Parashat Miketz, Genesis 41:1-44:17,Shabbat Hanukkah

The 5771 parsha series is made possible by the dedication of our donors Randy Gangbar in memory of Marcy Gangbar, Jacob Langer and Ferne Sherkin-Langer and family, an anonymous donor in memory of Esther and Sheldon Litowitz, and many online donors.

Click here if you would like to sponsor a weekly learning or support the series.

Joseph's concern is survival, but what type of survival?

Years ago as a student in New York City, I lived around the corner from a fabulous produce store. There was always an abundance of fruits and vegetables thanks to the hardworking owner, Ahn, and his family. Ahn was at the market at 4:30 AM and stayed at the store well beyond the 8 PM closing time. Ahn and his family were an integral part of the neighborhood and people were thrilled when Ahn's first child was born. When asked the child's name, Ahn would always reply with two names: a Korean name and an English name by which he would be known in the community.

There is a delicate balancing act when it comes to immigrants and names. A name may provide a connection to a distant land and family. A name may also be an entrée into a new society. This experience of a Korean family is similar to that of the Bengali family in Jhumpa Lahiri’s
novel The Namesake. There is a private name and a public name. The twist is that the first generation American has neither a Bengali nor an English name but is named after the Russian author Nikolai Gogol. Still, his experience with a foreign name is familiar to many first generation North Americans:

As a young boy Gogol doesn't mind his name. …For birthdays his mother orders a cake on which his name is piped across in the white frosted surface in a bright blue sugary script. It seems perfectly normal. It doesn't bother him that his name is never an option on key chains or metal pins or refrigerator magnets.

The Namesake, Jhumpa Lahiri, p. 66

My Korean grocer's solution made it possible for his children to buy these personalized key chains. Jews have often followed the same pattern, giving their children secular as well as Jewish names. As it turns out, this is not a modern trend. The Hasmoneans gave their children Greek names in addition to Hebrew ones. A peek at their genealogy shows that the children of Shimon (brother of Yehudah the Maccabbee) were named Matityahu, Yehudah, and Yohanan Hyrcanus. The latter had three sons named Aristobulus, Antigone, and Alexander Jannai. By this point their Hebrew names were secondary – and these were the Jewish leaders of the Hasmonean dynasty, direct descendants of the Maccabean struggle.

This is what makes Joseph's choice of names for his children so interesting. In parashat Miketz, Joseph is now in a high position in Pharaoh's court. He's got new clothing, a new wife (daughter of an Egyptian priest), and a new name bestowed by Pharaoh. As preparation is being made for the years of famine, Joseph, aka Zaphenath-paneah, (Genesis 41:45), and Asenath, aka Mrs. Zaphenath-paneah, start a family. Joseph named the first-born Manasseh, meaning, "God has made me forget completely my hardship and my parental home." And the second he named Ephraim, meaning, "God has made me fertile in the land of my affliction." (Genesis 41:51-52)

Joseph now has a public and a private name. His sons have names that commentators connect to Hebrew roots.

Both names are fraught with paradox. Manasseh is named for forgetfulness. …The midrashic tradition indicates that he is referring specifically to his spiritual heritage (his "Torah learning"): he names his first-born son for the alienation that he experiences from his native culture…
Ephraim, his second son, is also named out of Joseph's passionate concern with survival: "God has made me fertile in the land of my affliction." The paradoxical thrust is palpable: fruitfulness and affliction are inseparable in Joseph's life.

Genesis: The Beginning of Desire, Avivah Gottlieb Zonberg, pp. 286, 288

Joseph's concern is survival, but what type of survival? He has a love-hate relationship with his new home, and rightly so. But, he has also had the chance to make a difference and he does this within the Egyptian system. He has risen to tremendous power but is still viewed as an outsider. This loneliness becomes apparent later in the parasha, when Joseph dines with his brothers: They served him by himself, and them by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves; for the Egyptians could not dine with the Hebrews, since that would be abhorrent to the Egyptians. (Genesis 43:32)

Joseph poses all the power in the ancient world, and yet he dines alone. Egyptian on the outside, Hebrew on the inside, he does not belong anywhere. Joseph's father may have wrestled with beings divine and human but Joseph has a much greater battle: He wrestles with himself.

He is experiencing the immigrant's dilemma. Joseph has worked hard but does not quite fit in, and he can't go back "home" either. He faces an inner conflict, which should be familiar to the modern, post-Enlightenment Jew. How do we define our Judaism? How much is public, and how much private? Do we wear the garments of our society or do we dress in an identifiably Jewish way? What are we called in everyday life, and what in private? Most importantly, how do we define success? For Joseph, success is the power gained in Egypt and the role he played in the Egyptian administration. Success is measured by the values of his new homeland. Yes, he made a difference in the world, but in the long run it was short-term help and long-term affliction. Joseph is not counted among our forefathers, and it is the leader who follows him who is our greatest teacher. The legacy we have from Joseph are the names of his two sons, names expressing his yearning and ambivalence that we incorporate into the traditional blessings for our sons. We don't say, “May you be like Joseph,” but rather, “May God make you like Ephraim and Manasseh.”

Joseph is the dead end that leads into Egypt. It is only with Moses that a solution to this "neither/nor" experience can be found. Here too, Moses expresses his situation by bestowing a name on his son whom he named Gershom, for he said, "I have been a stranger in a foreign land."

Joseph sought the power of Egypt to sustain him, and it led to centuries of affliction. Moses, who grew up among power and privilege, ran away from it and discovered the means to free a people. The difference between the two is the lesson that is clearly stated in the haftarah for Shabbat Hanukkah: Not by might, not by power but by my spirit says the Lord of Hosts (Zechariah 4:6).

Shabbat shalom,
Rabbi Michal Shekel

Parashat Vayeishev, Genesis 37:1-40:23

The 5771 parsha series is made possible by the dedication of our donors Randy Gangbar in memory of Marcy Gangbar, Jacob Langer and Ferne Sherkin-Langer and family, an anonymous donor in memory of Esther and Sheldon Litowitz, and many online donors.

Click here if you would like to sponsor a weekly learning or support the series.

The pit is a turning point for Joseph and his siblings.

For those who can't make it to a beach, pool or playground fountain, water fun is portable thanks to water balloons and squirt guns. Though many North American parents shudder at the thought of toy guns, supersoakers seem to be an exception. This squirt toy on steroids was invented in the 1980s by Lonnie Johnson, a scientist with numerous patents to his name. He has worked for NASA and his company is currently engaged in coming up with a lithium car battery that will run 1,000 miles on a single charge. Not surprisingly, Johnson attributes his success to hard work.
"I've run into a lot of obstacles and a lot of reasons to give up. Quitting is not something I know how to do. My message is to persevere. Chase your dreams, because that's the one thing that makes the difference. It's not being super smart. It's not all these other things. It's just sticking with it."
Super Soaker inventor encourages students to persevere through difficulties
Rhoda A. Pickett, Press-Register, April 14, 2010
His message is refreshingly different from the motivational mantra frequently heard these days, the one that says "follow your dreams" but leaves out the hard work and perseverance.

Dreams and hard work are woven together in the person of Joseph, whom we meet in parashat Vayeishev. The 17-year-old, still wet-behind-the-ears favourite of his father, Jacob, Joseph has grandiose visions of his family bowing down to him. His siblings are not amused. Add to that the fact that he snitches on them to daddy and you have a disaster waiting to happen. One time, when his brothers had gone to pasture their father's flock at Shechem, Israel said to Joseph, "Your brothers are pasturing at Shechem. Come, I will send you to them." He answered, "I am ready." And he said to him, "Go and see how your brothers are and how the flocks are faring, and bring me back word." So he sent him from the valley of Hebron. (Genesis 37:12-14) Joseph's response of I am ready (hineni) is an indication that there is some hard work and perseverance awaiting him. All this is in the future. Joseph arrives at his destination and, well, his entrance doesn't exactly make a big splash with his brothers.

They saw him from afar, and before he came close to them they conspired to kill him. They said to one another, "Here comes that dreamer! Come now, let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits; and we can say, 'A savage beast devoured him.' We shall see what comes of his dreams!" But when Reuben heard it, he tried to save him from them. He said, "Let us not take his life." And Reuben went on, "Shed no blood! Cast him into that pit out in the wilderness, but do not touch him yourselves" — intending to save him from them and restore him to his father. When Joseph came up to his brothers, they stripped Joseph of his tunic, the ornamented tunic that he was wearing, and took him and cast him into the pit. The pit was empty; there was no water in it.

Genesis 37:18-24

The pit is a turning point for Joseph and his siblings. What is the purpose of the seemingly redundant phrase The pit was empty; there was no water in it? Simply, it is a statement of fact. "This is a necessary observation, because such pits were dug largely for water storage." (Etz Hayim commentary, p. 230) Then again, it may not be so simple. Rashi explains the redundancy as implying that if the pit were dry, it would be a marvellous home for snakes and scorpions. Thus, the fact that Joseph remains uninjured is miraculous. Norman Cohen (Self, Struggle and Change, p. 160) views the pit as representing Reuben's ambivalence towards his younger brother. Similarly, in Kol Ha-torah Elie Munk understands the pit as being the lesser of two evils. Simeon and Levi, having clearly shown their violent tendencies in last week's Torah portion (Genesis 34:25-31), were likely more than willing to kill their brother Joseph. By throwing Joseph into the pit, Reuben may have actually been saving Joseph's life. Munk understands Reuben's strategy to be that if Joseph were innocent, God would save him.

While some commentators attempt to give God a role in this event, others maintain a critical focus on Jacob's sons. In midrash Bereshit Rabbah (84:16) Rabbi Aha explains the empty pit metaphorically by claiming that "Jacob's pit was empty," the lack of water referring to a dearth of Torah, meaning that Jacob's sons lacked knowledge of Torah since they were willing to sell their brother. Taken further, this lack of holy water (Torah) indicates unethical behaviour.

Equating Torah and water is done quite elaborately in midrash Shir HaShirim Rabbah. Among the comparisons: Water stretches from one end of the earth to the other, as does Torah. Water is a source of life, as is Torah. Water restores the soul, as does Torah. Rain comes down in drops but forms rivers. So too, one who studies Torah gains a little knowledge every day until it becomes a flowing stream. But Jacob's sons are unaware of all this because "Just as water has no taste unless one is thirsty, so the Torah has no taste unless one labours at it". (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:19, Soncino translation.)

In Rabbi Aha's comment the drought of Torah refers to Joseph's brothers, yet Joseph suffers from the same dehydration. The continuation of the analogy of water and Torah could be describing him directly:

Just as water leaves a high place and flows to a low one, so the Torah leaves one whose spirit is proud and cleaves to one whose spirit is lowly. Just as water does not keep well in a vessel of silver or gold but in the commonest of vessels, so the Torah resides only in one who makes himself like a vessel of earthenware.

Shir Hashirim Rabbah 1:19, Soncino translation

Water recurs in the Joseph narrative. Seven cows come out of the Nile in Pharaoh's dream (Genesis 41). When Joseph's brothers come to him, he sends water to wash their feet (Genesis 43:24) Okay, an Egyptian king will inevitably dream of the Nile, and it is a Middle Eastern custom to wash the feet. But, contrast Joseph standing in the empty pit with his brothers bathing their feet in water. Joseph's exposure to water is directly related to his siblings. One would think that, after years in prison and in preparation to meet Pharaoh, Joseph would bathe or at least wash feet. Not so; only in reuniting with his siblings does Joseph come into contact with water. He is almost in tears when he greets them (Genesis 43:30) and must wash his face (Genesis 43:31). That's just the beginning: Only when the water flows is there full reconciliation … he embraced his brother Benjamin around the neck and wept, and Benjamin wept on his neck. He kissed all his brothers and wept upon them; only then were his brothers able to talk to him. (Genesis 45:14-15) (Joseph's tears were the subject of a previous study.)

Before he can quench his thirst, Joseph must realize he is thirsty. His brothers, too, will eventually go to Egypt to ease their hunger and end up by satiating their parched souls. Like Joseph and his brothers, we all experience our waterless pits. Some of us are inside trying to figure out how to get out. Some of us are sitting on top ignoring the person we tossed in the pit. Many of us have been in both situations. But whether inside or outside the pit, the end result is the same: The eventual realization of the nasty situation is akin to having cold water thrown on your face. The challenge is what to do once the water hits us. Will we play with squirt guns or dig irrigation ditches?

Like water, Torah is a nourishing resource, but it is only a resource. Becoming the Joseph who saves a nation, or the brothers who admit their wrongdoing, doesn't happen by knowing Torah. It is the difference between knowing and doing, turning dream into reality. God may provide the resource, but the final product depends on our own hard work and perseverance.

Shabbat shalom,
Rabbi Michal Shekel

Parashat Vayishlach, Genesis 32:4-36:43

The 5771 parsha series is made possible by the dedication of our donors Randy Gangbar in memory of Marcy Gangbar, Jacob Langer and Ferne Sherkin-Langer and family, an anonymous donor in memory of Esther and Sheldon Litowitz, and many online donors.

Click here if you would like to sponsor a weekly learning or support the series.

Jacob is changed for life, both spiritually and physically.

Maybe it's just that I'm bigger, but all the wonderful candy bars of my youth seem a lot smaller. Come to think of it, so are cans of tuna and bags of cranberries. Even soap bars make the list. These are regularly downsized for economic reasons: less product, same price, more profits.

Downsizing and profits go hand in hand. The term downsizing was first used in the 1970s with most sources tracing it to 1975. It was coined by the auto industry to describe its move to building smaller cars in response to the oil crisis. Eleven years later, "downsizing" became the explanation for companies doing away with jobs. This was different than a "layoff," where the workers would be rehired. Downsizing was a permanent change in the structure of the company. If there is one thing that hasn't been downsized, it is the use of this term. Today the term has expanded into personal life, such as "downsizing" from a house to an apartment.

This type of "downsizing" seems to be an activity for later in life. The youthful years are spent acquiring things, which must then be sorted and disposed of as one ages. Many material things become less important. Our patriarch Jacob provides us with an example. Last week, having left home and set off to find his place in the world, he makes a vow that God will be his God if, among other things, God provides Jacob with bread to eat and clothing to wear (Genesis 28:20). Over the course of twenty years, Jacob does quite well and sets off for home with all his livestock and all the wealth that he had amassed, the livestock in his possession that he had acquired in Paddan-aram (Genesis 31:18).

In this week's parashah, Vayishlach, Jacob prepares to reunite with his brother Esau. As part of the reunion Jacob sends ahead numerous gifts in an attempt to appease his brother. Esau has also done quite well and says he lacks nothing, but Jacob is insistent: Please accept my present which has been brought to you, for God has favored me and I have plenty. (Genesis 33:11)

Okay, gift-giving is not the same as downsizing, it can actually be quite competitive –such as the potlatch ceremonies that were practiced by indigenous people in the Pacific Northwest. Today, partially due to economic conditions, less-is-more is fashionable: fewer clothes that are more versatile, smaller cars rather than oversized vehicles, tinier cameras and computers – but wait, now we're slowly creeping back to wants rather than needs.

Let's get back to Jacob: His downsizing, which occurs before he meets Esau, is not a material downsizing. It comes as part of his prayerful anticipation of that reunion:

Then Jacob said, "O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, O Lord, who said to me, 'Return to your native land and I will deal bountifully with you'! I am unworthy of all the kindness that You have so steadfastly shown Your servant: with my staff alone I crossed this Jordan, and now I have become two camps. Deliver me, I pray, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau; else, I fear, he may come and strike me down, mothers and children alike. Yet You have said, 'I will deal bountifully with you and make your offspring as the sands of the sea, which are too numerous to count.'"

Genesis 32:10-12

This is a very different Jacob than the one who challenged God last week:

Jacob then made a vow, saying, "If God remains with me, if He protects me on this journey that I am making, and gives me bread to eat and clothing to wear, and if I return safe to my father's house — the Lord shall be my God. And this stone, which I have set up as a pillar, shall be God's abode; and of all that You give me, I will set aside a tithe for You."

Genesis 28:20-22

It is not just his anxiety at the reunion that has affected Jacob. Twenty years later he is a changed man. The youthful Jacob would never have claimed I am unworthy of all the kindness that You have so steadfastly shown Your servant… (Genesis 32:11) A younger Jacob would have voiced it with all the sarcasm of Wayne and Garth stating "we are not worthy" when meeting their rock idols. The more mature Jacob's statement I am unworthy (katonti) is the key to understanding who he has become.

The older Jacob expresses so much in this one single word: katonti. Nehama Leibowitz explains that Jacob has undergone "a reappraisal of his conduct." "Now he had been brought to realize the greatness of the creator's kindness to him. …His prayer had prompted him to see things in their true light." (New Studies in Bereshit, pp. 364, 365) Similarly, Sforno states that the kindnesses (hasadim) Jacob speaks of are undeserved blessings; his realization of this has humbled him.

What happens after Jacob realizes katonti? He sends presents to his brother and dispatches his family and all his possessions across the Jabbok River. Jacob was left alone (Genesis 32:25). Everyone and everything is gone. All that remains is the true, essential Jacob, katonti. It was at this point that Jacob struggles with a divine being. Jacob is changed for life, both spiritually and physically: Asking for a blessing, he was given a new name, Israel, and left with a limp. This divine encounter would have been impossible without Jacob's realization of katonti: His ego has been downsized and this is what finally allows him to connect to God and to his brother in a new way.

We too have passed through decades of greed and concern for material possessions. We struggle with secular forces enticing us to experience life through the brands of clothing we wear, the cars we drive, the places we live, and the food we eat. Attempts at self-improvement require a "material upgrade." Inevitably, all our encounters become tainted by this attitude. Relationships with others have also all-too-often been expressed in competitive "what's in it for me" terms.

Only recently have we begun to realize what Jacob discovered. The best upgrade is a downsizing of the ego. Expanding humility increases room for others in our lives. Our worth goes up through our own realization of katonti.

Shabbat shalom,
Rabbi Michal Shekel

Parashat Vayetze, Genesis 28:10-32:3

The 5771 parsha series is made possible by the dedication of our donors Randy Gangbar in memory of Marcy Gangbar, Jacob Langer and Ferne Sherkin-Langer and family, an anonymous donor in memory of Esther and Sheldon Litowitz, and many online donors.

Click here if you would like to sponsor a weekly learning or support the series.

There is no doubt that Rachel is an unusual woman, ahead of her time.

From Yente the matchmaker to Jdate, we are always trying to find the right mixture of elusive qualities that attract two people to each other. Nonetheless, sometimes there is love at first sight, as in parashat Vayetze. Jacob, who has left home and is going to his uncle Laban's dwelling runs into Rachel at a well, the biblical equivalent of a coffee shop or bar. No need to fill out any forms to check compatibility, he knows she is his basherte (intended). But life was not so simple in the "good ole days": Custom dictates that her older sister Leah must be married first; and it is a whole week after being tricked into marrying Leah that Jacob finally marries his beloved Rachel. Add to this household two handmaidens, Bilhah and Zilpah, and the results are a dozen sons who will father the twelve tribes of Israel and one lone sister, Dinah. This is one big though not necessarily happy family. Fast forward twenty years and God nudges Jacob to go back home. His two wives agree – their father views them as "outsiders"; there is no future for them with Laban.

So Jacob packs up, loads up his caravan, and gets ready to move back to his hometown. Unbeknownst to him among all the moving-day turmoil, …Rachel stole her father's household idols (teraphim). (Genesis 31:19) Jacob's beloved Rachel a thief? Say it ain't so! Surely, there must be an explanation for her behaviour!

Scholars have explored a variety of explanations for Rachel’s theft: to prevent Laban from divining the fleeing party’s location; because they were religiously meaningful to her; because she understood them as assuring inheritance rights for her family and/or herself. Whatever the precise significance of the teraphim, the connection between Rachel’s anger toward Laban and the theft of the teraphim cannot be denied. Though she has expressed her anger to Jacob, she apparently fears that he will not adequately represent her interests in any dispute with Laban. Naomi Steinberg characterizes the theft as ‘Rachel... settling Laban’s debt to her and Leah’. For Rachel the teraphim are hers by right.”

J. E. Lapsley, "The Voice of Rachel: Resistance and Polyphony in Genesis 31:14-35" in Genesis: A Feminist Companion to the Bible, Athalya Benner (ed.), p. 237

The problem with figuring out Rachel's intentions is that women rarely speak in the Torah. Parashat Vayetze is an exception: Rachel and Leah name their children and those of their handmaidens, providing us with a running commentary on what they are thinking. Both Leah and Rachel express displeasure with the way their father has treated them: "Have we still a share in the inheritance of our father's house? Surely, he regards us as outsiders, now that he has sold us and has used up our purchase price"(Genesis 31:14-15). Finally, there is Rachel's reaction when her father Laban comes searching for the teraphim: Rachel, meanwhile, had taken the idols and placed them in the camel cushion and sat on them; and Laban rummaged through the tent without finding them. For she said to her father, "Let not my lord take it amiss that I cannot rise before you, for the period of women is upon me." Thus he searched, but could not find the household idols (Genesis 31:34-35).

Her words have great significance. I cannot rise before you, lo uchal lakum mippanecha, can mean more than physically standing up. When Korach & his followers rebel against Moses' leadership, the term used is vayakumu lifne Moshe (Numbers 16:2-3). This literally means "they rose up before Moses" but in the sense of an uprising: They confronted Moses. A similar use of the verb k-u-m is found in Joshua 7:12-13, where the verb is used to describe Israel's confronting her enemies. Taken in this vein, Rachel is saying that she cannot confront her father.

That is not the end of her explanation: I cannot rise before you, for the period of women (derekh nashim) is upon me. Nachmanides, citing the Talmud, explains Rachel's words as relating to a cultural custom of avoiding menstruating women. Similarly, Nahum Sarna points out that in the Ancient Near East a menstruating woman was viewed as a contaminant (think Leviticus). Additionally, Sarna reminds us that stealing sacred items carried severe consequences in the ancient world. Yet, from a different perspective, Rachel is using the tools available to her within her surroundings to great effect.

Rachel is asserting a fact about the world in which she exists: she, as a woman, does not have access to the same legal process that Jacob and Laban do. An alternative translation underscores this meaning: the Hebrew words may accurately be translated, ‘the way of women is upon me’ (the NRSV translation), a turn of phrase that suggests the onus of bearing this condition of women in a male-dominated society. On this level, she is saying ‘I have the condition of women in this society; I cannot dispute with you publicly and legally’. Thirdly, she is saying something about her available options to rectify the injustice done to her. Rachel herself has chosen extra-legal means to get justice: she stole the teraphim (her inheritance).

J. E. Lapsley, "The Voice of Rachel: Resistance and Polyphony in Genesis 31:14-35" in Genesis: A Feminist Companion to the Bible, Athalya Benner (ed.), p. 243

Rachel has much in common with her basherter, Jacob. He stole the birthright, she stole the inheritance; he tricks his father, she fools her father. Her hiding the teraphim also brings to mind a midrashic tale familiar to many Hebrew School students: The young Abraham, who worked in his father's idol shop, smashes all but one of the statues. He takes the hammer and places it in the hand of the last statue, blaming the idol for the destruction. When Abraham's father tells him it is impossible for a stone idol to cause such destruction, Abraham challenges him to explain why he bows down to it in worship. Here, Laban's idols are no match for a woman sitting on some pillows. These are the gods that he cherishes. By her actions, Rachel has rejected his idolatrous life and his inheritance. Most significantly, Rachel acts independently.

Whichever explanation of her actions you prefer; there is no doubt that Rachel is an unusual woman, ahead of her time. One more thing, she is the first woman in the Torah who is described as having an occupation: "shepherdess" (Genesis 29:9). Yet, as with many female pioneers her successes were met with setbacks. Recall that one of the few instances in the Torah when a woman's voice is heard is when it comes to naming children. Next week Rachel gives birth to her second son: But as she breathed her last — for she was dying — she named him Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin (Genesis 35:18). Thus Rachel's dying words were stifled.

Yet, tradition restores her power of speech. There is a powerful midrash in Lamentations Rabbah (proem 24) about Israel's exile after the destruction of the First Temple, which was attributed to Israel's idolatry. Viewing the suffering of the exiles, Biblical superstars from the forefathers to Moses and Jeremiah lament and plead on Israel’s behalf before God, but to no avail. Finally, Rachel speaks up, taking God to task for being jealous of idols while she, a mere human being, did not succumb to jealousy when her sister Leah became Jacob's bride in her place. Rachel's words stirred the Divine One in a way the others didn't: God heard this woman's voice and promised an end to the exile.

Rachel's example is one to keep in mind in this new month of Kislev. A year ago on Rosh Chodesh Kislev Nofrat Frankel was arrested in Jerusalem for wearing a tallit (prayer shawl) and carrying a Torah at a service run by Women of the Wall. This group has been running a monthly women-led Rosh Chodesh service for over two decades, in which women's voices rise in praise of God in Jerusalem. For those who argue that these women should behave in "the way of women," let us point to Rachel as a model of what that means. Despite the obstacles she faced in her society, Rachel's voice was heard by God; so, too, are the voices of these women in prayer.

Shabbat shalom,
Rabbi Michal Shekel

Parashat Toldot, Genesis 25:19-28:9

The 5771 parsha series is made possible by the dedication of our donors Randy Gangbar in memory of Marcy Gangbar, Jacob Langer and Ferne Sherkin-Langer and family, an anonymous donor in memory of Esther and Sheldon Litowitz, and many online donors.

Click here if you would like to sponsor a weekly learning or support the series.

A blessed life is not a charmed life.

In German one would say Gesundheit. In Yiddish it would be the same or zay gesund. The Hebrew response is la-briyut. Aramaic aficionados would answer asuta. These words translate as "to (your) health" and are the standard responses to a sneeze in these and many other languages. English, however, is different, since there an "ah-choo" is met by "bless you."

No one really knows why we say "bless you," although there are numerous theories. Among them is the belief that by sneezing one temporarily expells the soul, making it vulnerable to evil spirits. Conversely, there is also the belief that by sneezing one expells the evil spirit. (Quite an allergic reaction!) Then there is the explanation that the term was introduced by Pope Gregory I during an outbreak of the Bubonic plague. Sneezing was thought to be an early symptom of this disease. "God bless you" was instituted as a public health measure along with a slew of other prayers he ordered in a futile effort to stop the plague from reaching Rome.

There are records that show that the phrase predates Pope Gregory I. Among the sources cited is the Robert Graves translation* of Apuleius' The Golden Ass: " 'Bless you, my dear!' he said, and 'bless you, bless you!' at the second and third sneeze." The original work was written in about 150 CE in Latin. (Since it’s all Greek to me, I would appreciate it if a Latin scholar would let me know if this is indeed what it says in the original, or if Graves is being idiomatic.)

People have read all sorts of things into sneezes. There is a ditty that begins:

Sneeze on Monday for health,
Sneeze on Tuesday for wealth…

Daniel Lindsey Thomas & Lucy Blayney Thomas, Kentucky Superstitions, #1035

Now, we don't know how much sneezing was going on in Isaac's household, nor on what day he bestowed blessings on his sons, but we do know the content of these blessings. In parashat Toldot, Jacob, described somewhat snidely as a mild man, aided by his mother Rebecca and guided by God, gains the blessing of the birthright:

"May God give you
Of the dew of heaven and the fat of the earth,
Abundance of new grain and wine.
Let peoples serve you,
And nations bow to you;
Be master over your brothers,
And let your mother's sons bow to you.
Cursed be they who curse you,
Blessed they who bless you."

Genesis 27: 28-29

The older brother, Esau, who sneezed away his birthright, now sniffles at its loss. Kidding aside, Esau's reaction is downright heartbreaking:

"Have you but one blessing, Father? Bless me too, Father!" And Esau wept aloud. And his father Isaac answered, saying to him,
"See, your abode shall enjoy the fat of the earth
And the dew of heaven above.
Yet by your sword you shall live,
And you shall serve your brother;
But when you grow restive,
You shall break his yoke from your neck."

Genesis 27:38-40

Gee, maybe it would have been better if Isaac had just said "bless you," or even "gesundheit." What sort of a blessing is this?

Both sons are blessed, albeit not equally. There are similarities in the blessings: Both sons are to enjoy the fat of the earth and the dew of heaven. They are blessed with material possessions and, as we shall see next week, these blessings are fulfilled. But the blessings never promise a smooth path through life; a blessed life is not a charmed life. There are issues that each much face, no matter what blessing he receives. This is something we need to keep in mind as well. A blessing may pose many challenges and can even appear to be a curse. Blessings impose unasked for obligations on the individual and occasion negative reactions from others. They can lead to the same question asked by Rebecca at the beginning of parashat Toldot: "If so, why do I exist?" (Genesis 25:22; in other words: "Why me?"). Both Esau and Jacob must be thinking that question, the former in a rage against the cruelty done to him and the latter in fear as his entire life falls apart.

Jacob receives one more blessing from his father, when he is sent to his uncle's land to find a wife: "May El Shaddai bless you, make you fertile and numerous, so that you become an assembly of peoples. May He grant the blessing of Abraham to you and your offspring, that you may possess the land where you are sojourning, which God assigned to Abraham." (Genesis 28:3-4) Here's where it gets interesting: When Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob and sent him off to Paddan-aram to take a wife from there, charging him, as he blessed him, "You shall not take a wife from among the Canaanite women," …Esau realized that the Canaanite women displeased his father Isaac. So Esau went to Ishmael and took to wife, in addition to the wives he had, Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael son of Abraham, sister of Nebaioth. (Genesis 28:6-9) No blessing for Esau here, no rage at having one less blessing than his brother, just a realization and a response.

Most commentators view Esau's response as having an ulterior motive. Writing in The Torah: A Women's Commentary, Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Hara E. Person state that he was still seeking his father's approval. According to Rashbam, not only did Esau hope to reclaim his father's favour with this marriage, he also sought to regain the blessing of the land. I prefer to read this passage as being consist with Esau's behaviour as a caring son, simply trying to fulfill his father's wishes despite everything that has occurred.

The blessing is only the potential; both brothers need to grow into their blessed futures. At the end of Toldot, one hunter and the other hunted, they are a long way from reaching that point. Decades later, when the brothers reunite, both have been blessed with family and material wealth. This culmination of their respective journeys reveals a vital new trait in these twins. Jacob the trickster and Esau the angry young man can finally relate to one another. It is only after long years of separation that the brothers truly approach each other, not as pawns or rivals, but as human beings. Though not a part of either's blessing, this new-found ability may be the greatest blessing of all, and certainly nothing to sneeze at.

Shabbat shalom,
Rabbi Michal Shekel

* It is listed as book thirteen in Graves but other versions only have eleven books. Any clarification on this would be greatly appreciated as well.