A Thought on Parshas Toldos

"....v'al charb'echa tichyeh v'es achicha ta'avod v'haya kasher tarid u'farakta ulo..." "...you shall live by your sword, serve your brother but then abandon him..." (27:40) As Yitzchak consents to bestow yet a second bracha, this one on his wayward son Esav, he blesses him with a variety of conquests, victories and acquisitions. This seems to be in contrast with his prior disclosures to Esav that the latter would be under the dominion of his brother Yakov. Were these promises of conquests to emerge at some later time and not conflict with Esav's status of subservience to his brother, or are those promises not discordant with that status relative to Yakov? The Gan offers an unexpected resolution of the verses. He suggests that our verse was, in its ideal form, a blessing for Yakov as well as for Esav. There would come times in history when the barriers to Yakov's ascendance necessitated warfare. Yakov was not, ideally, a warrior. Brother Esav was a warrior. Those wars and battles which could serve and benefit the descendants of Yakov would at times be fought by Esav in the service of Yakov. In fact, explains the Gan, those battles were the key through which Esav could earn the fulfillment of his bracha, wherein he could succeed also in conquests for his own territories. Esav's claim to conquer and acquire lands was in essence contingent upon his also being there to shield Yakov and to fight for his sake. In turn, the Gan finds support in the latter part of our verse for another contingency. The condition under which Esav would "serve" Yakov in this way would be contingent on Yakov's own fulfillment of his destiny. As long as Yakov served HaShem, Esav would serve Yakov in this particular fashion. However, when Esav could claim with validity that he was serving Yakov more than Yakov was serving HaShem - when the descendants of Yakov would not live by the Torah - Esav would have the right to desist and to go off in pursuit of his own personal conquests. He would be absolved of his symbiotic bond with brother Yakov. When Yakov functions like Yakov, Esav may fend for him. When Yakov forfeits his intended role and identity, he also relinquishes his portion of the shared bracha which would direct the forces of Esav to fight off those who seek to oppress him. Our nation mourns this week for the kedoshim who were massacred in our Holy City. May the treachery of Yishmael be followed by nikmas HaShem. We have no one else to rely on. I learned this week that the area's largest Catholic high school draws many students who hail from other religions. Its largest non-Catholic faction are Jewish students. When this school was founded in the mid-1800s, one of its three greatest patrons and benefactors was a rabbi, and his wife. Thinking back to Yitzchak's bracha to Esav in concert with Yakov, I wonder - who was serving whom at that time in LA history? Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought on Parshas Chayei Sara

"...henay anochi nitzav al ein ha'mayim..." "...behold, I am standing near the spring of water..." (24:13) Eliezer was on a mission to discover the woman who would be the bride of his master's son Yitzchak. As he approached a settlement in the region to which he had traveled, he did not proceed further but rather waited in the wilderness fringe near a water source, anticipating the possible arrival of this as-of-yet undiscovered choice of wives. The questions abound here, but one in particular calls out to us: why did Eliezer feel it necessary to camp beyond the city limits? Why not enter the town and begin interviewing or searching for the designated woman? What could be gained by meeting her by chance, out of town? The Gan offers a perspective: anyone seeking a wife for Yitzchak son of Avraham would want to focus on examining her qualities. A wife should be healthy and appealing. To marry noble Yitzchak, son of Avraham, she would need a comparable pedigree of stature. To be prepared to emulate the ways of his family, she would have to be efficient, welcoming, and generous. She would also need to be modest. Eliezer reasoned: "wherever I meet with her, I can determine if she seems healthy and of nice appearance. Similarly, I can learn whether she is of good stock by asking around. I can watch the way she welcomes me and my caravan to determine whether or not she is generous and welcoming. However, tznius - modesty - is hard to discern. If I meet her in town around her parents and she seems to dress and act with modesty and demureness, it may not be authentic. She may dress and act that way because her parents demand it or because her social milieu expects it. Modesty as an authentic inner characteristic is hard to detect. But (reasoned Eliezer), if I wait by the water out in the wilderness, I will catch her unawares, clad and functioning according to her own wishes and personal standard, in that she does not expect an audience or a witness to see her attire and conduct. If she appears modest and demure even on her own, away from family and from the public eye, I can consider that a valid reflection of her own wishes. That will authenticate her inner life as one of demure modesty and of self-containment. This test will reveal whether or not she is a match for pious Yitzchak. "...mi ha'ish ha'la'zeh ha'holech ba'sadeh l'ik'ra'seinu..." "...who is this man walking in the field, towards us..." (24:65) So, the unquestionably modest Rivka agrees to ride back with Eliezer to meet her husband-to-be. On the way, she spies a man in the distance. She inquires about him. The Gan ponders: there seem to be a number of difficulties simply addressing the plain meaning of this verse! Did Rivka inquire about every man whom she saw along the road? Why does the verse mention that she saw him walking in the field when it could have said merely "the man walking towards us"? Why does it say "towards us", omitting a verb; shouldn't the verse have said "coming towards us"? The Gan explains: Rivka certainly did not notice, nor ask about, any of the men passing along the highway or strolling in the fields. What intrigued her was that she saw a man off in a distant field walking around, who then turned in their direction and continued towards them. She was curious about why this person seemed to alter his trajectory upon seeing their caravan and redirect himself towards them. Thus, Rivka's question did not reflect a lack of modesty. It reflected an element of concern that someone had noticed them and was now heading towards them in order to cross their path, which would necessitate some interaction. It was her modesty which generated this concern, and led to her inquiry. This further validated that her authentic self was one of preferring privacy, shunning notoriety, avoiding unnecessary interactions, and maintaining an enduring and reflexive modesty in her orientation to others. The Gan demonstrates this interpretation based on the precise wording of the verse! Good Shabbos. This is being sent out a bit early as I too travel afield. D Fox

A Thought on Parshas Vayera

"...v'he'nae shlosha anashim..." "...and Avraham beheld three men..." (18:2) The episode of Avraham's three desert visitors is a very familiar one. Many of us know also that there are two views as to the identity of those wayfarers: they were either actual people, or they were malachim - angelic emissaries. In theological terms, Avraham's encounter with these three was either a visit, or a visitation. The Gan observes that the overt meaning of the passage would be that these visitors were actual people, and that Avraham had an actual encounter, as opposed to a spiritual vision, which is known as a visitation from Above. After all, these three visitors ate the tangible food which had been prepared for them, and eating food is not something which we would associate with heavenly entities. He cites Shoftim 13:16 - angels do not eat food. However, the Gan stresses, our sages, in many sources, have taught that these were in fact three angelic messengers. With that premise, we have to deal with the difficulty presented by those same verses, which describe how the angels ate real food. The Gan is less concerned with reconciling those verses than he is militant against the misuse of this passage by those whom he refers to as "the Minim", which is a euphemism for the host religion which dominated France in his day (they are no longer the majority religion in France). They used this passage, which they assert was talking about divine creatures who descended and materialized in human form, then talked, walked, ate and drank, as support for their doctrine of how "god" can morph into a human being. Those minim held the belief that god is supernal yet can emerge from the transcendent into the corporeal. The way they view our verses, the Torah is describing how "god" comes down to earth and becomes a human creature when he wants to. The Gan asserts that it is forbidden to concede to them that our verses are attributing human actions and behavior to a deity. He writes that "many rebuttals are obvious." Firstly, verse 5 says "eat so as to sustain yourselves." The Gan reminds us that "god" would not be weak or hungry and would not need to sustain himself with food. Secondly, our verse enumerates three entities yet in 19:1, only two remain. The Gan points out that if the passage was an allusion to the belief of the minim that their god is a trinity, then their whole premise in refuted the moment the Torah tells us that one of the three disappeared. That could hardly happen to a "god." Thirdly, in 19:13 the angels declare that they were "sent on a mission by HaShem to destroy the region". The Gan notes that according to the minim, the three entities are all facets of one "god". Who sent whom? They were all equal "parts", so why would they (which according to the minim is really an "it") say that they had been sent from HaShem, the Higher Power? Clearly, the angels were not god, were not gods, and were not parts of god. G-d is One, is not divisible, and does not take on any form at all. But, HaShem can send angels or emissaries to do His bidding. That is what the three malachim were, and they were sent by HaShem, but were not Him nor a part of Him. And with the Gan's words, the minim have been minimized. Good Shabbos. D Fox