VAYERA: Lot and the frog syndrome

Lot and Abraham lived in the same area. But when the shepherds of Abraham and Lot quarreled, Abraham suggested to Lot that each one should take separate ways. “Look at the land that is in front of you,” said Abraham to his nephew, “and choose where you want to settle in. If you want to go north, I will go south. If you go south, I will go north”. Lot does not doubt and chooses to settle in Sedom. Why? Because Sedom was a city of wealth and economic stability. At that time, the area had abundant rivers, and those who lived there did not depend on the rain, and droughts did not affect them. Surely Lot imagined that there, in Sedom, he would build a beautiful house , he would have the best car , and he and his descendants would marry people of great wealth. What a successful life awaited Lot in Sedom!

But the Tora also warns that the people of Sedom were evil   ואנשי סדם רעים וחטאים ליהוה מאד. They did not let anyone share their wealth. And instead of assisting, they oppressed and exploited the weak and the poor. Our Hakhamim said that in Sedom a law was established “those who help a poor person, an orphan or a foreigner would be executed”. (Sedom’s ideology always remind me of Nietzsche, whose philosophy was later adopted by the Third Reich. For them the weak or the sick should NOT be assisted or helped, as this represents a “waste” of the totalitarian state resources. Every resource should be devoted exclusively to the progress of the healthy and superior– Arian men and women– following  the most basic law of nature, learned from Nietzsche’s contemporary Charles Darwin: the survival of the fittest).
Lot came from an environment that could not be more different from Sedom. Lot had been raised in the home of Abraham Abinu. An open house where all those in need are welcomed. Lot must have absorbed these lessons from Abraham. And I imagine that when Lot realizes the nature of the inhabitants of that city, he will have asked himself: “And now what should I do? Do I stay in this city, or I leave?” Lot decided to stay. Maybe he thought that he would have enough emotional strength not to let himself and specially his children  to be influenced by others. But Lot failed. And while it is true that he retained some characteristics of Abraham, for example, he received foreigners (malakhim) risking his life, we see that he did everything by himself.   Unlike Abraham, who together with his wife Sara prepared the banquet for their visitors, Lot’s wife does not appear in that scene… Lot had to prepare the food for his guests all by himself. When Abraham asked HaShem not to destroy the city of Sedom if ten righteous people were in the city, Abraham was thinking of Lot and his family. Lot, his wife, his two married daughters, their husbands, his two single daughters and their fiancees. a total of 10 people. HaShem, in the end, destroyed the city, which shows us that Lot was not able to influence even his family. What is more. When Lot offered his daughters instead of the strangers that people wanted to kill (I imagine that helping a foreigner in Sedom was as dangerous as helping a Jew –protecting him and giving him shelter– in World War II). Lot was actually influenced by others. He was culturally and morally transformed, inadvertently, into a citizen of Sedom.

One of the most important lessons I heard in my life has to do with the frog. How do you cook a frog? (I do not know if this story is true or it is an urban legend. In any case, please do not try it at home, since apart from being tremendously cruel, it is not Kosher :). In France, and in the far East  cooked frogs are an exquisite delicacy. The problem is that the frog must be cooked while he is alive. So, how do you cook a frog? If you place the frog in boiling water, the frog will immediately jump out of the pot. But if the live frog is placed in a pot with water at room temperature and at a low heat, the frog would not jump out of the pot and will be slowly cooked. And this is why:  The body of the frog detects drastic temperature changes. Therefore, if we move the frog from a temperature of 70 degrees and expose it to 212 degrees of boiling water, the frog will jump out. However, and very unfortunately for the frog, its body “tolerates “small” changes in temperature. Its body “adapts” the small temperature changes and is unable to “sum up” those small changes and realize that “a big change” has taken place . When the slow fire brings the water temperature from 70 to 75 degrees, the body of the frog feels that: “5 degrees is nothing. There is no danger.” And the body adapts to 75 degrees. When the water reaches 80, the frog –that already got used to 75  feels that: “5 more degrees, it is nothing”. And when it reaches 85, the frog experiences the same thing: “5 degrees, do not affect me”. The frog tolerates and adapts to those small changes, and is unable to add up those changes and realize that: “…that there are 15 degrees difference between 70 and 85 and this can end badly”. Finally, when it reaches 210 degrees, it’s too late for the frog…

Something very similar happens with most people in terms of “influences”. When we live around individuals with questionable values, we begin to absorb those values very gradually. So gradually, that those changes become almost imperceptible. Over time, it happens to us what happened to the frog. We do not realize that those small changes are adding up. And when we want to realize it, it’s already too late ….

The lesson we learn from Lot is that we have to choose very carefully the environment where we live, and where we educate and raise our children. So it does not happen to us what happens to the poor frog.



VAYERA: Abraham and a different kind of opportunism

DICTIONARY:

Opportunism is the art, policy, or practice of taking advantage of opportunities or circumstances, often with little regard for principles ….

Synonym for opportunism: exploitation

KINDNESS WITH STRANGERS

This Parasha provides us with some details of the personality of Abraham Abinu. Already close to 100 years of age, what does Abraham dedicate his life to? The man who discovered God, how does he spend his precious time? Abraham, the Tora tells us this week, is sitting in his tent actively looking for people who need help. We know the story of the three “visitors” of Abraham, but perhaps we do not absorb the enormous magnitude of what Abraham does. Let me explain: Abraham lifted his eyes, and behold, he saw in front of him three men [foreigners, people totally unknown to him]; he stood up and ran toward them, bowed down to them” and invited them to his house. We know the visitors were “angels” [messengers of God, prophets, etc.] but the main point of the story is that Abraham did not see anything special in these men. He did not reach out to them because they had money, and he wanted to take advantage of them: The Tora describes them as “walkers” – a sign of poverty – and not as traveling merchants riding on donkeys or camels. Abraham saw this, but far from discouraging him, the fact that these people were (or seemed) humble was the opportunity Abraham was waiting for! Abraham lived a very comfortable life in material terms. In passing, the Tora mentions that he had a house, food, livestock, workers, property, and silver. Abraham was sitting at his tent’s door, waiting for an opportunity to help others. This behavior is entirely abnormal!

OPPORTUNISM IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION

“Opportunists see a chance to gain some advantage from a situation, often at the expense of ethics or morals. An opportunist seizes every opportunity to improve things for himself.” 

A stranger you have never seen before is the perfect potential victim of tricksters or con artists who cheat, steal, and abuse. Without fear of retaliation because strangers are defenseless. Notice that the very word “opportunism” is always used negatively. Abraham’s opportunism, however, is 180 degrees different. Abraham was purposely on the lookout for someone who needed help. Please think if you have ever met someone like Abraham Abinu! Someone is standing outside a supermarket, for example, waiting for the opportunity to selflessly help people who need assistance getting their shopping bags to their car or something like that. Are there individuals like this? Human angels, who spend time “waiting for the opportunity to help the humble and the needy” selflessly?

CHESED IN YOUR DNA …

Abraham is proactive in his kindness; he does not wait at the door of his house for someone to come and ask for his help. The visitors did not even approach Abraham’s tent. It was Abraham who literally “ran” to meet these strangers; he offered them water, food, and shade as if he had something to sell! The Tora records this particular story because, in the end, these men announced to Abraham that Sara would have a son, but we must remember that this action of Abraham was not the exception but the rule. Abraham devoted his life to this Chesed. The Sages explained that Abraham invited foreigners to his house regularly. And they added that when the guests finished eating and wanted to bless Abraham for his generosity, he would tell them, “You don’t need me to thank me, we need to thank the Creator, who has provided us with this food” (nebarekh sheakhalnu mishelo). Abraham is from a different planet.

PROOF OF JUDAISM

Our Sages say that we, the descendants of Abraham Abinu, have inherited this virtue from him. The Sages affirm that the Jews possess three hereditary characteristics transmitted by our ancestors. So strong (and meaningful) is this genetic load that a Jew who does not have these virtues may not be a Jew: the first one of these traits is Gemilut Hassadim, the inclination of Jews to assist others, to proactively and selflessly care for those in need.



VAYERA: A Lesson in Parenting From The First Jewish Mother

DID SARA OVERREACT?

Abraham and Sara had no children. HaShem promised them that their descendants would inherit the land of Canaan. Sarah proposes to Abraham to take Hagar as a concubine and adopt her son as his own (a kind of surrogate motherhood), and this is how Yishmael, Abraham’s first son, is born. But after a few years, Sara miraculously gets pregnant, and Yitschaq is born. HaShem tells Abraham כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע, Gen. 21:12 “Your descendants will come from Yitschaq”, not from Yishmael. Yishmael, because he is Abraham’s son, לגדול גוי אשימנו, “will also become a powerful nation.” Now there are two boys at home. And the Tora tells us (21: 9) what Sara witnessed: “And Sara saw that the son of Hagar the Egyptian [Yishmael]… was having fun / was playing [with Yitschaq]. And she said to Abraham: Send this woman and her son away! … “. What happened here? Why did Sara ask to send Yishmael away? Just because he was “playing” with Yitschaq?Did Sara overreact?

HUNGER GAMES

It all comes down to the meaning of the word מצחק “having fun, playing games with”. What is the nature of the “games” that the text describes here? There are a few opinions. According to a first opinion, Yishmael played “bow and arrow” with Yitschaq, William Tell’s style. Sara saw Yishmael, a young adult, “practicing” with her little boy, and she got terrified. Sara understood that Yishmael was, consciously or not, dangerously jealous of Yitschaq and decided to expel him. There is a second interpretation, according to which Yishmael’s games did not threaten Yitschaq’s physical integrity but his moral character. The young Yishmael was not playing with Legos or racing cars. Yishmael, a teenager with testosterone, played games that the Midrash describes as: “Idolatry, promiscuity, and murder.”

NON-VIRTUAL REALITY

Let’s start with the end. Think about those modern video games. A child earns points for killing people while driving a car, shooting and killing bystanders, “eating an opponent’s head, pulling out their stomach after spitting acid down their throat and slicing them in half with a saw” (see here). I don’t know what was the equivalent of Mortal Kombat in those days, but Sara had a very compelling argument about protecting Yitschaq’s character development. Yitschaq, the first Jewish child and the paradigm of EVERY Jewish child, was destined to follow and continue the path of Abraham, the kindest man on earth. As a wise mother, Sara saw that the power of the influence of Yishmael, a young man with a very violent personality, as we will later see, would cause irreversible damage to Yitschaq’s values and personality. Sara also understood that even if she got Yishmael’s mom to rebuke her son once or twice, he would not change. Why? Because Hagar, Yishmael’s biological mother, did not share Sara’s concern. She was OK with her son’s character. How do we know this?

ILLUMINATING MIDRASHIM

Once again, we need the Midrash. Some Hakhamim said that when Sara asked Hagar about Yishmael’s violent behavior, Hagar calmly replied: “metsacheq”, “Don’t worry, he is just playing”, in other words: “These are just children’s games! Don’t take this seriously”.

Hagar reminds us of that permissive mother who, out of naivety (or comfort) chooses not to get too involved with her children’s games, friends, and influences. She thinks, “my son is just having fun, playing with other children”. Similarly, Hagar was probably not bothered by Yishmael’s promiscuous games (who knows what those games were.) or by Aboda Zara. She probably did not care about what Abraham was trying to change in the world. Hagar’s educational philosophy was opposite to Sara’s: Sara wanted to INSTILL in Yitschaq principles and values, whereas Hagar felt that Yishmael would choose his pathway in life when he grew up. Thanks to these Midrashim, our perspective of Sara’s “drastic” decision is a little broader. We can appreciate that Sara felt the power of bad influences and understood that Hagar did not share her concerns.

IN THE END, THEY ARE ALWAYS RIGHT …

And in the end, we see that Sara’s concerns about Yishmael proved correct. Yishmael did not become a man of God like his father, Abraham.

Neither a merchant nor a farmer. In pasuq 21:20 we see the final destination of Yishmael ויהי רובה קשת; he became an archer, a hunter of animals, and perhaps also a warrior, a hunter of people. Yishmael became as an adult, what he played as a teenager.

We have a lot to thank and to learn from Sara.

Among other things,

1. Knowing that bad company, bad friends, and violent or promiscuous games exert more influence on our children than the words and verbal lessons we parents impart to them. 

2. The games our children play in their childhood, which they absorb at a tender age, will probably become part of their adult personality. (גרסא דינקותא לא זזה ממקומה)

3. And finally, sometimes we must take drastic measures to protect our children’s minds, innocence, and values. We must educate them as true descendants of Abraham Abinu and Sara Imenu.



Noah and the Seven Commandments

THE GENERATION OF THE FLOOD

When God created humanity, He endowed them with a neshamá—the soul, intelligence, the capacity to think, and the freedom to choose. These faculties were described in the biblical text as being “in the image and likeness of God.” Humanity was not created as just another part of nature but as a supernatural being with the potential to choose between good and evil, to follow the Creator’s guidance, or to be swayed by earthly, insatiable desires.

Ten generations after creation, humanity, as a whole, chose the path of evil. Corruption and violence became normalized in that generation. The powerful—those who should have used their ability and power to lead, organize, and inspire—exploited their leadership for personal gain and to oppress the weak. The prevailing rule was “the survival of the fittest,” where the strong devoured the weak. Corruption is contagious, and human society degraded itself, sacrificing its divine image. Humanity transformed into an intelligent predator, driven solely by the satisfaction of animalistic instincts. This generation is known as Dor haMabbul, the generation deemed deserving of being wiped from the earth by the Flood.

One man, Noah, proved to be an exception to this rule. Compared to the rest of the world—or, according to another view, despite the widespread corruption—Noah conducted himself with integrity, living with an awareness of God’s existence, something that had become obsolete for the rest of humankind.

God saves Noah and grants humanity a second chance. Noah builds the ark, and he, his wife, his three sons, and their wives—a total of eight people—along with the animals, survive the devastating Flood.

THE FIRST LAW

After leaving the ark, God blesses Noah, urging him to be fruitful, multiply, and repopulate the earth. He presents a set of fundamental laws to educate humanity and prevent its moral decline. The first law pertains to animals. God permits Noah and his descendants to kill animals and consume their flesh (Genesis 9:3), something that was previously forbidden, as God had instructed Adam and Eve to consume only plants: seeds, vegetables, and fruits. Now, God allows humanity to take the lives of animals. This law reflects humanity’s new status: having once been the protector of the animal kingdom, humans would now be the predator at the top of the food chain.

Nevertheless, or perhaps because of this, God imposes one limitation to preserve, in some way, their humanity in this area: humans cannot mutilate a living animal and consume its flesh, as carnivorous predators do with live prey. Before consuming an animal’s flesh, it must first be sacrificed. This law is known in Hebrew as eber min hachay (prohibition against eating from a living animal).

THE SECOND LAW

The second law God commands Noah also pertains to killing, but this time about another human being. This law is formulated differently than the “You shall not kill” of the Ten Commandments and states: “Whoever sheds the blood of a man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind” (Genesis 9:6). This law establishes capital punishment for the crime of murder. It is formulated primarily to prevent the impunity that characterized the previous generation’s widespread corruption. Here, it will not be God who enforces justice but humans themselves, who are tasked with punishing abuse and establishing that, regardless of position or wealth, every human being deserves respect, having been created in the image and likeness of God.

 

THE COVENANT BETWEEN GOD AND NOAH

In a sense, God entrusts humanity with the responsibility of enforcing punishment where it is due, which is why one of the seven Noahide laws—though not explicitly written—is the obligation to establish courts of justice that apply the law and punish criminals. For His part, God promises never to bring another flood or universal catastrophe to destroy humanity. The rainbow will serve as a reminder that the rain will eventually cease and that God will not erase humanity from the face of the earth.

These three basic laws are the foundation of what is known as the Seven Laws of Noah: 1. Do not murder. 2. Do not eat meat from a living animal. 3. Prohibition of idolatry, 4. Blasphemy, 5. Theft, and 6. Incest. 7. The obligation to establish courts of justice that will prevent impunity.



BERESHIT: Dinosaurs in the Bible

BACK TO THE BEGINNING

This year,  Parashat Bereshit, Genesis, which contains the account of the creation of the world, left us with only one day to study it—this past Shabbat—so before saying goodbye to Bereshit until next year, I want to share with you a brief reflection on something new we can learn from this Parasha. About ten years ago, I published my book “Awesome Creation”, where I explained the story of the world’s creation based on a faithful reading of the Hebrew Bible. I showed that when this literal reading (peshat) is ignored—voluntarily or involuntarily—many critical aspects of Emuná (Jewish faith) are affected, and the Tora can be discredited, reducing it to the level of fables or, God forbid, a irrelevant text. Today, I will mention an example of a topic I have not yet published. This example, I believe, deserves the first prize for ignorance of biblical Hebrew and its unexpected consequences.

THE FIRST ANIMALS

The initial chapter of Bereshit (Genesis) mentions the creation of the first animals that appeared on our planet on the fifth day. The Hebrew text says: וַיִּבְרָ֣א אֱלֹקים אֶת־הַתַּנִּינִ֙ם֙ הַגְּדֹלִ֔ים וְאֵ֣ת כָּל־נֶ֣פֶשׁ הַֽחַיָּ֗ה הָֽרֹמֶשֶׂת֙

“And God created the  taninim gedolim and all [other] living creatures….”

What were the taninim gedolim?

Let’s begin with the first word. Tanin (singular of taninim) appears about 15 times in the Tanakh and describes a group of animals, including crocodiles, lizards, snakes, and vipers. In other words, in biblical Hebrew, tanin means “reptile.” The next word, gedolim, plural of gadol, does not necessarily mean “large” in size. Depending on the context, it can also mean “terrible,” “fearsome,” or “powerful.” In my book, I mention several examples of this connotation, such as when God punishes Pharaoh for taking Abraham’s wife. It says nega’im gedolim (Genesis 12:17), translated as “terrible” plagues or diseases. In our context, the best translation of the word gedolim, which expresses both size and the fear these animals inspired, could be “imposing or giant.”

Therefore, taninim gedolim should be translated as “great/giant reptiles,” but inexplicably, this translation almost doesn’t exist!

THE CONSEQUENCES OF IGNORANCE

Let’s look, for example, at a classic non-Jewish translation, the New American Standard Bible  from 1995

”God created the great sea monsters and every living creature”

Why translate taninim as “sea monsters,” two words that don’t appear in the original Hebrew text?

First, let’s clarify that in biblical Hebrew, the word “monster” does not exist (Note 1), simply because the Tora does not believe in monsters,  despite the fact that  ALL ancient civilizations believed in monsters and mentioned them regularly in their creation myths (see, for example, here: Tiamat). That’s is the reason why a translation that renders taninim as “monsters” instead of “reptiles” should be considered tendentious and even offensive, as it—voluntarily or involuntarily—equates the Tora with pagan mythological legends.

So, how should the expression taninim gedolim be translated?

IN GREEK AND HEBREW

Richard Owen (1804–1892) was a renowned British scientist and paleontologist known for his work in classifying fossil remains of prehistoric animals. In 1842, he coined the term dinosaur to describe a group of huge extinct reptiles. This term, dinosaur, is a combination of two words of Greek origin: deinos, which means gigantic, powerful, imposing, or fearsome (similar semantic field of gedolim) , and saurus, which means lizard or reptile. Thus, the term dinosaur means “the gigantic reptiles” of ancient times, the exact words that the Tora uses to describe the first creatures created by God on the fifth day!

MONSTERS OR MONSTROSITIES?

The word “monsters” found its way in the Bibles’s translations possibly from non-Jewish commentaries written before Owen classified these fossils as “dinosaurs.” Pagan cultures assumed that those giant fossils that appeared everywhere in the world, belonged to monsters or dragons, imaginary beings worthy of pagan mythology. This would explain why the word “monster” was used in the Middle Ages. But to translate taninim gedolim as “sea monsters” in the 20th or 21st century (Note 2) is unforgivable because it forces a mythological reading of the Tora and takes away its incredible historical credibility.

The translation of taninim gedolim as “dinosaurs”—or at least as “great reptiles”—should be the most literal translation, and a testimony that the Tora was the FIRST and ONLY ancient book that records the existence of these prehistoric creatures—the first animals created by God on earth—without legends or fictions worthy of Harry Potter.

Note 1: The word mifletzet, used in modern Hebrew for “monster,” describes a totem of pagan peoples, like pesilim, see Jeremiah 50:38.

Note 2: The word “sea” also does not appear in the text, which, by the way, does NOT describe only animals that inhabit the sea!



SHOFETIM: Children and Bamboo Trees

כי האדם עץ השדה

Debarim 20:19

Towards the end of this week’s Parasha, the Tora addresses the laws of war and teaches the Jewish soldier to behave with respect and dignity, even on the battlefield. One of the most notable details refers to not destroying the city or the fields without reason. Trees are specifically mentioned, suggesting they should not be seen and attacked as “the enemy.” The unusual language used by the Tora on this occasion lends itself to metaphorical interpretations that arise when comparing men and trees.

Today I would like to extend this comparison to the area of our children’s education (parenting) and reflect on the inexhaustible patience that this task demands.

At times, our children seem to stagnate, not maturing at the pace we hoped for. This concern intensifies when they have brothers or sisters who do seem to progress. Parents sometimes do not understand the influence of time on the development of our children and find themselves caught up in worries, suffering unnecessary tensions. We forget what an expert once mentioned: that most of the behavioral problems of children are resolved over time.

I remember certain students from our Talmud Torah: in fifth and sixth grade, they were a constant challenge. Restless, they kept talking and interrupting. They bothered their peers, disobeyed the teachers, and often the only solution was to send them out of the classroom. They spent more time with the principal than with their classmates. But, over time, after 15 years or more, I have seen many of these “unbearable” children transform into exemplary parents, successful entrepreneurs, brilliant professionals, or people with admirable religious discipline.

What happened?

They were maturing at their own pace or, as neurologists say, “the brain needed time to build and strengthen the connections between its areas and hemispheres”.

Having patience does not mean that we parents will sit around waiting —and praying— for our children to mature. It is essential that we are always there to talk, guide, and encourage our children. We must never stop doing it.

To better understand the growth process many of our children go through and understand our role as parents in this process, I would like to share with you the story of the growth of the bamboo tree.

Initially, it is essential to prepare the soil, choose an optimal location with enough light and moisture. Then one sows the seeds. During the first year, the soil with the seeds is constantly watered, but nothing visible happens. In the second year, it is watered and fertilized, but still, not a single shoot sprouts. The third year continues watering and taking care of the area, hoping to see some change, but there are still no signs of bamboo. In the fourth year, you look at the ground and see no progress. The fifth-year comes, and, seeing no results, one might think they have failed in their attempt to grow bamboo. However, surprisingly, in the middle of that year, the bamboo starts to grow rapidly and, in just six months, reaches an impressive height of up to 30 meters!

The million-dollar question is: How long did it take the bamboo to grow? The immediate answer seems to be “six months”. But in reality, it took the bamboo five and a half years to grow. That is, to break through the ground, literally, and begin to grow. And once it started, nothing can stop it.

It should also be noted that, although the progress was not noticeable, during those five and a half years, the bamboo was growing downwards: it was forming a robust root system capable of supporting its great size.

Our children often experience a process similar to bamboo. Their growth requires constant care, “even if the results are not noticeable”, with inexhaustible patience. Remember the bamboo: if, during the first five years, one had given up and stopped watering or protecting the bamboo, that tree would never have emerged.

Every word of encouragement we give them, even in their moments of rebellion or immaturity, is uplifting. They are like water to the bamboo. Our children grow and develop in ways we don’t see. We don’t know when that internal growth will begin to manifest outwardly and reach surprising heights, sometimes even surpassing their siblings, who seemed to develop more quickly.

Like bamboo trees, our children need us to nurture them with love and care constantly.

Over time, and with divine help, they will mature and flourish.

Rabbi Yosef Bitton



SHOFETIM: Kings, with limited powers

One of the main issues discussed in our Parasha is the role of the “king” of Israel. Unlike other monarchies around the world, for the Jewish people, the king was not the central figure. The Tora seems to “tolerate” the people’s desire to have a king but does not prescribe it as the ideal situation for the People of God. We see this reflected in the book of Shemuel, chapter 8:7, when God tells Samuel that the people are asking for a king because “they have rejected Me…”.

The Jewish king must maintain a low profile, which is in complete contrast to gentile kings who imposed their superiority on their subjects to earn respect. Gentile kings viewed themselves—and behaved—as “gods.” Egypt had many gods, but Pharaoh was considered above all of them. As Yechezqel (29:3) says of the Egyptian monarch: “The Great Crocodile [as Pharaoh referred to himself], who says: mine is the Nile River [also a supreme divinity in Egypt] and I created myself.” A similar situation existed with Roman kings and emperors, like Caligula, who presented himself as a god, even in the Roman Senate. In the Middle Ages, kings were not much different. They may not have claimed to be gods, but they often considered themselves the “spokesperson” of their gods, which made their decisions—no matter how immoral or arbitrary—seem divinely sanctioned and infallible (as is still the case with the Pope today). Gentile kings, in general, were above the law and not accountable to any higher authority because there was none. Obeying the king was seen as obeying God. This allowed countless abuses and atrocities to be committed by kings in the name of their gods. The Tora, however, is unique in this respect—absolutely revolutionary.

Our Parasha describes three unique characteristics of the king of Israel:

  1. The king of Israel has limitations. He cannot accumulate wealth, meaning he could not justify charging excessive taxes from the people. The Jewish king couldn’t have too many horses, so he would not build a more powerful army than necessary. He also couldn’t have too many wives, which, among other things, limited his ability to form alliances with neighboring gentile peoples (Debarim 17:16-17).
  2. The king of Israel had to be a talmid hakham, meaning a Tora scholar. He was required to write a Sefer Tora, or at least the book of Debarim (17:18), and carry it with him wherever he went, ensuring that he would always remember to remain faithful to the Divine law. The king of Israel had to study the Tora “all the days of his life” (17:19) to understand everything that HaShem expects of him and of each of his subjects. This study was not meant to show off his wisdom to nobles or commoners, but to improve his behavior and refine his character, as we will see below.
  3. Perhaps the most defining characteristic of the Jewish king was that he must behave with humility, in complete opposition to gentile kings—and even some contemporary presidents. The Tora explicitly states in Debarim 17:20: “[The king will have to read the Tora…] so that his heart does not exalt itself above his brothers and does not turn from the commandments to the right or to the left.” The key lesson of this verse is that the Tora does not say the king should not exalt himself above “his subjects,” but above his “brothers.” Why? Because in the Jewish people, the relationship between the king and his people was not vertical but horizontal. It was not “king/subjects” but “elder brother/brothers.” While in other nations the king was an exception to the law—free to change it at will due to his status as the spokesman for the gods—the king of Israel was the first to declare his submission to the law. In the Jewish nation, the king is not the “central figure” because the law does not depend on his authority. That is why the Tora does not include any specific mitzva to obey the human king: both the kings and the people of Israel are equally bound to obey the same law—the Tora.

The following sentence summarizes the key difference between the Jewish king and gentile kings:

While in other nations the king is god, for Israel, God is the King.

Shabbat Shalom!

Shabbat Shalom!


PERASHAT REE: ¿How does HaShem open your hand?

There is a very well known pasuq (verse) in Tehiim. We say every day of the year, three times per day. And this pasuq has a particularity. It must be said with kavana, that is, thinking about what we are saying. To the point that if you did not recite this verse paying attention to its meaning, you should say it again. This verse is found in Tehila leDavid (ashré …), Psalm 145. Pasuq, 145: 16, reads: “poteakh et yadekha …”. The conventional translation is: “You open Your hand and satisfy all creatures according to their will” (or as per Rashi, “… according to Your will”). Either way, the traditional explanation is that this pasuq speaks of “the hands of God,” which is obviously a metaphor. And it means that in due time (be’itó) the Creator “opens His hands” and grants His blessing, providing food for all living things. HaShem has designed a miraculous, highly sophisticated mechanism, which scientists call “ecology” or “food chain”, through which food is assigned to all living creatures. It is no wonder then, that this pasuq should be read carefully, to reinforce our belief that our livelihood depends on the will of God as well.
As we all know, the Tora allows (or requires us) multiple interpretations. There are literal interpretations (peshat) and non-literal interpretations (derash). The difference is that while non literal readings could be expressed with a wide linguistic license, literal interpretations must fit the standard semantics of the Hebrew language. And usually, while non-literal interpretations are often very abundant and diverse, the literal meaning is reduced, usually, only to one possible reading.
Our pasuq in Tehilim is an exception to this rule. As it lends itself to an alternative (perhaps complementary) reading that adheres strictly to the literal sense of its words. How can that be? In Hebrew, verbs in the present tense are identical for the first, second and third person in singular. In Hebrew, “I write, you write or he writes,” is said in the same way “KOTEB”.
Now, the first word of this verse, POTEAH, is usually read: “[You, HaShem,] open Your hand and satisfy all creatures according to their will.” But the first three words in Hebrew can also be read in a different way, without violating the literal sense; “[HaShem] opens your hand, and satisfy all creatures according to their will.” In this second reading The Creator does not open His hand, He opens “our hands”, human hands, to satisfy all creatures.
According to this second reading, HaShem somehow opens our hands to help those who do not have what to eat and satisfy the hunger of others.
But, how is it that God opens our hands?
The answer is found in the Tora portion of this week, Re-e. In Chapter 15:7 the Tora speaks about the Mitsva of Tsedaqa. God asks us not to close our hand when our brothers needs help (לא תקפוץ את ידך מאחיך האביון). And in the next pasuq 15: 8, the Tora uses words that is impossible not to associate with our pasuq of Tehilim. Debarim 15: 8, says: “Rather, you must open your hand   [to your needy brother] and provide him all that he lacks”. In Hebrew” patoah tiftah et yedekhá it (פתוח תפתח את ידך לו) “.
According to this interpretation, God opens our hands through the Mitsva of Tsedaqá,  and by opening our hands, He grants each person what they need.
Thus, through  Tsedaqá, we become an instrument of God. We are part of this Divine Ecology, a human chain of hesed that HaShem established to give everyone what they need.
According to this interpretation, when we open our hands and say POTEAH ET YADEKHA, we are not thinking only of what our hands will receive. Rather, we focus on what our hands are going to give.
Shabbat Shalom!

 



REE: The Human Food Chain

מצות עשה ליתן צדקה לעניי ישראל כפי מה שראוי לעני, אם הייתה יד הנותן משגת–שנאמר  פתוח תפתח את ידך
 

~ Open your hands and satisfy all creatures according to Your will ~

There is a well known verse of Tehillim (Psalms) which we say three times a day.
This pasuq contains a particularity; it must be said with kavana- we must pay attention to the meaning, and internalize the message within it. Found in psalm 145, Tehila LeDavid (Ashre’), it is the 16th pasuq and reads, “Poteach ‘et yadecha, Umasbia lekhol chai ratson…” The conventional translation is: [You, HaShem,] Open Your hands, and satisfy all creatures according to Your will.” It seems to be that the pasuq here is referring to the hands of God- an obvious metaphor- and indicates that our Creator permanently “opens His hands,” providing the food and sustenance which all living beings need.
Within the animal kingdom, HaShem designed a highly sophisticated, miraculous mechanism. Scientists like to refer to it as the “food chain.” This ecological mechanism allows each creature of the forest, jungle, and sea alike, to have what to eat.

Similar to the other living creators, human beings also find our sustenance within plants and other animals. But there is one particular element corresponding exclusively to the human race; those who have food, or those who have extra; feed those who do not have food, or those who have less.
Not only do we not eat eachother, but we also have the capacity, which no other living being has, for solidarity and altruism.
So, returning to our verse, what role does our Creator play in the human food chain?

As we know, the Tora in its overall Text allows us (or rather, requires us) to multiple interpretations. There are literal interpretations (peshat), and non literal ones (derash). In this case, we will obtain an interpretation strictly conforming to the literal meaning of the Text that will provide us with an answer to our question.
In Hebrew vocabulary, verbs in the present tense are issued in the same form for first, second, or third person- singular. For example, “I write,” “you write,” or “he writes” are all translated into Hebrew as, “koteb.” In our case, the first word of our verse, “poteach,” can then be read as we did previously “[You, HaShem,] open Your hands and satisfy all creatures according to Your will.”
However, the first three words of this verse can be given a different interpretation, without violating its literal meaning. Let me suggest an alternate translation: “[HaShem] opens your (the readers) hand, and thus satisfies all creators according to His will.”
In this second reading, using “poteach,” as a transitive verb, the Creator opens our hands to satisfy the hunger of other human beings. HaShem opens our hands to help those who do not have what to eat.

How does God open our hands?
The answer is found in this week’s Perasha, Re-e. In 15:7, the Text mentions the misva of Tsedaqa. HaShem asks us not to close our hands when our fellow Israelite is in need, “לא תקפוץ את ידך מאחיך האביון.” And the words used in the next verse, 15:8, are impossible to not associate with our verse in Tehillim.
The eighth pasuq reads, “For you must open your hand… [to your brother in need] and you will provide him with all that he needs” (פתוח תפתח את ידך לו). According to our interpretation, HaShem is opening our hands through the misva of Tsedaqa; and by opening our hands, grants each person with the food that they need.
Through the misva of tzedaqa, we become an instrument of God in part of the human-chain. The chain of hessed, that HaShem has implemented through our hands so everyone has what to eat…
And thus, His will is fulfilled.
Shabbat Shalom.



VAETCHANAN: The Perils Of Inherited Wealth

“When HaShem your God brings you to the land that He promised to your parents Abraham, Isaac and Jacob … you will inherit lands with great cities that you did not build; with houses full of all kinds of good things, that you did not work for them; with wells of water that you did not dig and with vines and olive groves that you did not plant, so when you eat and feel [comfortable and] satisfied, be careful not to forget HaShem, your God, who took out of Egypt, the house bondage! “
Deut. 6: 10-12
The people of Israel are getting ready to enter the Promised Land. They will have to fight to conquer it, but HaShem promised them that He will join them in the battlefield. On the military plane, thus, success is guaranteed. “With the help of God”, literally, they will conquer the land of Israel. In speaking to the people, Moshe is not concerned with war but with peace. And more specifically for the side effects of prosperity in times of peace.
The land they are going to be given is fully functional. Jews will not be forced to spend the next few years working hard to build their cities, their walls, their houses and sow their fields. After conquering the land they will “inherit” cities that are fully operative; wells and cisterns filled with water; fields with grain ready to be collected, and trees and vineyards bearing fruit. But this, which seems to be the fulfillment of every a man’s greatest dream, can become a trap from a spiritual or psychological point of view. The Tora warns the people of Israel against the phenomenon that some call “affluenza”.
On June 15, 2013, 16 years old Ethan Couch, killed four people while driving intoxicated. He was indicted on four counts of manslaughter. But was not sent to prison. Instead, the Judge sentenced him to 10 years of probation and therapy after this attorney argued that Couch suffered from “affluenza”, that is to say, he didn’t know boundaries because his rich parents didn’t set any, and he therefore needed rehabilitation instead of prison (this is , by the way, a great example of what Theodore Dalrymple mentions in his book: “Admirable Evasions, how psychology undermines morality”. Thanks to Dr Sauly Harari for getting me this great book!).
Those who are most exposed to contract affluenza are people who have everything they want “by inheritance.” These privileged individuals did not need to earn their money by working hard. The great effort was made by their parents. And many parents (wrongly) believe that allowing their children to enjoy material abundance without doing enough to deserve it, is good for their children. Parents innocently think that privileged children will always display great appreciation to their benefactors, and be eternally grateful to them. What’s more: many parents think that since their children have received so much, and know the great feeling of being the recipient of an abundance of blessings, they will be naturally inclined to be generous, considerate and magnanimous with others, imitating what their parents did for them.
But it often happens that, far from grateful, kind and considerate, by “giving them everything they want without demanding efforts from them” parents accomplished the exact opposite effect: their children become spoiled; do not appreciate or value what they receive because they tend to take everything for granted, and become selfish and self centered. Moreover: many children that get used to receiving everything effort-free, do not feel any need “to give” back or redistribute their privileges with others. Rather, they are always expecting to receive more. And behave as if the entire world is there to please them, like their parents did.
This was Moshe Rabbenu’s greatest fear. He worried that something similar could happen to the people of Israel with the inheritance that God is giving them for free. They might be affected by “affluenza” and become selfish, demanding, spoiled and ungrateful. And this is why he warns us: Beware of the effects of wealth, especially inherited wealth. Never forget “WHO” gave you everything you have.
The Tora expects us to do at least these two things to protect us from affluenza:
First, that we learn to value what we have, and express our appreciation permanently. So, for example, every time we enjoy or eat something we bless (= acknowledge) God before we benefit from it. And, every time we finish eating a meal we express our thanks to God, out loud and in an elaborate prayer called “Birkat haMazon.” These Mitzvot / gestures will keep our sense of appreciation awake and alert.
Second, beyond appreciation, HaShem also demands us to behave as He behaves. He has instructed us to “imitate His generosity” by sharing the gifts we received from Him with those who have less than us.
And when we give to others and share our blessings, we naturally learn to appreciate more what we have received and inherited from Him.