and writings is to be heard, it

also becomes a hillul Hashem – a desecration of the Divine Name

Therefore, setting aside ideological and

political disagreements for the moment, if we simply want to live we must agree

to conduct our disagreements in a democratic fashion. The memorial day for

Yitzhak Rabin is a warning sign against what may happen if this lesson is not

appreciated.

Pinchas Leiser, Editor

Readers Respond

I read the article by Ido Pachter (a

student at the Maale Adumim yeshiva) in the Vayeira issue of Shabbat Shalom,

in which he discussed the expulsion of Ishmael. It was all quite interesting

until I got the point where he made a comparison with today's Ishmaelites and

proffered the historical statement that the "War

of Independence sprang from the disagreement regarding the brothers' living

side by side." The reader can only conclude that the lack of agreement was

shared equally by both sides. Since Ido is a young student I may assume

that he had not been born yet in 1948, and therefore wound up writing things

that are simply not true. In 1948 the "sons of Isaac" certainly did

agree to live next to the "sons of Ishmael" but the "sons of

Ishmael" unilaterally refused and set out on a war of annihilation which

they intended not only to win, but furthermore (as they publically insisted

upon repeatedly) they intended to completely destroy the small Jewish community

in the Land of Israel. Therefore, the reciprocity between the two brothers

implied by Ido Pachter's article is false. One is permitted to link the weekly

parasha with our lives today, one may express any political position, be it

left or right, which one wishes. However, one must not confuse evaluations with

facts, and Shabbat Shalom failed in publishing untruths. The writer

should disavow his statements.

Too many forces for evil in the world

accuse Israel – and only Israel – falsely. It is very disturbing that religious

Jews add fuel to this unnecessary and dangerous fire.

Respectfully,

Amnon Schapira, Kibbutz Tirat Tzvi

Ido Pachter, author of the article, replies:

"Sages, take care with your words."

The honorable reader misunderstood my

words. Anyone who knows anything is aware of the fact that it was the Arab

states that launched the war of annihilation that was to become our War of

Independence. I do not know how my article could be understood as implying

anything else. Even so, I will clarify my intention briefly. The comparison of

the story of Ishmael with the current situation was not made – God forbid – to

criticize the actions of the State of Israel during the War of Independence and

the events preceding it. The State of Israel wanted neither war nor the

expulsion of people from their homes. Nevertheless, it is hardly a secret that

thousands of Palestinian refugees fled their homes because of the war and

continue to live in the refugee camps in our vicinity unto this day, and that

those refugees think of themselves as having been expelled. The poverty, distress,

and unbearable living conditions found in the camps keep them from getting

beyond the feeling of expulsion and accepting the existence of the State of Israel.

I claimed that the refugees' humanitarian problem must be solved first as the

key to the establishment of regional peace. If we and the world fail to

rehabilitate these refugees (as refugees have been rehabilitated in places all

around the world) their feeling of being expellees will develop into a feeling

of having a mission to regain their lost honor. Only by solving their problem

can we establish peace, a peace based upon the values of mutual recognition and

respect instead of hatred and vengeance.

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.