Tradition

One of the difficulties in translating from one language to another, is that a word in the original language, may have more than one meaning. Sometimes, the meanings of one word could be opposites. This is the case with the word "cleave" in English, which can mean "to stick to" (as in cleave to a person) or "divide", (as in to cleave a piece of meat). When translating into another language, we must be certain how the word was used in the original context, or else, our technically correct translation, we, in fact, be a total distortion.Sometimes it is actually difficult to know what the author meant, or the ambiguity may have been an intentional literary device, essentially impossible to translate..
This is the case with the word "Tradition". A tradition may be a custom, like having cranberry sauce with our Thanksgiving turkey. It's not a law; I have yet to hear of anyone arrested for not eating it. Yet, it is a long standing American tradition. If one only had a hamburger on Thanksgiving, he would probably feel that he had missed out, and would spend the next few days regretting the loss, albeit temporary, of this tradition, of which he has memories going back to his earliest childhood, with associations with friends and family, many now gone. He has lost out on a connecting link between past, present and future. Yet, it is not obligatory.
Now let's take a look at England. England has no constitution. It's laws are based on Common Law, much of that going back to the Magna Carta. Essentially, they are Traditions, which have the force of law. One such Tradition is the right to trial by jury. This has become enshrined in the Constitution of the United States, as well as of many other countries. If an accused criminal demanded a jury trial, it would be outrageous for the judge to tell him "I don't think so. It's only a custom, and I'm too busy this week to deal with it". True, in England it is only common law, but is, nevertheless, law. It cannot be compared with the cranberry sauce.
In Judaism, the cranberry sauce example would be called "minhag" (custom; a traditional practice). The English trial by jury would be called a "mesorah", which means "to be handed down". Some Mesorot are considered Biblical, although not spelled out in the Bible. For instance, nowhere in the Bible do we have the age of thirteen as the time when a boy becomes enough of a man to be considered responsible for his actions, and fully bound by the laws of G-d. However, we have "received" a mesorah that this is the meaning of "a man" in the Bible. This has been handed down by G-d to Moses, and from Moses to the people. It would be ludicrous to think that there is no Torah definition of reaching one's majority, as the courts would have needed to know when to enforce a certain law in the case of a particular person. In fact, we consider this Biblical, not rabbinic. Other things have been enacted by rabbinical courts, as specified in Deuteronomy 17:8-13. They may legislate to strengthen, or "put a fence around" a Torah law. Although they do this by authority of the Torah, nevertheless, it is considered rabbinic law.An example of this would be the eating of Hametz (leavened food) on the day before Passover. The Torah commands to bring the Passover sacrifice on the afternoon of the day before Passover, before Sundown.We are told in the Torah to not bring the Passover "with leaven". We have a Mesorah, going back to Moses, that this means that leaven must be out of our possession by noon of the day before Passover.We regard this as Biblical. The ancient rabbis forbade eating leaven for two hours before this time, and required  having it out of our possession, by one hour before noon, as a "fence" so as not to make an error on a cloudy day. We are careful to note that this is NOT part of the Torah, except as the Torah gives the courts the right and obligation to protect the laws. This is rabbinic law.This, too, is part of the Mesorah, while keeping the two separate and distinct.Otherwise, we would be violating the Torah's prohibition of "you shall not add or detract" from its laws.There will be differences in how it is applied. For instance, in a case of a doubtful situation, in a Biblical law we need to be strict, in a rabbinical law we may be lenient. Now, there may be local, or family, traditions surrounding Passover. These are considered Minhag, and depending on the community, they may be regarded as very sacred, albeit not laws. This is especially true in Ashkenazic tradition. In other communities, this is much less the case. I was told by a leading Yemenite rabbi "the minhag is to keep a minhag, but there is no legal necessity". In the former cases, the Tradition is, in fact, law. In the latter, it is below the level of law, but nevertheless is observed, and honored,  as Minhag.
Therefore, when we speak of "Jewish Tradition" we must be very clear of what we mean. Do we mean Mesorah, and, if so, what kind of Mesorah, or do we mean a custom? All are holy, but not all are obligatory in the same way.

The Disguise

A Hassidic rebbe had many followers. However, one was a successful businessman, and needed to look acceptable,and be acceptable, to the outside world. When he came to prayer, or to Hassidic gatherings, he would dress in the Hassidic fashion. But when he was involved in business, he dressed in accordance with the latest European styles. One day he thought it over, "why am I trying to fool the other Hassidim, and especially my Rebbe? I put on a "disguise" as though I'm something I'm not!" The next time, he came to his rebbe dressed like a Paris gentleman. The rebbe asked him about this. He said "I don't want to fool you by coming in disguise. This is who I am". The rebbe replied "Oh, until now, I thought that the Jewish you is the real you, while you wear a non-Jewish disguise for the outside world. Now you're telling me that it is just the opposite?"
We all live in many worlds. But which is the real "me"? When I was in my twenties, I knew a gentleman who was an executive at IBM. Once, I visited him in his office. His advanced computer (which required no punched computer cards!) was programmed to allow a game of "rolling dice". (This was long before Pac Man!) We played at this for about an hour. Then he said "Let's check how much core time we used during this hour". He pushed some buttons. We had used less than a second of core time! We must do many things in this world...but where is the core time? Is our innermost soul dedicated to amassing wealth, and our prayers and Torah study are there in order to "convince G-d" to make us successful? Or is my core time directed towards G-d, towards the spiritual aspects of existence? Even if that is a fraction of the day, if that's the core of my being, than that is the real me. At that point, I disguise myself for the world, and remove the disguise before G-d, and before my self.

Is Jacob Ethical? Part 5

It is impossible for one culture to understand another, unless one has studied and  is familiar with that culture. I once heard a program on the BBC that illustrated this. Americans and British speak the same language, but often don't have a clue in interpreting what they have heard or seen. For instance, in the U.S., there is a culture of "male bonding". Friends will often hug, or place their arm on a buddy's shoulder. In England, this is rarely done. When Englishmen see this behavior in a movie, they assume that the characters are gay, and are puzzled to find out that they are not. Similarly, expectations differ as to the outcome of a movie. An American film and a British film might have the heroes surrounded and outnumbered. Death seems imminent.  But for the American audiences, the heroes MUST be rescued at the last moment by the Cavalry or the Marines. To a British audience, the heroes are expected to fight honorably to the end, going out in rousing songs of cheer.
We have a similar situation in the story of Jacob and Laban.Jacob is in love with Rachel, and asks for her hand. Her father, Laban, insists on seven years of labor for the privilege. This by itself seems strange, but becomes to us unbelievable when he substitutes the wrong girl! What can be more sacred than the bond between husband and wife? But Laban has different values. "Such is not done in our place; to give the younger before the older". The ethics of the situation are trampled upon by his desire to observe local customs. "No problem, marry Rachel too!", but this comes with another seven years' price tag of essentially slave labor. After fourteen years, Jacob arranges with Laban to earn some wealth of his own my getting a portion of the sheep that are born. Jacob, enjoying Divine blessing, becomes wealthy. Then he sees that Laban and his sons now hate him. He is told by G-d to run away, to return to the Land of his birth. Laban runs after him, ready to kill, but is warned by G-d not to harm Jacob. The discussion between the two men is telling. "Why did you run? I would have made a huge party if you told me you were going!" Jacob replies "you've cheated me over and over, constantly changing unilaterally the terms of my employment. I knew you would take everything, including my wives!" Laban's response "the girls are mine. The sheep are mine.Everything you see is mine."  REALLY? Jacob had worked hard for what he had. he had abided by Laban's rules, but had ultimately come out on top.Laban felt that everything that had ever belonged to him was still his, even if sold. One must keep up appearances for the neighbors, no matter what. Laban saw all this as ethics...his country's ethics. He has righteous indignation at Jacobs justice. Jacob, the moral man in the immoral situation, has defended himself (after being initially cheated) and is able to return home in wealth and dignity.
I once had a personal experience with this sort of cultural-based misunderstanding. When I lived in Israel, I made my primary living out of teaching classes for scribes; those who write the Torah scrolls and other holy objects. I made a deal with a businessman who also worked in this field. He would promote and administer my classes. He made a deal with a radio station to advertise my classes, for a large percentage of the revenue generated. Between the businessman and the radio station, I only got 10% of the income from the classes. I figured that that was an OK deal, temporarily, until the classes were well known and successful.After a few years, when things were going nicely, I asked that we renegotiate the terms. The manger of the radio station said "I made an investment. It paid off. Now you want me to voluntarily cede what is mine?" I saw this as Laban's "the girls are mine, the sheep are mine". The American values I was raised with , that hard work would be recognized and rewarded accordingly, were ruffled and offended, . I felt that I was now being cheated! As far as the manager was concerned, i was cheating him! So what if I was to remain in  poverty? The deal was to remain. I stopped giving classes under those circumstances. I felt better that I retain my dignity and  self respect rather than  submit to what I saw as unethical. The manager and the businessman both thought I was out of my mind.In retrospect, I realize that we were dealing with two different culture, two different mindsets.
Jacob's issue, however, was not about making a living. it was establishing the People of the Torah. There were many obstacles. Many cultures would expect him to be a silent victim. He would then be a universally beloved, if tragic, figure. But this is not the values of Torah.Was must do everything possible, within the bounds of law and morality, to see that G-d's purpose is fulfilled. For us, Jacob is a hero.

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.