Final Post

This is my final post of the year, so I thought that it wouldn't really be right to only write about one thing. Instead, I'll write about a couple of things that are on my mind right now, as a person exiting this class.
First of all, I would like to acknowledge how lovely Sade Cooper's saludatorian speech was. She accurately (and beautifully) described the dilemma that we all had this year when we were faced with dealing with the fact that our forefathers aren't as perfect as we to idealize them when we were young. I have to say, we have uncovered many things this year that I was totally unaware of the first time around learning it. I feel like I see Bereshit in a totally different light now- and all of the characters in it. I believe that I have come to both understand and appreciate Avraham and Yaakov on whole other levels that I never would have thought of before. I think it's important to recognize that none of them are perfect and sometimes they do bad things, and then there are times that they do really amazing things. Like Sade said, the Torah isn't just black and white-there are also shades of grey.

Another thing I thought was worth noting is the different reactions that the Imahot had to not being able to have children. First of all, Leah was successfully able to have children- why is this? Does it mean that she wasn't truly one of our Imahot, or was it so because she was the least-loved and Hashem wanted her to be more appreciated? Anyways, back to the topic. When Sarah couldn't have children, after a while, she started taking active steps. She offered Hagar, her maidservant, to Avraham so that they would have kids that way. Sarah was always actively participating and being active and communicating with Avraham about what was going to happen. Rivkah's approach could not have been more different. She had no communication with Yitzchak whatsoever. He davened for her to have a child and it doesn't say anything about what she did. While she was pregnant she davened to Hashem, but we don't know if she actually davened to have kids and it definitely does not seem as if she communicated with Yaakov about this matter. Rachel is the last of the imahot to be an akarah. Rachel, like Sarah, was active and constantly davened for children.
What is with this pattern of the imahot not being able to have children? Is it a test? Why do they need to be tested? So sad for them.

The year is over. I would like to conclude by saying what my favorite thing to learn was. i think that perhaps (but it's pretty close) my favorite topic this year has been the first about 11 perakim of Bereshit. There's a lot of triply stuff in there, but I loved developing the theme and discussing Hashem's original plan for the world and man's role in the world. I love the concept of tzelem elokim and the hierarchy and I love how it is incorporated so early on in the Torah.

HAPPY SUMMER!

Second Semester

Well, the year is over, and as I had summarized what I liked about my psychology class, I thought would write about what I liked and raise some questions I might think of while I do.

This semester, we learned a lot about growth. First we learned about the development of the world: G-d created a hierarchy that people were supposed to follow, and it soon became clear that the people would not be able to keep to the hierarchy and develop morals and ethics on their own- G-d would have to show them. Eventually, G-d recognized that His plan for ethical and moral people would have to go from a collective goal to an individual goal.

This leads us directly into Avraham, about whom we learn about growth. Avraham was an inconoclast- although he grew up in a society that was polytheistic and did not have many morals, Avraham became a moral and ethical man who believed in G-d. He spread G-d's name (in direct contrast to the Dor Haflaga, who only wanted to spread their names) and converted people to ethical lifestyles. Although he faced many challenges, he overcame them and held fast in his belief in G-d. He overcame the challenges to zera (Lot, Eliezer, Yishmael, oh my) and the challenges to eretz (the king's offered him land and he passed on it). Avraham was willing to sacrifice his ideas of morals and ethics because in the end, the only thing that mattered for Avraham was that he do what G-d commanded. He passed the ultimate challenge- the challenge of the akeida, thereby becoming the paradigm of a great religious and spiritual leader. I quite enjoyed learning about Avraham because we could learn things from him to help guide our own lives, and it was great character development and intrigue.

The next growth I liked learning about was Yaakov. He went from being a quite little boy who did nothing, to a boy who obeyed his mother, to a youngster who ran away and worked for his uncle, to a man who voiced his opinion, to a father who led his family away, and to a political leader who would stand up to Lavan and Esau. The story that we learn about the birthright and Yaakov and Esau is fascinating; is that when the brothers began to resent one another? Had it been before that? Or was it only after Yaakov took the blessing that Esau wanted (the political blessing) that Esau hated Yaakov. Again, from Yaakov we can learn that we can become leaders and that people can go from being timid to being uncompromising.

I also thought that throughout the year, the ideas of morals and ethics has been an important one. We talked so often about it that it is hard to not apply the things we talked about to our own lives, and begin to look for themes of ethical monotheism in every story that we read (was Yaakov moral when he tricked his father? Was it right for Yitzchak to favor Esau? Why wasn't Esau allowed to be nidcheh? Why did Yitzchak pit his sons against each other in his blessing?)

This past semester was full of insightful comparisons, people who developed tremendously throughout their lives, and a great way to relearn the stories that had once seemed so simple and somewhat naive and nonsensical in first grade. This is because not only did we learn it as high schoolers with fresh perspectives and analytical minds, but because we actually read the pasukim and found out the whole story ;)

It was a truly lovely year.

פרק כט

At the beginning of פרק כט, Yaakov leaves as a scared individual. He’s running away with nothing. To our knowledge, G-d’s never spoken to him. When he's in a place it is described as “B’makom” - which could mean that this is a special place where the Beit Hamikdash will be, but it could also just mean a simple place. He gathers the rocks and goes to sleep on them and has a dream the ladder is rooted in the ground reaching to the sky and the angels of Hashem are going up and down it. Hashem appears to him and says, “I am the G-d of your father Avraham, and the land that you’re sleeping on will be given to you (aretz), and I won’t leave you as long as you do everything I tell you.” 

This land represents Brit Avraham that’s going to be given to him. They’ll be numerous and blessed. But he doesn't get the leadership bracha - Hashem doesn’t say kings will come from you. Yaakov didn’t receive this because he wasn’t ready yet to be a leader. 

Interpretation of the dream: This must be the house of G-d and gateway to heaven. He makes the oath with G-d, that if he gets the basic necessities, he will make a house of G-d, take him as G-d and give him ma’aser of everything that he gets.
What does a Mizbayach do? Avraham built it to attract other followers. Yaakov built a מצבה (monument), it was for G-d in order for Yaakov to have a rendezvous with Him and have a religious experience. This is where he will build a בית אלוקים.
Promise that he made: two ways to look at it - negative and positive. The negative would be if he meant if and then – which makes it seem like he doubts what Hashem is saying. The positive would be him saying that he has belief and faith in Hashem, and when he comes back and Hashem is with him he’s gonna be better than ever and build a בית אלוקים.

Rachel and the Idols

We learned in class that there could be two possiblities why Rachel took the Idols from her father Lavan after Yaakov decided to leave Lavan.

The first possibility is because she was goodhearted, and did not want her father to worship idols, therefore taking them away from him.

The second possibility was that she was still attached to those idols and wanted to take a piece of home to the new place they were going to.

I personally agree with the second posiibility to more for several reasons: Firstly, why would Rachel take the idols with her, why didnt she simply smash the idols Avraham style, since taking them would seem like such a drag and also a danger. She must have also known that Yaakov would have not been happy to see the idols so she hid them under the sattle of the camel. Rachel and Yaakov seemed to have a good relationship, therefore I think that she knew that Yaakov was true to God and not any other idols. I think Rachel simply wanted to take the idols for her own reasons and attachements. It seems to make more sense since we see from the beginning that she was attached to her father, Lavan and must have learned a lot from him. ( When she encounters Yaakov and says that she needs to go tell her father.)

Hello my dear fellow classmates,
I am very sad since this may be ,y last post since the end of the year is nearing quickly!
Therefore, i decided to discuss a topic that includes characters from the beginning of the semester in Sefer Bereshit. Since we are all women. i decided to focus on Sarah, Rivkah and Rachel. We learned a tremendous amount about these individuals and their relationships to their husbands. However, i would like to focus on a topic that has always troubled me ever since i was a child. We learned in elementary school that god made these three women barren. when youre a child you dont realize what an incredible ache it is for a woman who craves to have a child so much to be denied of such a wish. When youre little you just always assume that it turned out fine in the end anyway since they prayed to god and got what they wanted(we seem to forget that Sarah had to wait like eighty years for her wish to come true.) In Sarah and Rachel's case it gets even worse. They are forced to allow their husbands to be with other women( Hagar, Leah Bilha, Puah,) since they were unable to have children of their own. That must have been one of the most terrible and heartbreaking experiences to have to share your husband with another woman who could do what you cant. Although many people may say it was a challenge taht these women had to overcome, i would like to know why that challenge was necessary? Why did all three of them get that same challenge? If it wasnt a challenge was it a punishment? If so, why wrere they being punished? Why did again all three reaceive the same terrible fate?

Lavan

When we were younger, we learn about all the villains in the Torah. Everything is very black and white; here is the good guy and here is the bad guy. Then as we get older we begin to learn that not everything is so black and white, like we discussed with Esav. From the text it seems like he really did not do anything wrong; he really was just not as spiritual as Yaakov and would rather spend his days frolicking in the fields and hunting. But Lavan seems to be a different story. Although we have not really delved into this part of Yaakov's story yet, from reading over it in our Chavruta work, it seems like Lavan really is portrayed as a villain in the straight text. He tricks Yaakov, which may be Midah Kineged Midah for Yaakov, who tricked his own father and took advantage of his brother. So Lavan tricks his new (double) son-in-law then spends quite a bit of time chasing after him and trying to take his animals and his family. What is Lavan's motive? Is he presented as a villain which in itself is an obstacle or a challenge for Yaakov? Or does he have a bigger motive and purpose in this entire story?

The Ladder as a Metaphor

"He had a dream; a ladder was set on the ground and its top reached the sky, and angels of God were going up and down on it. And the Lord was standing beside him [or 'upon it']" (Gen. 28:12-13). As we all know, Yaakov's dream leaves us with a lot of questions and confusion. As I was reading these pessukim, I found it weird that the Torah seemed to emphasize that the ladder was set in the ground and reached the sky. Now, I could be reading way too much into this and perhaps this isn't even a legitimate question, but I came up with an interesting answer!

As we all know Yaakov was naturally a spiritual person. He connected with G-d and, according to the midrash, was very learned. My thought is that maybe the ladder was trying to show him his place in the world. He is living on earth, not in the heavens. Maybe this is a message for Yaakov to 'stick to the ground' and become a more worldly person, like a leader. This is why Yaakov builds the Beit Elokim because, as Aviva's blog says, he was becoming a leader and spreading the word of G-d. No matter how spiritual Yaakov may be, he needs to remember that he is still living on the earth not in the heavens. If this interpretation makes any sense, than I think the ladder serves as an important symbol for Yaakov and also is tied to Yaakov's turning point where he starts to become a leader. 

P.S.- I'm not sure why this has a weird background. I can't figure out how to fix it!

Yaakov the Leader

Hello everyone,
Yesterday and today in class we briefly discussed Yaakov's dream and his conversation with Hashem. We see that Hashem hands over the promise of Zerah and Aretz, just like Yitzchak said he should be blessed with in his bracha to Yaakov previously. Also, this shows that Yaakov is the Nivchar and is going to receive parts of the promise that Avraham received. However, at first we do not see him receiving the second part of the bracha, which is the leadership part. Until now, we have doubted Yaakov's leadership abilities because he was the calm and reserved brother. BUT suddenly, we see that Yaakov builds a monument just like Avraham and Yitzchak when they build a mizbeach for Hashem. This shows that Yaakov really does have leadership qualities afterall! He wants to build a "Beit Elokim" so he can "rendezvous" with God and pass on what he knows to others. This shows his true qualities that resemble Avraham that we never really saw in Yitzchak.

Bracha without leadership

This week we learned that when Yaakov received Avrahams bracha from God, he did not yet receive the bracha of leadership: that he will be the King of other nations.

The simple reason given for this fact is because Yaakov was spiritual and not yet ready to be a leader to others, therefore the Bracha was not given to Yaakov.

I was wondering whether it was really possible for Yaakov to grow to be a leader for others if he was not born having this forte. Although we have not yet learned when Yaakov will receive this bracha, I cannot imagine that he should receive this bracha if he is not fit for it.

This comes back to the question, why couldnt Esav and Yaakov shared the bracha, and Esav would have gotten the bracha of leadership while Yaakov would have gotten the bracha for spirituality. This would seem to have been the most sensible solution.

Maybe the reason why  this bracha is pushed off is in order to show Yaakov that he needs to work towards this goal and grow to become a leader so that he will be worthy and fit to receive that God.

Hello my dear fellow classmates,
So this week we learned about Yaakov’s little dream and Neder with god. Of course there was automatic shock upon reading the part in which Yaakov dares to bargain with god. How dare he bargain that he will only follow Hashem if he is provided with food, clothes and protection? This instant reminded me of something else that we learned earlier this year. Remember when Avraham bargained with Hashem when discussing the people of Sdom and Amorah. He kept bargaining with god and saying that if a certain amount of Zadikim were found in the city he shouldnt destroy the city. God never punished Yaakov ar Avraham for bargaining with him. why do you think that is? Is it because they were on such a high spiritual level that they were allowed to speak to god in that manner? Do you think its wrong that God allowed this behavior. I know that we learned an explanation that Yaakov didnt mean to bargain with god, rather that he was so certain that God would take care of him that he made this promise to attest to that fact and that he’ll be able to return and build Hashem where the monument is. But lets ignore that for a moment..

Is Avraham the Best of them All?

So far, we have extensively learned about two out of our three forefathers. After finishing our discussion on Yitzchak, most of us were enraged about how passive and naive Yitzchak was. As I think back to our many discussions about Avraham, all I can remember is all of us thinking how perfect Avraham seemed to be. Even though we have not learned Yaakov's full story yet, we do know that he was very weak willed and desperately needed to break out of his shell. We also know that he had a very hard life because of this and the trickery he committed. Besides for Rabbi Amnon's idea that Avraham did wrong by going to Egypt because of the famine, we don't really see (from the text) any bad attributes or actions of Avraham. As we have said, he was a political/ military leader who was very worldly. Not only this but he was very spiritual and had the utmost trust in G-d and devoted his life to spreading G-d words. So what do ya'll think? Was Avraham the one that we should look up to the most? If you had to choose the 'best' of the forefathers, who would it be? Who do you look up/want to exemplify to the most? Now, you might say Yitzchak seems more relatable and humanely. He did have some negative sides, but he did grow and he didn't hesitate to admit he made a mistake. Even at the end of his life, he found room to grow and improve on himself. In conclusion, maybe the point of having such different characters is important to us because we get to see all different aspects of how to make ourselves better people. Each person had a special attribute, and we should look up to that instead of looking down on the person for all the 'bad' he did.

The Switcharoo and It's Aftermath

We all know the story of Yaakov dressing up as his brother (as his mother told him to) and 'stealing' the bracha from Yitzchak. When Esav comes to get his bracha, he finds out that it's already been given to Yaakov. In פסוק לג it says, "וַיֶּחֱרַד יִצְחָק חֲרָדָה, גְּדֹלָה עַד-מְאֹד." (in big, bold letters; just like Mrs. Perl said!). Obviously when reading this and understanding it on a פשט level we think of how angry Yitzchak must be that his son has deceived him, and that he has given the bracha to the wrong person. However, we learned pretty much the complete opposite. Yitzchak thought that Esav deserved the bracha because he could carry out the leadership role that needed to be filled. He thought that Esav's personality (his physicality and manipulation) would allow him to do this job with much success. However now, by being deceived by his son, he was seeing a whole new side to Yaakov - almost like it was a completely different person - that would be capable of filling the leadership role. It was almost as if he had an epiphany that Yaakov would be able to do his job, and that maybe giving him the bracha wasn't such a mistake after all. This is why he ends off by saying that the Bracha will stand, because he sees a potential in Yaakov he didn't see before. Now Yitzchak's put in a tough position because he couldn't give Esav a bracha that would make him the religious leader (like Yitzchak was) because that doesn't match with his personality. So he has to shift the bracha a bit. He also give him agricultural success, but he says that they'll have a seesaw relation, when Esav is up Yaakov will be down, and vice versa. Contrary to his original thought (that they would both be nivchar), Yitzchak is now realizing that one of them will be nivchar and one will be nidche. When Yitzchak knows that Yaakov is Yaakov, he grants him a bracha that Hashem will give him the bracha of being nivchar. 

Trust, Trickery, and Fore-people

Trust, Trickery, and Fore-people

We were always raised to think that all of our fore parents were the most marvelous people ever who could need do anything wrong. Unfortunately, when reading the Torah in the text, we see that this is not the case, that there are so many faults in even the best of our fore figures. I think this comes to show us that everyone is human. We shouldn't look up to somebody that isn't human, who doesn't have any faults- that's not practical. The best role model for us is a good person who is religious and moral and (and this is the kicker)- relatable. Now, with that in mind, is there any possible way we can justify these people's actions? Because lately, in class, we have all been hating on all of these people, which is pretty sad, I think. I mean, sure, they did some bad things, but they are still some of the most important figures in our history and are very holy people.


Is there anyone who can offer up some comments about Yitzchak, Rivkah, or Yaakov that are positive? When doing chavrutah work earlier this week, after reviewing the incident of the bracha, my partner Carmit and I came up with these descriptions:
Yitzchak- He's out of it, easily deceived/swayed, suspicious, bad parent, bad husband
Rivkah- tricker, deceitful, bad role model to Yaakov, bad wife
Yaakov- trickster, Rivkah's pawn, liar, cares more that dad would think he's a trickster than if what he is doing is good. 


These descriptions are obviously judgmental. But this is all we know. This is basically what the peshat tells us. Is the peshat going to tell us something good about them later on? Take Esav, for instance. Previously, when things were being done for Esav, we were all like 'poor Esav..' And it's true, it was sad. However, at the end of this perek, we see that Esav gets very violent and vengeful. Although he surely has reason to be mad at his younger brother, that's never an excuse to deal with violence. It can be understood where people get the idea that Esav was a bad person. I hope soon we'll get up to the part that makes everyone seem like heroes! 

Predestination- Part II

Racheli's Investigative Series: Part II-

Signs of Predestination 

_____________________________________________

Question To Ponder: Predestination or Prophecy?

Before I begin onto the next section, I would like to ask you all a question. What does prophecy mean to you? Do you believe that prophecies pose as an obstacle to our free-will or are they merely a statement by God of what will happen in the future? If someone is given a fate before they are even born, is that fair? Even if it would be that way with free-will, why does anyone have the right to know what will happen beforehand? The fact that they know makes a difference! It causes the people who receive the prophecy to see things differently. While some prophecies are harmless (Angel to Sarah: You're having a baby), others could be potentially life-changing 

Predestination in Blessings:

What is a blessing? Feel free to answer, anyone. A blessing from God to a person (through angel or whatever other mechanism) obviously has more hold than a blessing from a person to a person. But is a blessing the same thing as a promise, or is it just good words? What do you think? 

____________________________________________________

Let me think of the things that have bothered me:


-I think it all really started with this passuk: 
Bereshit 25:23 And the LORD said unto her: Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
What bothers me about this is that they weren't even born yet and Rivkah is already getting information on what they're going to be like when they're older- major information. Who is to say that all of this was going to happen? This really bothers me. 
What do you guys think of this passuk?


-Additionally, when we were reading a commentary discussing the personality of Yaakov, he discussed how Yaakov is at fault for all of his questionable actions (dealing with his brother, tricking with his father) but that the reason that he is chosen is that he was supposed to be chosen but that he suffered the rest of his life for what he did. The thing is, I liked what he said about Yaakov being in the wrong, but I don't get why he would be chosen if he was the person who was at fault? 


-Something else that has been bothering me recently is these brachot. What is the meaning to them? What right does Yitzchak have to say what will happen to his sons in the future? How can he say that it will be a see-saw relationship. 


Am I the only one who is pretty frazzled with all of this stuff?

Yitzchak Trembles!

After the entire process of Yaakov dressing up to please his mother and get the bracha from Yitzchak, Esav returns to find out that his bracha was given away to Yaakov. At this point, Yitzchak trembles. It seems that Yitzchak would be furious and upset because his son just tricked him, but instead, we found that it was a lot different. For the first time, Yitzchak finally realized that maybe Yaakov was meant to have the Bechora and the bracha of carrying on the leadership role that Avraham possessed. He was finally gaining some insight into the ways of his son who he had never gotten the chance to really know. All along, Yitzchak thought that maybe both of his sons could become the Nivchar because Rivkah never communicated the knowledge that one son would rule over the other from the time she became pregnant until now. Yitzchak always saw Yaakov as the one to be like him, calm and simple, but the act of dressing up like his brother and tricking his father in order to receive the bracha led Yitzchak to think otherwise and have faith in him. Aside from the whole issue of Yitzchak and Rivkah's bad relationship, it would seem that Yiztchak would be truly furious with the situation. His son just tricked him in order to get the bracha that he was saving for his other son, and he could not take it back!
When Mrs. Perl first said that the pasuk about Yitzchak trembling should be in bold and all caps, I immediately thought that Yitzchak was so furious that he did not know what to do. However, I think that here were can learn a good trait about Yitzchak. Because he was so calm, he was able to read into Yaakov's personality and realize that maybe he deserved the Bechora and the bracha all along, despite what Yitzchak thought about Esav this entire time.

Who is really the bad guy?

Good evening my fellow classmates,
As we have discussed numerous times in class, Esav did not turn out to be the "bad" son that we were always taught to think. In fact, he could have fulfilled his potential and become someone great. When Esav came in from a long day at work, and was starving for food, he ended up giving up the Bechora to Yaakov. At first glance, Yaakov seemed to almost trick Esav into giving him the Bechora, but after looking into it a little bit deeper, we find that Yaakov was not really at fault here. We see from the pasuk that Esav used the word "haliteni" when asking for soup, which is a word that would typically be used when referring to feeding camels. This shows Esav's animalistic behavior. Because of Esav's aggressive words, Yaakov realized that Esav would not be capable of being a spiritual leader, and maybe this would be an important aspect of the Bechora, aside from actually being the first born. Furthermore, when Yaakov asks for the Bechora, Esav practically hands it over without giving it a second thought. He doesn't seem to care about it at all. He says that he know he will die anyway if he doesn't eat, and the Bechora will cause him to die because of the many responsibilities involved in it. So, even though Yaakov wanted to make a trade, it is important to realize that he had a greater intention that was not entirely selfish. Before Esav left, Yaakov even asked again if it was okay that he take the Bechora, and Esav said it was fine. In this case, Esav still does not seem like a bad guy to me. I do not think he was bad. His animalistic and materialistic outlook on life just proved that maybe he was not worthy of the Bechora. But, in the end, Yaakov does not seem like he is the bad guy either.

Opposites Attract?

We spent some time discussing the "attraction" between Yaakov and Rivka and between Esev and Yitzchak. The Torah seems to suggest that each parent has a favorite child, and we said that the parents were attracted to the child most unlike them. Since Yitzchak was perhaps more passive and inward as a person, he liked that Esev was a man of the field or a more physical manly man. Rivka on the other hand seems to share some characteristics with Avraham and her family influenced her to be more worldly. Therefore she liked Yaakov who as an "ish tam" was more spiritual. So do opposites really attract? Other couples in the Torah do not always have this element of opposites attracting. Avraham and Sarah seemed more like partners than Rivka and Yitzchak (who had some serious communication problems) and they do not seem so different. Both Avraham and Sarah were active leaders who together gathered many followers and influenced the world in a brand new way. Although we have not delved into the relationships between Yaakov and his wives, specifically Rachel and Leah, it does not seem like they had the same amount of opposites attract as Rivka and Yitzchak and with their kids. So was this really just picking favorites or do opposites really attract? What do yall think?

Predestination- Part I

Racheli's Investigative Series: Predestination Part I: Introduction

It Seems Like Many Things in the Torah Hint to Predestination 

Over the past few weeks, I keep on noticing that there's this sense of 'predestination' that is prevalent in much of the text.
When did this start? (Look, Zahava! I asked a question in my writing!) Things like Hashem promising the land to Avraham and his descendants, to me, isn't so bad. I mean, one could technically say "what if they don't deserve it, but it was promised to them.." but that's not exactly what we're dealing with here. When Yishmael got kicked out, that really bothered me, but I hadn't really thought about this being a case of predestination. However, now that I think about it, and as I will discuss, it seems like this whole nivchar nidcheh thing has less to do with the merits of the person and more to do with what was already decided before they were born.The more I have thought about it, I think it would be interesting to do a full-on investigation about predestination in Judaism and hopefully come to a comforting conclusion in the end. Note that all of this is speculation and I would love feedback!
The First Signs of Predestination? 
Where better to start than at the beginning of the Torah: in Bereshit with the two first people that were created: Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden. They were possibly created at first to be almost angel-like, but after they gave into temptation and went against God's commandment, they were punished. Not only were they punished, but the punishment stood for all of their descendants. One may wonder how this is justifiable because the next generation didn't have a chance; maybe they would be better. However, a simple answer to these worries is that Adam and Eve's sin represented that man and women have temptations and are curious. Despite God's original plan and expectations, God realized that man isn't an angel and shouldn't be held up to the same standard.  Therefore, despite some opinions, I think it is safe to say that Adam and Eve's punishment does not show the first sign of predestination in the Torah. 
Perhaps someone somewhere would argue that the case of the flood was also impeding people's free will because they didn't have the chance to repent, it is as if this fate was being placed on them. To that I respond that the case of the flood is similar to that of Adam and Eve. God realized that the world was not working out according to His original plan and made the wise decision of starting over and laying out the ground-rules this time. 
So where does that leave us? 


Predestination and The Nidcheh 
In my opinion, the best way to begin discussing this controversy is with the introduction of nivchar and nidcheh. The Torah has a concept of nivchar, or chosen, generations and nidcheh, non-chosen generations. To make a long story short, the Torah uses Toldot to distinguish between the chosen and non-chosen generations of people, starting with the generation after Adam. There are those who are chosen and those who are not. What determines one's chosen-potential is unclear but perhaps it is understandable. After all, if someone did something righteous, why shouldn't they be chosen. However, problem strikes when one realizes that it is not just that person who is chosen, it is also their descendants. Who is to say how their descendants would behave? What entails them the right to be 'chosen'? Why is it so important to stay in the bloodline? With this, we can begin to analyze predestination as it pertains to Avraham's children and onward. 

Rivka oh Rivka

Rivka plays a big role in the story we learned about Yizchaks blessing because she is the one that encouraged and commanded Yaakov to trick his father. In this we see some of Rivkas characteristics coming out aswell. Although we do not know if she is punished for her actions or even if her actions were actually something that had to happen, we can see how Rivka still has some influence from her family.
Since she came from a non zadikim family, Rivka has probably learned from Lavan the act of trickery (since he tricked Yaakov later aswell with the daughers).

Rivka has also always been portrayed as this wonderful Ima of the 4 Imahot who left her family and changed her ways for a moral and good life, but in this story we see another side of her.

Maybe the torah here came to teach us that sometimes there is still "spontaneous recovery," where people tend to go back to the way they were used to, and therefore so did Rivka.

It is also possible that God came to her, telling her that she has to do this in order for Yaakov to get the bracha and for things to play out a certain way.

We shall never know, but we can always think about it, what do you think?

One is better than two

We have learned that families were branching off to Nivchar and Nidchar.
Through this, and the bracha that Yizchack gave Yaakov , that he will always rule over his brother, nations were indirectly born that end up fighting with eachother.

What I do not understand is why such a thing as a nation has to be in this world?
The Jews had to come, to be the leaders of the world and show everyone  how to be ethical and moral, but is it really healthy to put people against eachother telling one that he is better than the other.
I see this as an ingredience for disaster.
I think that having nations,and telling one is better than the other, just makes them want to show that they are better and end up fighting. Many world wars (yes both the second and first) were also started because of countries who wanted to show the world how great they are and let everyone share that greatness with them by spreading it.

Telling Yaakov that he will rule over Esav might have simply meant that he will be the political leader, but it could have also been forshadowing to all the fighting and sorrow of today. People branch off because they are different and that opitomizes Yaakov and Esav who were like day and night. I think though that some of the fighting could have been prevented, if only Esav and Yaakov worked together, joining their forces and strenghts rather than putting eachother down so that no one gains anything.

Forefathers

All of our life (as far as I can remember) we have been taught about our great forefathers: Avraham, Yizchack and Yaakov. Now that we have analyized and looke more closely at the psukim and actions of our forefathers, my life has shattered. My idea of these amazing has been partially crushed and we are finally faced with reality.

What i simply wonder is why we have been taught all these great things about them (yes they were great and had many positive sides), but I feel like they were made to seem on a higher and better level than they actually are.

The same thing happened with the "bad, not zadikim" in the bible.
If you were asked who a bad, unchosen person in the bible was, many would think of Esav.

Why would many think that? Maybe because he ends up contrasting Yaakov, since Yaakov is all reighteous while he goes around trying to kill him. Well, I think this is very unfair, to judge someone as having internal factors even though it is actually external factors that drive them to act a certain way. What I mean is that Yaakov pushed him to do these things, and in some way he also had a "right" to get revenge. From the beginning he was not the spiritual one, who had it less in him to be moral and wonderful, but when Yaakov (and Rivka) took his bracha, what else were they expecting?

 I think we need to be more careful in the future about judging people in the torah, and this will certainly make me look more closley before I start analyzing a character from the torah, because as I have learned, I have been deceited in some way!

Thank you Mrs Perl for enlightening me.

אברהם vs. יצחק

We often think of Yitzchak as being exactly like Avraham. They went through very many similar experiences: they both had to leave, the identity of their wives were questioned, the Plishtim were jealous of both of them, they both eventually had a son after thinking their wives were barren, they both had a righteous and wicked son, and they both lived in times of famine. However, despite alll of these similarities, they both respond to these situations in very different ways. This difference in response shows that Yitzchak came and repaired and completed Avraham's actions, which is why he got certain things that Avraham himself never got.

We read an article by Rav Amnon Bazak that explained in detail some of these differences:

Barrenness: although they were both faced with the challenge of their wives being barren, they react differently. Avraham doesn't pray for a child, and when he states that Hashem hasn't given him a son, we don't see a mention of Sarah. However, it is very clear that Yitzchak prayed and included Rivkah in his prayer.

Famine: They both endure a time of famine. However, unlike Avraham, who decided to leave Eretz Yisrael, Yitzchak stays within the boundaries. The meforshim have various opinions on Avraham leaving the land - some see it as a transgression which caused the Galut to Mitzrayim, and some think it's him passing a test. However, it is agreed that Yitzchak remaining in the land is definitely praiseworthy. Because of this, Yitzchak receives a command that was never given to Avraham: to remain always in the land. Since Yitzchak was so devoted to the land, he gets an eternal connection to the land and the promise that Hashem will "always be with him."

I think that it's interesting that once you look deeper and deeper in to their personalities and reactions, you see how very different they are from one another, which is something you don't see at first glance. It's yet another one of those things that show us that we must look underneath the surface for a real explanation.

רבקה and יצחק

אליעזר comes to בתואל and לבן to take רבקה as a wife for יצחק. However, בתואל and לבן were idol worshippers. So after אליעזר gives them all of these gifts and stuff, and he asks if she is ready to go, they ask if she can stay. When they go to רבקה to ask her, thinking she'd say no and they'd have all the gifts, she actually says yes and goes with them. 

She's on the camel going there and she comes up to the place, she has no idea who יצחק is yet and she sees him praying and just falls off her camel. Because she's from an idol worshipping people, so she's overwhelmed at the site of him contemplating G-d. She takes a scarf and hides herself - showing that she felt a little inferior to him.

When they get married, it says that יצחק is in love with her and he's comforted by her, but it never mentions רבקה. We don't see any interaction between them. This is weird to us because it's like the polar opposite of אברהם and שרה. 

I find it really interesting how רבקה is so overwhelmed by יצחק praying/contemplating G-d. Often times, when learning תורה we don't think of there being other people other than the Jewish people. And especially when thinking רבקה we don't think that. So it's interesting to actually think that she was so used to idol worshipping that she wasn't used to contemplating G-d and was so overwhelmed by it. 

Challenges from the עקידה:

As we know, ה' put אברהם through a series of tests. These tests were meant to show אברהם's אמונה and ביטחון in ה'. The ultimate test that ה' presents to אברהם is the עקידה - when ה' asks אברהם to sacrifice his one and only son, or זרע, something אברהם's been wishing for for a long time now. Obviously, it's clear as to why there'd be many challenging aspects in this test, but to name a few... 1. Promise of זרע: Now ה' is telling אברהם to kill his one and only זרע, and if he kills him, then he will no longer have a זרע, someone to carry on his legacy and carry out and continue his mission. 2. צדק ומשפט/Ethical Monotheism: He's being asked to kill, which is completely immoral (phrased as יראת אלוקים in פרק ח). Everything that he has worked so hard for up to this point is potentially being challenged in this נסיון - he's been the paradigm of ethical monotheism and now all of the sudden he's going to go against all of this? 3. Leadership: He's been a leader, and someone for people to look up to and emulate, but now if he goes against everything that he's been preaching how will it reflect on him as a leader? Basically, in a nut shell, the last final test (the עקידה) potentially challenged everything that אברהם stands for. This is frightening because in an instant, all the hard work and dedication he's put into his mission could all be meaningless.

Who is at Fault

Yes, I know- we only went over the story today and tomorrow we will begin to answer the various questions. However, I had this question come up while we were sitting and learning and so I thought I would ask now, as it will hopefully make an interesting blog post.

Recall that Yaakov had dressed up as Esau so that he could receive the blessing that Yitzchak had intended to give to Esau. The blessing that he received, the one intended for Esau, was as follows: "May the lords give you the dews of the heaven, and nations shall serve you, you shall be a master over your brothers, and your mother's sons shall bow down to you."

When Esau shows up for his blessing, Yitzchak tells him that Yaakov tricked him and received it, and that Esau would have to serve his brother. Esau, of course, we angry.

My question is this: Why was it part of the blessing that one brother should serve another? How could that be part of the blessing- having your brother serve you. Why would Yitzchak tell "Esau" that Yaakov would serve him- how is that something good to promise anyone? It seems more like a curse than a blessing, dooming the two brothers to fight with each other. If all had gone as planned, Esau would have received that blessing and Yaakov would have been the one serving his brother. Would Yaakov not have been as enraged? Why would this be part of the blessing. It seems like Yitzchak was setting them up conflicts between Yaakov and Esau.

This whole story strikes me as sad. Do you not feel bad for Esau, the poor brother who cried because he wanted a blessing and his younger brother stole it from him. Do you not pity him?

Hello my dear fellow classmates,
This week we learned that Yitchkak and Rivkah of course had different perspectives on whom they think deserves the Bechora. I would like to focus on Yitchaks perspective. He believed that they were actually both chosen to receive the Bechora. Esav was the physical and wordly person whereas Yaakov was the spiritual person. I actually really liked this peaceful compromise and it made perfect sense to me. Therefore, i didn't completely understand why that compromise wouldn't have worked out. Why couldnt both sons be the chosen one and not have a Nidche at all? It makes me sad that there is this battle and fighting between two brothers. Why would God want to initiate this kind of fighting and competition over a Bracha?

A Middle Eastern Excuse?

In class we learned about Rabbi Tsarna's view on Yaakov and the bechora. What Yaakov did wasn't bad because that was accepted and the way of life in Middle Eastern societies of the time. Does this strike you as somewhat of an excuse? I mean, haven't we learned thus far that everything ethical monotheism stands for was revolutionary to the time? For example, perek aleph is a very organized, evolving, purposeful account of nature. It describes the creation of nature by G-d. G-d is in control of nature. This is revolutionary because other societies were so scared of nature. This is why this 'excuse' was a little disappointing to me because I loved seeing throughout Sefer Bereishit how the nivchar and ethical monotheism really changed the world. However, you may consider Sade's blog where she mentions Yaakov was only a child! Doesn't every child want to have more power or attention than their sibling? I mean that does seem pretty normal. In psychology we learned all about the Oedipus Complex when discussing Freud. Does it really seem so bad that Yaakov was fighting for some attention from his father? Or, as the nivchar, was he supposed to know and do better? What does everyone think about all these questions? I would love to know!

Payback?

We learned in Rabbi Sarna's article a unique approach to Yaakov's morally ambiguous actions regarding the Bechora. Instead of justifying Yaakov's actions in order to make it seem like Yaakov did nothing wrong, Rabbi Sarna explains that Yaakov in fact did not do the right thing and was punished for the rest of his life because of his deceit with Esev and with his father when he tricked him into giving him the Bechora. Although I really liked this article because it seems more realistic to me and does not try to stretch the events of the words of the Torah, it is a little concerning. Yaakov was punished for the rest of his life because of these actions he did when he was younger. First, he is forced to work 7 years for Lavan in order to marry his daughter. But he is tricked at his wedding by his soon to be father-in-law and has to work another 7 years. His favorite wife died during childbirth, he was tricked into thinking he lost his favorite child, and then he suffered again when he almost lost Binyamin (I guess his second favorite child?) All in all, he did not have the best luck. But is it fair to say that this was midah ceneged midah? Or is it just a form of payback? Is Yaakov tricked by Lavan because of the way he tricked his own father? Although we have learned about the concept of midah caneged midah many times since we were little, it seems to me like it is a bit unfair. Furthermore, did Yaakov ever try to do teshuvah or even recognize that he was wrong in tricking his father and taking advantage of his brother? There are so many questions we can ask about the morally ambiguous actions of Yaakov when dealing with his father and brother. This part of Bereishit is truly baffling!

Judging Yaakov

I am going to address two questions (which we asked and answered in class, but they still make for an interesting blog post).

Question One: How can Yaakov and Esau transfer the birthright? You are either born first, or you aren't. We read an article by Sarnum, and Sarnum brought proof from other ancient Mesopotamian documents that said one could transfer the birthright. It's important that he uses this as proof, because we need to remember while reading the Torah that times were different. Sarnum also brings proof from the Torah that shows us the people used to transfer the birthright, because the Torah states explicitly that you can't transfer the birthright. It would only tell the people not to do that if they had been doing, or if society allowed it.

Question Two: Did Yaakov do the right thing? Or was it the wrong thing? (Referring to the story of him bargaining for the birthright, as well as the trickery he later uses against his father). Sorna says that technically speaking, Yaakov was allowed to do what he did- it was perfectly legal in those days. But just because something is legal, it does not mean that it is the right thing to do. Sorna says that the fact that we hear this story in the context that G-d had already chosen him and that Yaakov had many negative experiences in his life afterwards shows us that it was not the moral thing to do, and so G-d punished him via the negative experiences.

MY QUESTION FOR YOU: If selling the birthright was legal in those days, do you think G-d should have punished Yaakov? Or do you not agree with Sorna at all. Additionally, what do you think about Esau in this story. He sold the birthright without hesitation- even after he was no longer hungry he didn't try to take back the deal....Do you think that Yaakov was justified from the start and never did anything wrong, as many commentaries say? Who's side are you on- the commentators, or Sorna?

Picking Favorites

It Seems Like People in Bereshit are Always Picking Favorites

Today I was thinking and I don't know why, but I started thinking that it seems like lately there has been a lot of  favorite-picking. Avraham picked Yitzchak as his favorite, Yitzchak picked Esav as his favorite, Rivkah picked Yaakov as her favorite... Later on, Yakov will pick Yosef as his favorite. 

My question is-what is the deal with people picking favorites? Usually parents will say that they don't have favorites even though they do, but here there is description about how all of these people so blatantly pick their favorite kids. What does this come to teach us? Is there a reason for this? Is the Torah telling us that it is okay for parents to outwardly have favorites?

I suppose Avraham picked Yitzchak as his favorite because Sarah was the one who had him, as opposed to Hagar. I'm still not over the whole Yishmael thing, just saying. Then we get to Esav and Yaakov. I don't know what the deal is with that. We discussed in class that maybe the parents had their favorites because they were attracted to their opposites. I am wondering how obvious it was,like did they get special treatment? Yaakov picks Yosef as a favorite later on, and that does not have good consequences. Did he learn from his mother to pick a favorite? It's funny how of all things, the Torah outwardly says that they picked favorites. Is it important?Maybe it's that the Torah isn't trying to hide something that comes naturally. A Time article written in October of last year discusses this issue and says that parents almost always have favorite children.

 "In one oft cited study, Catherine Conger, a professor of human and community development at the University of California at Davis, assembled a group of 384 sibling pairs and their parents and visited them three times over three years. She questioned them about their relationships and videotaped them as they worked through conflicts. Overall, she concluded that 65% of mothers and 70% of fathers exhibited a preference for one child, usually the older one. And those numbers are almost certainly lowballs, since parents try especially hard to mask their preferences when a researcher is watching." 

And just as parents have favorites, kids are usually able to see this. So maybe the Torah gives us this information because it was so obvious and the kids were able to tell. I wonder if the favoritism played a role in who they were later on. Probably. 

What do you think? Do you think it is in the Torah because it is an undeniable part of life? Do you think that parents pick favorites? 

Believe in yourself and you shall reach... a high level

We learned a new percpective in class, that Yaakov was actually wrong in all of his actions( the fact that he took advantage of Eaav and lied to his father about being Esav). He therefore ends up paying his whole life, having a difficult and sad life since he has to work for Lavan and (some would say this is mida keneget mida) he gets tricked by Lavan since he got married to the wrong sister and therfore had to work another 7 years to get the woman that he wanted.

This percpective is very interesting since it shines a whole different light on the story of Yaakov and his character. Since the torah is here to teach us lessons, I believe there is another lesson taught here.

Why would the Torah show us such a negative side of our zadik forefather Yaakov? Doesn't this show that he on some level did not have a great morality since he did not act in an ethical way, meaning Avraham would have never approved of such actions? Then why is this story here?

I believe that we can learn from this that even our great zadik forefathers had his faults, but he was still able to become a great person and a wonderful example for his descendents.

Let us take this story as an example for how we should view life. Even if we have sinned, or not lived exactly in the way a yadik would (by doing the little things such as gossiping for example) we should not give up and think that we do not have hope. I believe that Chasarat be tshuva is a very hard but nice thing to achieve and it is wonderful that the torah has such an option since it gives room for every person to improve, yes, even you!

hello my dear fellow classmates,
so im going to go back to the subject of the Akedah because i had a new question that i thought about with connection to the Akedah. We learned that there basically is no moral system that is independent of god,. Gos is the one that creates the moral system. With this information, i had a question that really started to bother me. This statement basically claims that we need god in order to have  a system of morality. However, there are numerous atheists and other who are very moral people without having a god. This causes a conflict with the statement above. In addition, is it fair to assume that people who dont have a god are immoral? I wonder what you guys will say in order to solve this problem.

Esav's Destiny

This past week we learned about the birth of Yaakov and Esav. Because of our hindsight bias, we automatically think that Esav was the bad brother. However, as we discussed in class, maybe he wasn't bad. After talking a little bit about the situation, it seems to be that the way the two sons turn out was predetermined by Hashem or else we might be learning the entire story with a different view. But, what if their lives were not already determined? Yaakov's temperament was more calm and simple, but that does not mean that he was going to be the better brother. Esav seemed to have equally, if not better, qualities. His temperament could have led him to become a great leader, or a politician rather than a manipulative person. He had good hunting and gathering qualities as well.

Think about anyone: If our lives were already going to be determined for us, would we act the way we are supposed to according to what we know our futures will become, or would we try to act differently. If Esav would have known that he was going to become a manipulative, powerful man, would he have changed his actions as a young man to become a better person, or would he have lived with what he knew his life was going to become, even if he did not like the outcome?

Too Sheltered?

Hello Everyone,
We recently learned about Avraham sending a messenger to find a wife for Yitzchak. At first glance, it seemed that Avraham was sheltering Yitzchak from the world by sending a messenger to find a wife for him. This reminded me of the discussion that we had at the Perl's on shabbos. To what extent should we shelter our kids from the world? When this topic was brought up, there were many conflicting ideas. I personally think that it depends on the specific situation. We learned that it wasn't that Avraham believed that his son was not strong enough to handle the outside world on his own, it was that Avraham wanted him to find a good wife. Like many parents, Avraham wanted this woman to be someone good for Yitzchak with good qualities and morals. But, there was more to it in this situation. This woman would have to take the challenge of leaving her birthplace and going to a strange land and have complete faith that this marriage would work out. Avraham's goal was to make sure that Hashem's promise of "Aretz" would be fulfilled, so it was crucial that Yitzchak did not stray. In today's Western society, we would not necessary do what our parents want us to do. Parents raise their children in the hope of them growing up to follow the same set of morals and religion that they taught, but it is completely normal for people today to break off from what their parents want and do what they want. This is not necessarily a bad thing in certain situations, but there was definitely a greater goal that Avraham was determined to achieve.


Do you think that Avraham should have done this or left his son to do what he wanted? Also, was it fair of Avraham to "force" this marriage upon his son? We never hear Yitzchak's point of view.

What Interested Me Last Week

This past week, when we had to read a handout in class with a partner, I read with Sharon. The article we all had to read was about Yaakov, Esav, Yitzchak, and Rivka. Something that we read really interested me- we read that they did not do a good job parenting Yaakov and Esev! Instead of looking at both of the boys and deciding what their temperaments were and what type of education would be best suited for them, they just had both of them sitting in a classroom learning (or whatever the equivalent of that was in those days). I found this interesting because in psychology class we talked about different parenting styles, and how every child has a different temperament. Not everyone is the same, and not all students should be given the same type of education/ not all kids should be raised in the same exact manner. Perhaps Yitzchak and Rivka should have realized that Esav was the type of kid who needed to be able to run around outside, and then his skills would have been developed in a healthy manner. Not that he was bad. Esev was a man of the field, and the commentary we read seemed to say that he spent his days in the field as a direct result of being cooped up inside all day.

What I really found interesting though is that this seems to imply that Rivka and Yitzchak were lacking as parents and did not communicate with one another well enough.

My question to you is: Do you think they had a good relationship? Do you think they did a good job raising Yaakov and Esev? Why do you think, in the end, Esev and Yaakov had a bad relationship? Did they?


(also something interesting that we read- Yaakov and Esev were apparently identical twins)

Brothers in the Torah

In Rav Hirsch's commentary it says that due to Yaakov and Esav's difference in personality, they should've been raised differently. Children should be raised according to the presumed path of life to which his tendencies lead. This could be why Yaakov and Esav grew up to be enemies, but it didn't really  have to to be that way. Their differences in personality could've complimented each other. While I was thinking about this on Thursday, I was thinking a lot about Yisaachar and Zevulun (sons of Yaakov and Leah), brothers in the Torah who had very different personalities but managed to use that to their advantage.

The relationship between Zevulun and Yissachar is truly remarkable and significant. Rather than competing, and literally facing one another in battle like Yaakov and Esav, they respect each other’s strengths and maintain a symbiotic relationship. In Bereishit perek 49 pessukim 13-14 it states, “Zevulun shall settle by seashores. He shall be at the ship’s harbor, and his last border will reach Zidon. Yissachar is a strong-boned donkey; he rests between the boundaries.” Rashi explains that Zevulun engages in commerce and provides for Yissachar so that he can be devoted to learning. As the Sforno elaborates, one cannot immerse himself wholly in Torah unless he has an income. I understand this to mean that their relationship is so unique because although they lead fundamentally different lives, they equally benefit from one other. Instead of fighting like Esav and Yaakov, we should unite like Zevulun and Yissachar. The Jewish nation can learn a lot from these brothers. Different Jews have different goals in this world, and those differences should be brought together to make a stronger nation. Perhaps Yaakov saw that his parents didn't raise him and Esav in the right way, so he made sure to raise his own children according to their own tendencies and personalities? 

Sympathy For Yishmael

Worried About Yishmael

I want everyone reading this to pretend that they have never read or heard the story of the Torah past Bereshit Perek 17.  Try to have an open mind and pretend like you don't know what is going to happen. Now let's look at a few things. 
Ever since the beginning, Hashem has been promising Avraham 2 central things: Zera and Aretz. They are two separate things but also connected because the zera is to inherit the aretz. 
After the whole Lot situation, Hashem made it clear to Avraham that Avraham's zera- and the person who would inherit the aretz, wasn't Lot- it was going to be a direct decedent of Avraham. This was probably shocking to Avraham because he was already so old and his wife couldn't get pregnant...
But then Sarah told Avraham that he should go to Hagar to have a child. And behold! Hagar had a child! Awesome. There's Avraham's zera, right? He is 86 years old and he's got a kid, it seems like this is it. Sure, it wasn't from Sarah, but it was from Sarah's maid-person-Sarah suggested it (even though she later got mad about it)- it seems all legitimate.
Could you imagine how excited he must have been? Avraham has his first (and presumably only) child whom he gets to teach to live according to the right path. He gets to teach him about the zera and aretz- that one day he (Yishmael) will inherit the land that was promised to Avraham's descendants.
Then all of a sudden we get news that Sarah is going to have a kid. She has a kid. Then they kick out Yishmael. How does Yishmael feel about this? I would not be happy. One second he and Avraham are best friends the next second, he's being exiled. How is he supposed to understand that? "Oh, sorry kid. Your mom wasn't good enough"? What's the deal? 


Look at this: 
Bereshit 17:25 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.

So here Yishmael is considered Avraham's son.. Avraham gave him a bris just like Hashem commanded. Yishmael is a wonderful tzadik probably (it doesn't say he was a bad kid anywhere, does it?)...

Bereshit 22: 2 And He said: 'Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.'  
Yes... Yitzchak is Avraham's only son. Because a few chapters ago, there wasn't somebody else in Avraham's life that would be considered his son... 




What do you guys think of all this?

The parents' mistake

When we read about the perushim of Yaakov and Esav, we learned that Yizchak and Sarah made a mistake in the way they treated their kids. Instead of giving them the attention they needed, they treated them both the same way. We know nowadays that this is not the right way to bring up children since each child has different weaknesses that need to be focused on and therefore must be given harsher parenting in some aspects.

Some say that this is the reason Esav turned out to be this black sheep because he was not brought up correctly. Could this teach us the importance of parenting? Or is this just an unfair factor of life?

It is also known that the parents favored their children, Yizchak liked Esav while Rachel liked Yaakov which shows another weakness of their parenting since it should have not been obvious that they each liked one better.

Perushim

A we read in partners about the Perushim on the story of Yaakov and Esav, it said that while the babies were in the stomach, one kept kicking when they were near an unholy place( Esav) and one kept kicking when they were near a synagogue.  We also learned about Esav being a hunter, where the perush then says that he was a very deceitful, tricky and harsh person) while Yaakov was a tentdweller, where the perush said that he was learning Torah all day being holy and good.
Mrs Perl then told us in class that these explanations are simply Perushim trying to give us insight, but might not be correct.

This made me think about the idea of perushim. I think that sometimes they can be perceived as negative since they paint for you a picture that you can never forget and you end up seeing the people in the Torah as the Perushim explained them. For example, all my life, while i was thinking of Esav, I saw him as this evil man, while Yaakov seemed to me like the person son, learning Torah and being good.

Yaakov also did tricky things, like taking advantage of Esav when he was hungry, or posing as Esav in order to get a Bracha, but since he was the Nivchar he was not judged as harshly in my opinion.

I think it is sometimes hard to decipher the Torah, but the persushim in my opinion could be very misleading.

Esav the Villain?

When we were younger, we were always taught that Yaakov is the good twin and Esev is the bad twin. Yaakov studies all day and is devoted to Hashem while Esev is a wild hunter. This is the classic story that we have learned which makes it all too simple: Yaakov is good and Esev is bad. However toay when we saw the text of the pessukim, I began to have difficulty with the classic tale that we have learned. No where in the pessukim does it state that Esev was evil or wild; he is called a man of the field, and it even says that Yitzchak loved him. Unlike the stories we were taught when we were little, Yaakov does not seem to be learning all day or intensely dedicated to Hashem. He is only described as an Ish Tam who sat in his tent. How did this show that he was a serious learner and therefore making him the good twin? Furthermore, one can even see Yaakov as the "evil" one in these pessukim. He seems to be trying to deceive Esev in order to take the Bechorah, and he seemingly takes advantage of Esev's fatigue from the field and his hunger. Where do these ideas that Esev was evil came from? How can we say that Esev was the bad one when it does not seem to say explicitly in the pessukim that Esev ever did anything wrong? The midrashim that discuss Esev seem to present a conflict to the actual text of the pessukim.

hello my dear fellow classmates,

So yesterday we learned about Yitchaks relationship with his bride Rivkah. Rivkah is one of our mothers taht we are supposed to look up to. However,when Rivkah first met her future husband she actually fell off her camel and covered herself up with her scarf because she felt so inferior to him and his great connection with Hashem since she saw him pray. Clearly, Rivkah has some severe self-esteem issues and thinks that shes inferior to her man. Is this a healthy way for women to view themselves? Should we really look up to her as a role model and also feel so inferior to our husbands? I think that she should have been confident. Although she may perhaps be a little behind with her spiritual connection with Hashem she should have been optimistic and confident that she will also achieve this. She shouldnt feel inferior and defeated. Thats not a quality i would want to look up to. What do you guys think?

hello my dear fellow classmates,

so basically we learned about the akedah. Its very interesting because its all so very focused on avrahams relationship with God. We ask all these questions about gods motif and whether he was testing Avraham. We also ask a lot of questions about avraham and whether he passed gods test. The questions about god and avraham go on and on. Even sarah has a bit of a role in the next parsha since she dies and the midrash says that she found out about her husband sacrificing her only son whom she waited for years to have. Who is missing here? The lovely son Yitzchak! I always wondered how he felt about this entire situation and there is not a word mentioned about him and his feelings. Did he know something was up? didnt he get suspicious? wasnt he super afraid if he did know his own father was going to kill him!?!?! Personally, i think that by the end of the little trip that avraham and yitchak took, yitchak knew taht something was going on with Avraham. I wonder if he knew but simply accepted his fate. I wonder why nothing is mentiones about Yitzchak. why do you think that is?

Conflicting Ideals

As many of you know I am a big fan of Rabbi Leibtag so I decided to read the article Mrs. Perl handed out to us after class on Thursday. I came out with some very interesting insights. I would love to share one of them with you.
You can look at the akeida as a conflict between two ideals. Natural morality is one ideal that we have talked about extensively throughout Sefer Bereishit. However, there is nothing more despicable to man's natural instinct than killing someone-especially your own son! On the other hand, from the perspective of man's relationship with G-d, there is nothing greater than the fulfillment of a divine command. In an ideal world, these two ideals should never conflict. How can G-d command us to do something that is immoral? However, in the REAL WORLD individuals often face situations where they are torn between conscience and religion. I think the Akeida can be seen as something that is kind of over our heads. When we were learning it in class, I did not see how it related to my life whatsoever. It was just giving me more insight into Avraham's exemplary character that I would never be able to live up to. However, after I read the article, I realized how the akeida can be seen as a very relatable story to our lives. We also go through these inner conflicts on a daily basis. Obviously, we are not asked to kill people, but we are faced with challenges and pressures. We have to be open to new situations and think of what we are really doing. This story also shows that not everything in life will seem or be 'ideal.' The ideal is something very difficult to achieve and even Avraham was faced with challenges to the ideal. Also, I think it is cool how the Torah gives us a real world situation. G-d understands that the real world is certainly different from the ideal world. This makes me feel good because it shows that G-d really does understand our struggles and doesn't think achieving the ideal is a 'piece of cake.'

Is God Meant to be Involved?

As we learned the mind boggling story of the Akeida, a huge question came up: Is there a system of morality and ethics independent of God, or is morality established only because God said so? This question was truly important to recognize because we learned that Avraham was willing to go everything he believed in to follow the word of God. We already knew that Avraham was a man who represented morality and ethics and Yirat Elokim. According to Soren Kirkegard, the Theologian, if God tells us to do something, we have to do it. Because God is moral and ethical. He wouldn't actually make us go through with such a thing like the Akeida because He knows that it's not right. This proves that morals and ethics stem from God. This was the biggest test to Avraham so far, and we must recognize how important God's decision was. If God was not moral, He might have let Avraham go through with the Akeida, destroying His promise of Zerah. However, we can see that this was not the truth. Avraham was willing to give up everything for God because he truly trusted in Him, and God realized that. He would never leave Avraham, the man who was meant to spread Ethical Monotheism and recognized God first, and ruin the Brit that they made together.

Poor Sarah

Imagine being an extremely old lady, and hoping all of your life that you are going to have a kid. One day, you are told by G-d that you are going to have a son and your heart is full of joy. Then a few years later, your husband disappears with your beloved child, off to do some sort of service to G-d. You continue on your usual schedule, unaware of what is really going on. Then a day or so later, someone tells you that your husband killed your son, sacrificing him to G-d.

Your heart sputters, stops, and you die. Isn't that awful?

If the midrash that says Sarah died because she thought Avraham had actually killed Yitzchak is true, that might be one of the saddest stories ever. And poor Avraham and Yitzchak, returning home to find Sarah dead.

(other opinions say that Sarah died after this whole story, and its simply the next important thing mentioned)

Test of morality

We learned that God intended the Akedat Yizchack to be a test of what kind of morality Avraham had. It could have been that Avraham had a morality because he simply thought that certain things were right to do and certain things were not and that is why he was moral. Another approach, the one God wanted Avraham to have was that Avrahav followed Gods moral code because that was what God commanded and God has the ultimate say.

With this test God tested Avraham as a whole, what the source of his actions were. Since Avraham was willing to kill his own son, which definately goes against everything he has worked up to and goes against everything he seemed to believe in and teach, we can clearly see that Avraham did all of this for God and because God commanded it.

Now I was sitting there and pondering, how this relates to us. Is it trying to teach us that our source of morality has to come from and because of God? Is this saying that we are not able to think for ourselves if something is moral or not? I feel like this goes against our right to speak our mind and think. Why would we have a brain, to reason our way through what we think is right, if we are not able to use that method?

Life is full of questions, maybe you can help me solve some of them...

Morality vs. Religion

Today's class about morality and ethics reminded me of this lovely picture that I saw on a great website called iwastesomuchtime.com Usually this website is full of silly pictures and entertaining videos, but this picture really made me think. I had to read it a couple of times in order to fully understand what it was trying to say. So what a coincidence that I found this last night, and today in class we learned about morality, religion, and ethics in reference to Avraham and the famous akeda. According to Soren Kierkegaard and this theory Teleological Suspension of the Ethical, this was the ultimate test in order to show what was the driving force behind Avraham's beliefs and actions. Was he a moral and ethical person because of the actual morality or because God said so? This made me start thinking where the idea of ethics and morality even came from? Did people have the idea of ethics and morality before Avraham came around? If Avraham introduced the idea of ethical monotheism and he was the one to find God, doesn't that in itself prove that ethics and morality stemmed from the idea of God (and/or religion)? Now the picture. I want to know what yall think of it! Honestly I'm not sure myself what I think of it. Comment away!

יראת אלוקים

We looked at 3 different sources (other than בראשית) that use the phrase יראת אלוקים. In each source it speaks about not doing certain things because it's not mortal or ethical, or setting up a moral and ethical society. In the first, we see how יוסף doesn't want to imprison the brothers because he sees that it's not moral and ethical. The second shows how the מילדות don't want to kill the babies because it's not moral and ethical. In the final one, we see that יתרו (who isn't even Jewish) sees the value of setting up a court system with people who are יראי אלוקים - they go against bribery, and stand for אמת. The world has to be run on moral and ethical principles. All the sources display how they aren't trying to have a person relationship with a G-d, when they use the phrase יראת אלוקים they are using it in a way to refer to moral and ethical behavior.
These background sources gave us insight into the meaning of the phrase יראת אלוקים when it's mentioned in בראשית. When אברהם comes to גרר and runs into אבימלך, he said שרה was his sister. When he was later asked why he said this, he explained that he saw there was no יראת אלוקים and he was scared that they'd murder him to take שרה. So essentially אברהם is drawing a parallel between a lack of יראת אלוקים and the willingness to kill (which suggests a lack of צדק ומשפט. So, by saying that he saw there was no יראת אלוקים he was saying that he sensed a lack of morality and being ethical i this society.
We see that there is a natural order to the world in פרק א' which says that man acts in a "G-d like" way because he is made בצלם אלוקים. This order isn't referring to the personal relationship with ה' through מצוות (etc.), but more of just acting in a way that established a moral and ethical society. It has nothing to do with G-d as a "commander" - it's a relationship with G-d in the sense that we are made בצלם אלוקים and therefore must emulate G-d. So אברהם was saying that he was afraid that there was no יראת אלוקים and therefore they'd be willing to kill for what they wanted - because they'd fail to realize that they had צלם אלוקים and therefore must separate from their animalistic instincts.

Lot and S'dom

We learned about the story of לוט and the city of סדם. He greets these visitors, and he pleads with them so they will come into his house. So then all of סדם comes to his house and bangs on the door looking for the 2 men (or angels). לוט comes out and says - "oh, my brothers don't do this evil, I have two daughters, you can take them but don't harm these men or they'll be judgement between us." So the men extended their arms, wanting to break the door, לוט saves the men and the people leave. אברהם looks towards Sdom and sees it in smoke - G-d remembers אברהם and sends לוט to him, לוט had sexual relations with his own two daughters in order to have עמון and מואב - because so many people had been destroyed.
So there are two interpretations of this story. One from רש''י and one from רמב''ן:
רש''י: Everything in this story is literal - it's מדה כנגד מדה: he, לוט, gives his daughters up, then he has sexual relations with them. This shows us how לוט and his tragic downfall was the complete antithesis of אברהם.
רמב''ן: The whole thing is more sarcastic and isn't meant to be taken literally. It doesn't make sense - why would 500 people come to rape two people? And why on earth would לוט be willing to give up his own two daughters? When they were banging on the door asking for the guests, it showed how inhospitable the people of סדם were, and when לוט offers his daughters he was speaking sarcastically to show the people how horrible their actions were. After this סדם was mad at לוט for rebuking them, which proves that סדם really needed to be destroyed.

Avraham vs. S'dom

We have been learning about how אברהם is the paradigm of צדק ומשפט/social justice. We see many examples of אברהם as this perfect example of social justice. The first story, from פרק י''ח, which I found extremely surprising, אברהם is talking to Hashem and he stops just to go up to the 3 men to see if they needed anything. Through this story we see exactly to what extent אברהם goes towards helping people. The second story, also from פרק י''ח, is when אברהם debates with Hashem in order to save סדם - a society that was full of people who didn't act morally and ethically, which was all that אברהם stood for. At first the two stories don't really seem to be connected and that they shouldn't come after one another in the Torah. However when you compare the actions of the two people in each story, it makes it clear as to why the two stories are connected and come after one another.
When we learn about אברהם, we learn about his intense passion for צדק and משפט. He focused on taking care of those who were lower than him, and spreading the ideas of ethical monotheism to the בני ישראל. He wanted to create a society that embraced the שבע מצוות בני נח, acted בצלם אלקים, and established a society based on צדק ומשפט. We see how important these concepts are to אברהם when they are put into action as he tends to the angel's needs. We get an even greater sense of how important they were in comparison to the values, or lack thereof, of סדם .סדם was a society that was the antithesis of everything that אברהם stood for, and even though this was true אברהם still fought for them when Hashem sought to destroy them. This really shows us how true אברהם was to what he believed in, and that he was very understanding and caring towards others. By having the two stories one after another, it helps us make an easy, direct comparison between the two.

Hello my dear fellow classmates,

So today we learn the very sad event in which Sarah asks her husband to ask Avraham to send away his son Yishmael since he is a bad influence on her son Yitchak. Hashem enforces her behavior and tells him that he should heed her words and do as she asks. I was so appalled upon hearing this. First of all, isnt it so egocentric, selfish and inconsiderate of Sarah to ask her husband whom she loves to basically banish his son. She has a son, she knows how painful it would be to have to abandon a child. In addition, why would Hashem support that. Just because Yishmael is not a zera does not mean that he needs to be abandoned. This whole situation makes Sarah and hashem seem cruel and heartless. Yishmael is such a nebuch in this situation. Can you guys please make me feel better about this situation!?!

Pondering

Let's all just stop and think about a few weird things, because I would love it if someone could come up with answers!

Weird Situation One: Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, who can probably have whatever woman he wants, decides he wants to be with Sarah, an elderly woman. What's the deal? Why does he want to be with Sarah when she's so old?


Weird Situation Two: Avimelech, another king, decides he wants to have to Sarah... what is going on!! Wasn't Sarah old?

Weird Situation Three: Lot's wife turned into salt because she turned to look back at the destruction. She turned into salt???

I have, at least, an answer to the third weird situation. The midrash teaches us that Lot's wife sinned like all of the other people in the city, and she did not really merit to escape. When Lot first greeted his guests (angels or men?) he asked his wife to help him in being a courteous host, and she refused. She reluctantly agreed to fetch salt, but she got it from the neighbors and let them know that Lot was having guests over. Because she sinned through salt, her punishment was to become salt. Talk about bad karma.
Also, a fun fact about the pillar of salt that I am going to copy from this website: http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/lots-wife-midrash-and-aggadah

The pillar of salt was left by God as a memorial for all time (Yalkut Shimoni on Esth., para. 1056). Anyone who sees Lot’s wife is required to recite two blessings. The first, “Blessed be the One who remembers the righteous,” expresses thanksgiving and praise to God for having remembered Abraham, by the merit of whose righteousness He saved Lot and his wife from the upheaval; this blessing relates to the miracle that was performed for Lot. The second blessing, “Blessed be the true Judge” (that is recited upon hearing of someone’s death), is recited for the punishment visited on Lot’s wife (BT Berakhot 54a–b).