Is Jacob Ethical? part 4

I have pointed out that Jacob, far from being the "cheat" he is often portrayed as, was, in fact, the righteous man thrown into difficult situations, with his decisions and actions effecting eternity; both for his descendants and the world. Esau is the cunning charlatan, ready to use any and all means to achieve his goals.
The rabbis of the Talmud spoke of Esau as a murderer, a bandit, a rapist. He is the very paradigm of evil, headed for an inevitable  confrontation with the House of Israel. The rabbis, who were suffering great persecution under Rome, saw Rome as the essence of the power and evil of Esau. Rome, and its physical and cultural heirs were seen as Esau, always ready to persecute and deter any efforts to apply the teachings of the Torah. It is an historical fact that the Colosseum in Rome was built with the spoils of the Temple. "If someone tells you that Rome prospers and Jerusalem is in ruins, believe him. That Jerusalem prospers and Rome is in ruins, believe him. That both prosper or both are in ruins, do not believe him". The struggle between the two brothers, already fought in Rebecca's womb, continues.
In Kabbalah, however, there is a very different picture. Abraham is the attribute of Kindness; giving. Isaac is the attribute of Severity; restraint. Jacob is the attribute of Mercy; giving when called for, restraining when called for. This attribute is also called Beauty (Tiferet), for it is the perfect, beautiful balance. Esau is seen not as intrinsic evil, but of a power of good that is unbridled and capricious, expressing itself in acts which HE saw as good, but where, objectively speaking, evil. Think of an atomic explosion. It can, in a nuclear reactor, be controlled (usually!), and provide energy for man. Uncontrolled, it can be a bomb, bringing death and destruction for all. When the brothers were struggling in the womb, the rabbis say that when Rebecca passed a house of idolatry, Esau wanted to get out of the womb and run to it. When she passed a place where G-d was worshiped, Jacob wanted to run to it. But the evil inclination comes only at birth. Why would Esau run to idolatry while in utero? One Kabbalistic interpretation is that Esau wanted to run and destroy the idolatrous temples. Jacob proffered to ignore them, concentrating on the true service of G-d instead.  Once Esau was born, and grew up, he ran to act upon  his righteous indignation. Once there, he saw the art, heard the music, and went over to the Other Side. When one is on a spiritual quest, one may come to G-d, delight in His service, and set an example for his fellow man.However, one may also begin to feel that he is justified in stealing, killing, raping in the Name of G-d. It was these characteristics that Jacob saw as so dangerous.The Kabbalah teaches that before our world, there existed a world of Chaos (Tohu), which was far higher than our world, but completely unbridled. It self-destructed, leaving throughout the Universe sparks of great holiness, which have fallen so far down that they vivify Evil itself. But when a spark is elevated and redeemed, it becomes a source of great good for our world. So Esau is seen as the world of Chaos. Jacob is our world. Jacob seeks not the destruction of Esau, but his rectification. At Jacob's and Esau's last encounter, Jacob promises to meet him later. It never happened. The Book of Obadiah is about that eventual "meeting". But will it be a violent clash, or major surgery to rid Esau of his evil, and harness his great inner strength? Will there be vengeance...or reconciliation? These continue to be two distinct views in our tradition. How it will play out, is known only to G-d.
In my next installment, I will discuss the interaction of Jacob and Laban.

Is Jacob Ethical? part 3

When I attended Hebrew School for my Bar Mitzvah preparation, and later when I attended Torah classes as my interest in Judaism and spirituality grew, one of the basic assumptions in these lessons was the utter brutality and evil of Esau, and the righteousness of Jacob. When I got out into the world, I learned that most people; both non-Jews and non-Orthodox Jews, saw the story of Jacob in the exact opposite light. Even a few Orthodox rabbis saw Jacob as a negative figure, while they waxed eloquent about how wonderful it is that the Bible doesn't hesitate to be brutally honest about the faults and failings of its heroes. The huge abyss between these views seems staggering. Had the Talmudic rabbis "whitewashed" the figure of Jacob?
Against this view, we have the Bible's own statement (Malachi 1:2-3) "...is not Esau a brother to Jacob? says the L-rd, yet Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated..." As G-d is no respecter of persons, this would seem to indicate that there is more to the story than meets the eye.
We are told that Jacob  was "Ish Tam yoshev ohalim". This can mean a "simple man who dwells in tents", or "a perfect man who dwells in tents". In the latter case, it is understood as the "Tents of Torah". That is, he was a spiritual man. If the former is true, that it means "simple", The picture of Jacob is anything but simple. It would mean "uncomplicated, without ulterior motives". Esau, on the other hand is called "a man of the hunt". Hunting can be for food, or it can be for sport. If the latter, what type of person gets pleasure from killing? We are told that Isaac loved Esau "for the hunt was in his mouth". Is that the praise of our father Isaac, that he preferred one son over another because he had "a thing" for venison? Rather, this is understood by the rabbis to mean that there was guile and deception in his words. He could go out, commit acts of violence and corruption, but, like a skilled politician, give the impression of a champion of justice and right. Rebecca, the boys' mother, saw through him; Isaac was deceived. The birthright and the blessing of Isaac implied more than who would inherit  the family's camels. It meant the inheritance of the Covenant between G-d and Abraham, which had been renewed with Isaac. It meant who would father the nation of Torah, who would inherit the Holy Land, to whom would the task of being a Light unto the Nations be given? Isaac  had been deceived. Jacob and Rebecca could clearly see that not only the future of Abraham's legacy was at stake, but the entire purpose of G-d's creation of the world and man!
Jacob is faced with the dilemma of the ethical man in the unethical situation. Should he dishonor his father's wishes, although based on false information? He expresses this concern to Rebecca "I might be a deceiver in his eyes!" Or should his loyalty be to G-d, to his descendants, indeed, to mankind? What would you do?
I wrote in part 1 that this would be a three part analysis. I see that it will take more. I hope you will forgive me and bear with me. In the next installment, I shall further analyse Esau. After that, well need to discuss Jacob's dealings with Laban. This topic is not just about what happened 3500 years ago, but is about the struggles of every man and woman in all times, in all places.

Is Jacob Ethical? Part 2

Some 45 years ago, a man who had a great impact on my life, the late Rabbi Norman Frimer, wrote an article entitled "When is a Lie Permissible". One may well ask IS a lie permissible? Only then can we ask "When?"
We read in the Torah ",,,keep far from a false thing..." (Exodus 23:7). However, this is written in the context of judicial proceedings. We are not to plot against someone on trial by bearing false, or even simply deceptive witness. The rabbis see deception in business not as "a false thing", but as downright theft. There is no other prohibition concerning lying in the Torah. If I see my neighbor, and he says "Good morning, how are you?", must I tell him about my sinusitis or my hemorrhoids? No! A simple "I'm fine" is called for, even if strictly speaking it is a lie. The rabbis make clear that lying is acceptable if intended to avoid embarrassment, either to myself or others, or in order to bring peace between people. This is with the proviso that no deception or fraud is involved, as would be the case of lying about one's health to an insurance company.The rabbis, commenting on the fact that the Israelites mourned more for Aaron than they did for Moses, explain that Aaron would go to disputing neighbors or spouses, and say that the other person regrets very much what has happened, realizes that they are in the wrong, but is too ashamed to admit it...so please make up! Wasn't that a lie? Of course. But it saved friendships and marriages. The truth, in this instance, would have been a disaster! This, say the rabbis, is why Aaron was so beloved. It is true that the rabbis speak of some people who would never lie, even in these cases, but these are seen as a cases of extreme piety, and not always commendable.
Just as we find the permissibilty of lying for peace and for avoiding embarrassment, we also find it right to use it to prevent being cheated. There are two chapters of the Talmud devoted to this. (The sixth and seventh chapters of Baba Metzi'a). I'm about to make a wedding in my family. All the preparations have been made. I hired a band for $1,000 for the evening. Fifteen minutes before the wedding, the musicians come, and say that they will not play for less than $3,000. What am I to do? The wedding will be ruined. Must I accept their extortion? The Talmud rules that I may agree to the $3,000 demand...and then pay only the original agreed upon price of $1,000. I may not seek to "get even" and refuse to pay at all. They are entitled to their wage, and I am entitled to a fair deal. Again, some religious and philosophical traditions would say that I must accept the extortion, or else allow the wedding to be ruined. Torah says that fairness and justice must reign. Just as there is self defense in warding off bodily harm, so is there in protecting property and dignity! But I may not allow my pride to make an unjust situation. I have deflected the attempt at humiliation and unethical treatment, but I may NOT perpetrate an injustice in return. They must be paid, but only what was agreed upon. I must not return evil for evil.
How does this all apply to the story of Jacob? That will be my next installment.

Is Jacob Ethical? Part 1

Shortly after World war I, the great powers passed a remarkable law. It was called the "Kellogg Briand Pact".  It outlawed war! Never again would nations resort to violence as a means of solving issues. Mankind would no longer suffer the the horrors of war, after having seen its horrors in the first World War! Now, how has that worked for us? Many nations have laws banning discrimination and racism. In those lands, have  discrimination and racism disappeared?
The Torah is the greatest work of morality and champion of human rights and dignity in the world. Yet, many institutions that are far less than noble are enshrined in the Torah, but vastly limited. In the ancient world, a ban on slavery would have been completely ignored. The Torah does not forbid slavery, but so limits its parameters and conditions, that the rabbis of the Talmud say: "He who buys a slave, buys a master". The institution died a natural death in Jewish life. One of the realities of war is, tragically, rape. The Torah (Deut. 21:10-14) doesn't forbid it, but rather sets conditions that are calculated to cool the soldier's passions. He must take her home, allow her to mourn, and then marry her! The rabbis comment "the Torah is speaking with the Evil Inclination in mind". (Dibrah Torah k'neged Yetzer hara). In all the Divine legislation, human frailty is taken into consideration, and realistic boundaries are set, with the eventual goal of the permanent improvement of Man's moral fiber.
Some religious and philosophical traditions forbid violence and falsehood under ANY circumstance. Some interpretations of non-violence urge a person to die rather than defend himself, or to allow himself to be dehumanized with all manner of injustice, but to maintain silence. This is not the Torah! Self defense, whether on the individual or communal level, is stipulated in the Torah. "If one is coming to kill you, rise early to kill him" say the rabbis. However, if possible, we are only to use the minimal force needed to save ourselves.
We are dealing with the conundrum of "the ethical man in the unethical situation". I shall attempt to outline the approach to the Torah and the Halachah (Jewish Law) to this topic, and relate this back to the story of our Father Jacob.

The Fragrance of Heaven

The Tzaddik, Rabbi David of Lelov, would, from time to time, travel to visit his teacher, the famed Seer of Lublin. On the way, he would meet up with a friend who lived in a small village. The friend was also a Tzaddik, but very poor. When Rabbi David came, the friend rushed to tell his wife that they had a distinguished guest, and to please make him something to eat. The wife was beside herself. There was nothing in the house but some flour! She rushed outside and gathered some twigs. She lit a small fire in her wood burning stove, put the flour into a pot, adding nothing but water.When Rabbi David returned home, after visiting the Seer, he told his wife that at his friends house, he had eaten the most delicious food he had ever tasted. His wife was surprised. She knew that the friend was poor, and besides, it was not Rabbi David's way to seek physical pleasure. Curious, she went to the village where the friend lived, and asked the friend's wife about what she had prepared for the rabbi. "To tell the truth, i had nothing but some flour. I prayed to G-d that in honor of our distinguished guest, He impart to the flour of the fragrance of the Garden of Eden. I kept praying those words, until the dish was done. It seems that G-d answered my prayer!"
When we are doing something for our fellow man, or even more so for G-d, it matters not so much WHAT we do, as our intent and sincerity. The rabbis of the Talmud point out that the Torah, in one of the sacrifices, the rich man brings a bull, the average person brings a bird, and the poor man brings some flour. Of all of them the Torah says "A sweet fragrance to the L-rd". They conclude "It matters little if one gives a small gift or a large one, as long as his heart is directed to Heaven".

Temple Mount part 2

Besides the halachic considerations, there are also the hashkafic (philosophical considerations) of this issue.
We were exiled because of our sins. There is a verse about the redemption "In its time, I will hasten it". The rabbis say "if it will be in its time, it's not hastened, if it's hastened, it's not in it's time(!)" The rabbis answer "If they (the Jews) merit, I will hasten it, if they do not merit, I will nevertheless bring it at its appointed time, as I have promised through the Prophets". The commentators on the Talmud explain that if we merit, it will be a miraculous deliverance. if we do not merit, then the redemption will be by apparently natural phenomena.
After the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans, the seat of Jewish learning moved to Babylon (Iraq). There were, however, also academies (yeshivot) in the Land of Israel, working under terrible conditions of persecution. In many areas, their outlook is quite different. The Babylonian rabbis, for the most part, saw our exile as something that would only end with Divine intervention. One view was that it was even forbidden to emigrate from Babylon to the Land of Israel, until the promised redeemer had come. Another view stated that upon our exile, we were obligated by G-d not to rebel against the Nations, and not try to force a redemption prematurely. In the Jerusalem Talmud, however, they were constantly looking for a way to rebuild the Temple, and reestablish Jewish sovereignty in the land. 
These two views are reflected in the writings of the great rabbis of the Miuddle Ages. Rashi, a great sage in eleventh century France, not only posited a supernatural redemption, but even that the Temple would descend fully built from Heaven. He took quite literally the idea that the course of Nature would be forever changed. RAMBAM, on the other hand calls these the "beliefs of fools", asserting that the Mashiach will do no signs or wonders, other than usher in a new era of peace and harmony. The Temple will be rebuilt. All men will devote their lives to the contemplation of the spiritual, without one person or one nation holding sway over another. The Biblical verses and Talmudic sayings that describe miraculous events, are to be seen as allegorical; teaching of Peace and Happiness for all.
So how does this relate to the Temple Mount?
For secular Jews, the Temple Mount is a non-issue, other than the fact that it is a sore point of strife.For religious Jews, it is the center of the Universe, the place where the Name of G-d dwells, the pivotal point upon which all rests.
Modern rabbis are divided as to what this means. The Chareidi ("ultra Orthodox") rabbis, by and large, posit that we are still in Exile, even in the Land, as we are alienated from G-d because of our deeds. We must live in the Land, where possible, maintaining peace with our neighbors, awaiting the day when G-d will reveal himself to Man, the temple will be rebuilt by G-d Himself. We dare not tread on the Temple Mount, for fear of desecration, as well as fear of inciting violence. Many other rabbis, following the teachings of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, believe that the State is the first step towards redemption (Itchalta d'geulah). Events may happen on either a natural or supernatural plane, that will lead to an eventual full redemption of our People, and of the world. In the meantime, we are to do by peaceful means anything that we can to sanctify ourselves and the Land; observing the mitzvot (commandments), settle in all parts of G-d's holy Land, and attempting to bring unity and healing to the diverse and divided factions of our nation. The exiles are to be gathered in, as all the prophets speak of an existing presence of the Jews in the Land at Mashiach's arrival, and those who are not yet there, must be brought. Another group, accepting the basic ideology of the previous group, believe that it is incumbent upon us to do ourselves whatever can be done; reestablish a Sanhedrin (the Great Court of Deteronomy 17), reestablish those sacrifices which can be brought without a Temple, and work for the construction of the Temple itself. There have been Chief Rabbis of Israel representing each of these views.
Unfortunately, religion tends to get mixed up with politics. I hate politics. Each of these views is held by men far greater and wiser than myself. Their reasons were spiritual, and we need to respect different opinions of qualified authorities.  I will pray for G-d's plan to be manifest in the world, and that I may be a meager tool in implementing that plan. May we soon see the redemption of Zion, and the day that "Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and war will be taught no more." Amen

The Temple Mount Part 1.

The entire world is focused on the Temple Mount. But what is the Temple Mount? Why is it important?  Why do some rabbis urge Jews to go there and pray? Why do others (actually the majority) forbid setting foot on the Holy Mountain? I shall try to present all sides of this issue.
The Land of Israel is sacred. But not all places are equally sacred. Jerusalem, the place which the L-rd has chosen, is more sanctified than the rest of the Land. Mount Moriah, where Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac, where King David built an altar, where his son King Solomon built the Temple of G-d; destroyed by the Babylonians, rebuilt by Ezra, Nehemiah and Zerubabel, totally renovated by Herod, but destroyed by the Romans, is far holier than the rest of Jerusalem. All Jews pray facing the Holy Mountain. On the Temple Mount itself, there are varying degrees, until we get to the Holy of Holies, where only the High priest may enter, and only on the sacred day of Yom Kippur. The rabbis taught that even when in ruins, the Temple Mount is the center of the Universe, the place from where all prayers ascend. The Kotel, the Western Wall, is merely the retaining wall of the Temple Mount, which we venerate because it is the last remnant of G-d's House.
The Torah makes clear that one may not enter the Temple when unclean. Various types and degrees  of uncleanliness are described in Leviticus. Most of them only apply in relation to the Temple and consecrated foods, such as sacrificial food and priestly tithes. According to nearly all classical authorities (other than RAAVAD), these rules apply even when the Temple is not standing. Entering the Temple when unclean carries the punishment of Karet (Excision) which is a type of spiritual death, reserved for only the most severe sins.
But are these rules uniform for the entire Mount? No. The original sacred precinct measured 500 cubits by 500 cubits (about 750 feet). Herod added on a large section of land to the South, which has no greater sanctity than any other part of Jerusalem. The consecrated are of 500 cubits square, only requires immersion in water to be able to enter. However, the Temple area itself, including the Temple Courtyard, may not be entered without the ceremony of the Red Heifer, described in Numbers 19. As we have not had the Red Heifer in nearly 2,000 years, and we have all, at one time or another, come in contact with the dead, we are precluded from entering this area nowadays, other than for actually building the Temple. So, it would seem that there is no problem to ascend the Temple Mount after proper immersion, just avoiding the area of the actual Temple structure. Ah, but where is that? Most rabbis accept the tradition that he Dome of the Rock is the place of the Holy of Holies, from which we can easily calculate the area which we are forbidden to enter. It is on this that those who ascend the Mount rely.However, are we sure of this identification? Not really. If archaeologists and scholars were allowed to study the Mount in detail, this could be easily verified. However, the political authorities do not allow this. Therefore most major rabbis forbid entry to the Mount, lest we tread upon that which is too sacred, and, instead if performing a sacred act of worship, are actually sinning, and desecrating the holiest spot on earth. Many other rabbis feel that we CAN figure out, within a few feet, where the forbidden area is. Others question that.
Beyond the issue of PERMISSIBLY is the issue if spiritually and ideologically is this a good idea. This is interwoven with different ideas of how the redemption will take place, and under what circumstances the Temple will be rebuilt; and by whom.  That will be my next installment.