Random Musing Before Shabbat – Vayishlakh 5778 – Who Will Say #MeToo for Dinah?

Not surprised that many are choosing to focus on everything but the rape of Dinah this week. It’s hitting far too close to home in these times.

Exactly a decade ago I wrote for parashat Vayishlakh a musing entitled “No One’s In The Kitchen With Dinah.” Just three years back, I revisited it again, in the midst of the period when many were trying to remind us that #blacklivesmatter. Today, it gets revisited and revised from a different perspective.

I started somewhat frivolously with this set of parody lyrics to “I’ve Been Working on the Railroad” because of it’s obvious “Dinah” connection:

I’ve been reading from the Torah,
all the livelong week
I’ve been reading from the Torah,
in the hopes I’ll get a peek
Of the secret hidden meanings
found between the lines
Yet they somehow still elude me,
I can’t see the signs

Torah please reveal,
Torah please reveal
Torah please reveal your secret truths
Torah please reveal,
Torah please reveal
Torah please reveal your truths

Shechem thought that Dinah was lovely
Took as if she were a pri – i – i – ize
Dinah’s bro’s said “this ain’t a problem”
If you goys all circumcise,” we’re singing

Oy, oy, oyddly doy doy
Oy, oy, cut off your diddly oy doy oy
Oy, oy, oyddly doy doy
So the goys got circumcised

While the Shechemite men were healing
While they all were resting in be – e – e – ed
Some of Dinah’s brothers came stealing
Into town and killed them dead, they’re singing

Oy, oy, we got our revenge
On those lousy Shechemites
Oy, oy, now us all will dread
Mess with us you’ll wind up dead

When the deed was done they told Jacob
And an angry scolding to them he gave
For what they’d done to his reputation
And not their murd’rous acts so grave, he’s singing

Oy, oy, look at what they’ve done
How am I supposed to do business now?
My ferkhakhte sons must be crazy
Their deeds I can’t disavow

In the sturm und drang of our story
There is one voice that we’ve not heard
Didn’t anyone ask Dinah?
Of what she thought there’s not a word, she’s singing

Oy, oy, don’t they want to know
What I’m thinking, how it makes me fee – ee – ee – eel?
Oy, Oy, they do not seem to know
That a woman’s pain is real!

Well, I could go on…but I won’t. It’s silly, and almost trivializes what is otherwise a most troubling piece of Torah text-the story of the rape of Dinah, and the revenge done by her brothers. It’s no laughing matter. Two wrongs simply never add up to a right, and in this case, we have wrongs compounded upon wrongs compounded upon wrongs, ad nauseaum. Over the years, in writing about this parasha, I’ve taken all the parties to task: Shechem, for his impetuousness, and for being a rapist. Jacob’s sons for the deceit, trickery, and murderous deeds. The good people, the Hivites of shechem, for their casual willingness to be circumcised whether it was truly in repentance for what Shechem had done to Dinah, or simply in order to satisfy their own lust. Jacob, of course, for caring not so much about what had happened, and who had done what, as he did about what it did to his reputation, and his ability to conduct business with the people in the region.

I’ve never tackled Dinah herself. There are interpreters of Torah who fault Dinah by interpreting the text to imply that Dinah was out where she shouldn’t be, or being flirtatious. How typical of the generations of misogynist redactors and interpreters of this sacred text to fall back on a “blame the victim” mentality. Others ask us to place ourselves in the values and ethics of the time when the story is taking place. I reject both of these whitewashings categorically. Historically, we’re far too good at apologetics.

As you may know, I am particularly fond of working to redeem so-called irredeemable texts. I’ve found no footholds at all in this story other than the classic “well, it’s a great lesson on how not to behave.” I don’t find that satisfactory. The only place left for me to turn is to Dinah. Yet she is absent from the text.

As our society explodes in new found disgust for sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior that has plagued us for millennia, perhaps the time is ripe to take the task of being Dinah’s voice on.

Prone as I am to inventing creative midrash, as I have done so often in these musings, I do not feel I can legitimately do so in this case. It’s not that I can’t imagine what Dinah might have felt and thought–I surely can. It’s that I don’t feel qualified, as a male, to even try to put words in Dinah’s mouth, thoughts in Dinah’s head, and feelings in Dinah’s heart.

The words above are words I wrote a decade ago. Today, it’s even worse. Though I am fairly well convinced that I have not treated a woman in a way that might be perceived as sexual harassment or sexual discrimination, as all these icons fall about me, I am forced to wonder if I am even deluding myself.

Given my predilection for championing those of lower socio-economic standing, I could rationalize that it is very success of these men that is the cause of their treatment of women. I’m not one of these successful men, perhaps because I don’t have their drive, and thus I’m not prone to abuse my power like they are. However, I know this is horsehockey, plain and simple. Men who mistreat and abuse women come from across the socio-economic spectrum. I imagine some men, unhappy with their perceived lack of success even though they have a big male ego, take their unhappiness with their own lot out on the women in their lives.

Maybe, because I am educated, I am better able to control myself, I wonder. Horsehockey again. It’s not education – clearly – for misogynists, rapists, abusers, and their ilk also come from across the educational spectrum.

I am, for all effects, a religious professional. Maybe that’s it. Horsehockey yet again. It’s not religion – that’s more than obvious. There are plenty of pious and righteous sexual abusers out there – including clergy, and candidates for U.S. Senate, and even Presidents of the United States. Some even argue that the sexually-repressed nature of some forms of practiced religions are responsible for creating abusers.

I can say that I strive, daily, to treat all people equally and with respect. I admit that I sometimes do fail to live up to that desire. I can say that, in all honesty, I have never been tempted to ignore anyone’s “no”or “wait” or “stop” (not that I have found myself in that sort of situation that I can recall. I have, however, been on the receiving end of having a please stop this harassment go unheeded. I have hesitated to say this, because, in this moment of “metoo” I did not want to distract from the moment. Women have endured millennia of systematic abuse and mistreatment, and perhaps, now, the time is finally come when we will be forced to deal with this virus infecting humanity.

I am fortunate that I lived a life in my youth in the 60s (and to this day) in which my circle of family and friends included people of all colors, beliefs, sexual preferences, etc. It has sometimes included men that, at least conversationally, talked about women in a way that always made me uncomfortable. I sometimes spoke up about it, but I did not always do so, and I regret that. Yes, I am sure there were moments of “locker room talk.”  I may have spoken words that could be seen as objectifying women. I will not attempt to justify that simply because “times were different then.” This is not only the opportunity for women to speak out about their abusers, it is time for men to change. It is time for society to change.

I cannot speak for women. I cannot pretend to know what Dinah felt. I remain unworthy to even try, even though I can certainly imagine it. So please, men (and women) let’s find ways to give voice to Dinah this Shabbat, and forever on, until we have learned the hard lessons from this story and millennia of abuse and harassment of women.

Great female scholars and writers, Jewish and not, like Anita Diamant, Tikva Frymer-Kensky, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Phyllis Trible, Drorah Setel, professor Renita Weems (from whom I was privileged to learn at Vandy) and so many others are far more qualified and capable to imagine Dinah’s viewpoint.

So my challenge to myself and to you (whether you are male or female) this Shabbat is to seek out the feminist and women’s commentaries and interpretations of this biblical story (along with others) and see if they help bring any greater insight into why this troubling text is part of the canon. (See below for some references.)

Here’s a couple of links to get you started:






And of course, there are many, many books like “The Torah: A Women’s Commentary,” “The Red Tent,” and even the older the “Women’s Bible Commentary.” They’re in my library along with many others-and should be in yours, too!

Shabbat Shalom,

©2017 (portions ©2007) by Adrian A. Durlester

Other Musings on this Parasha:

Vayishlakh 5777 – My Prayer or Me Prayer
Vayishlakh 5775 – No One’s In The Kitchen With Dinah (or Eric or Michael)
Vayishlakh 5774 – Biblical Schadenfreude
Vayishlakh 5773 – That Other Devorah’s Tale
Vayishlakh 5772 – One and Many, Many and One
Vayishlakh 5771/5763 – The Bigger Man
Vayishlakh 5769 – A Fish Called Wonder
Vayishlakh 5768 – No One’s in the Kitchen With Dinah
Vayishlakh 5767-Wrestlemania
Vayishlakh 5766-Like Deity, Like Deity’s Child
Vayishlakh 5765-B’li Mirmah
Vayishlakh 5762-Don’t Get Mad–Get Even!
Vayishlakh 5761-No Doubt? No Wonder!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Random Musing Before Shabbat–Vayeitze 5778–Change, In Perspective (Redux 5762)

Taking a writing break over this Thanksgiving weekend, so I offer the musing from way back in 2000/5761

Random Musings Before Shabbat – Vayetze 5761 – Change, In Perspective

There is an African proverb that says:

“If you refuse to be made straight when you are green, you will not be made straight when you are dry.”

As we are advancing in our lives to the time that is our dryness, we must strive to remain green. That is, we must remain open to change, be flexible, and be ready to respond to that still, small voice.

As we become comfortable with our lives’ routines, we begin to tune out the voices of change calling out to us. Our routines become “. We must find times in our lives when we remove those distractions, and open ourselves up to hear what is out there that may be calling to us. Shabbat affords us just such an opportunity and I urge us all to take advantage of it.

Change continued to come to Yaakov throughout his life. The epiphanal moment we read about in Vayetze was only a beginning. Yaakov’s eyes were opened. I am sure that many of us have come to the same realization at some time in our lives as did Jacob on that day:

Acheyn yeish Ad-nai bamakom hazeh v’anochi lo yadati.

Surely G”d was in this place, and I, I did not know it.

I still remember the powerful impression those words made on me the first time I read them. They are no less so each time I read them or hear them, or even think them. They are a constant reminder to try and tune out the background noise of life and truly listen. But I am also reminded that after this “awesome” experience, Yaakov makes only a minimal of fuss, and then moves on to continue his journey. As it was for Yaakov, our realization that G”d is in a place where we are also is only one step down the road of our lives.

G”d is found in many places and many situations. Yaakov was fleeing from his brother after being coerced by his mother to steal the birthright and trick his aging, blinding Father, Yitzchak. Was he motivated by guilt or fear? Who knows. He had barely set out on his journey when G”d stepped in to reassure him that it was through him that the lineage of G”d’s chosen was to be continued and made numerous as the dust.

Yet, after recognizing the awesome miracle that G”d had been in that place and with him, he proceeds to have the audacity to tell G”d “OK-if you do what you say you’re going to do, then you will be my G”d.” This is a hero, a great figure of Judaism, one of avoteinu?

Was Yaakov indeed the better brother? And was Esau all bad? After all, Esau tended to his Father lovingly, whilst Yaakov simply took advantage of his Father’s old age. Sure, Yaakov had not only his Father’s blessing, but G”d’s blessing and promise. Yet that still wasn’t enough for him. He wanted proof from G”d in order to allow G”d to be his G”d. His Father’s word was not enough, nor his Mother’s! (Of course who knew what kind of father Yitchak was to Yaakov after the trauma of his own childhood, and the fact that Yaakov was hardly the he-man of his two sons.) Makes you wonder if, when he went along with his Mother’s plan to steal the birthright, he really believed he was destined to rule over Esau, or if was just taking advantage of what he saw as his Mother’s foolish belief.

So there you have some examples of “change, in perspective” and a “change in perspective.” See the difference one little comma makes? Now tell me that it’s insignificant that the Hebrew text says v’anochi lo yadati” with the superfluous “anochi.” Superfluous, my foot.

I wish you and yours a pleasant Shabbat, and a safe journey down your road of life. Enjoy a “change in perspective” and have a look at “change, in perspective.”

Shabbat Shalom,


©2000 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other Musings on this parasha:

Vayeitzei 5777 – Being FruitBull
Vayetze 5776 – Now and Then (Redux 5763)
Vayeitzei 5775 – Hapax Shabbat
Vayeitzei 5774 – Terms and Conditions Revisted
Vayeitze 5773 – Mandrakes and More
Vayeitze 5772 – Stumbling on Smooth Paths
Vayeitzei 5771 – Luz is No Loser
Vayeitzei 5769 – Going Down and Loving It!
Vayeitzei 5768 – Encounters
Vayeitzei 5767-Hapax On All Your Hapaxes
Vayetze 5766-Pakhad HaShem?
Vayetze 5765-Cows and Cranberries
Vayetze 5764-Terms and Conditions
Vayetze 5763-Now and Then
Vayetze 5760-Taking Gd’s Place

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Toldot 5778

This was my very first musing on parashat Toldot, written back in 1998. I thought it was due for a revisit after 19 years. No major changes, just a few edits and edge-smoothing – it still speaks for itself.
Random Musing Before Shabbat – Toldot 5778 – Like Father Like Son

Like father like son.

It wasn’t enough that Abraham lied to “protect his wife.” Isaac had to do it too. And probably with the same King his father tried to fool. It seems, however, that Isaac is not to be honored and taken care of like his father. For this time, in this version of the thrice-repeated Torah tale) it is not G”d that exposes the lie. It is Isaac’s own carelessness, foolish enough to be caught fondling his wife where Abimelech could see them! (Now one could argue that G”d made Isaac deliberately stupid-or excessively horny, but to me that seems unlikely.)

Like father, like son.

Isaac redug the wells at Gerar that had once been his father’s. He named them with the same names his father had given them. Surely a symbolic act in many ways. Isaac drinking from his father’s wells, carrying on the family traditions. Isaac restoring the good name of his father to these wells, a name taken away when they were stopped up after Abraham’s death. Isaac drinking from the same spiritual source as his father.

Do the stopped up wells perhaps represent Isaac’s estrangement from his father after what happened in Moriah? And is Isaac’s restoring them symbolic of some level of posthumous reconciliation?

Isaac then tried digging some new wells in the same general area, only to have the water rights disputed by local herdsmen. So he moved away to a location nearby and tried again-this time successfully. It is only after all these things that G”d finally speaks and tells Isaac him that G”d is with him.

So Isaac had to both recognize his father, and establish his own identity before G”d would speak to him and remind Isaac that G”d intended to fulfill the promise to Abraham-and that Isaac was an instrument in this.

Much is made of how Isaac seems so insignificant when compared to his father and his younger son. In these simple acts Isaac fulfilled his purpose. To be the son of Abraham. To be the father of Jacob.

Surely there are lessons to be gleaned from this.

We can’t all be an Abraham, a Jacob, a Joseph, a Moses. Some of us are meant to be Isaacs. To be that link that maintains continuity in an ever changing universe. It is never an easy role, and not a glorious one. Sometimes this link in the chain bears difficult burdens. But its reward should be clear to each of us today. For were it not for Isaac, we would, none of us, be here today. Though he was not sacrificed to G”d by his father, Isaac gave the ultimate sacrifice-himself-the entirety of his long life-so that the line of Abraham could be carried on and G”d’s promises fulfilled.

This Shabbat, dig up a few of your ancestor’s wells. Start a few new ones of your own. Perhaps then you too will be ready for G”d to talk to you.

Shabbat Shalom,

©2017 (portions © 1998) by Adrian A. Durlester

Other Musings on this parasha:
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Random Musing Before Shabbat–Chayyei Sarah 5778–Life Still Goes On

In 5762, I pondered on why the Torah includes the speech of Abraham’s servant to Bethuel and Laban, explaining all the instructions that Abraham had given him, and relating what had transpired to bring the servant to this point, seeking Rebekkah as a wife for Isaac. After all, the Torah has already told us all of this-why the need to have it repeated, written out, in the Torah?

Something I didn’t notice at that time, but which became strikingly apparent to me the following year, in 5763, is this: When Rebekkah and Isaac meet, the Torah states simply that the servant “told Isaac all the things that he [the servant] had done.” (Bereshit 24:66.)

[Here I am years later in 5778, and something compelled me to revisit this particular musing this year. While I’m working on this, I also need to figure out why. Why this particular puzzle, and why this particular response to dealing with that puzzle.]

Fascinating, isn’t it? We have this elaborate retelling of the servant’s story to Laban and Bethuel. A completely redundant passage. It gives us pause, makes us wonder. Our Torah is quite effective at that, isn’t it? Seeing this apparently redundant retelling in print, we are given pause. So we stop and look at the text, and ask questions, and wonder why it is the way it is. Exactly as intended. For every time the text gets us to question the text, the text is doing its job well!

So, after wrestling with the question of why the Torah contains the complete text of the servant’s retelling, just this short time later the text presents us with another question.

All this elaborate explanation of how Abraham sent his servant, how Gd guided the servant to kin of Abraham there to find a perfect match for Isaac in Rebekkah. 61 verses in all (24:1-61), including the 15 verses of the servant’s retelling the tale (vv34-49.)

Yet the entire story of Isaac and Rebekkah’s first meeting, and their becoming man and wife, is told in just 6 verses (24:62-67). Why isn’t verse 66 replaced with another 15 verses where the Torah relates in intricate detail what the servant tells to Isaac about his mission? Why is the consummation of the marriage of the second in line of our patriarchs and matriarchs not given more time in print?

סב וְיִצְחָק בָּא מִבּוֹא בְּאֵר לַחַי רֹאִי וְהוּא יוֹשֵׁב בְּאֶרֶץ הַנֶּֽגֶב: סג וַיֵּצֵא יִצְחָק לָשׂוּחַ בַּשָּׂדֶה לִפְנוֹת עָרֶב וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה גְמַלִּים בָּאִֽים: סד וַתִּשָּׂא רִבְקָה אֶת־עֵינֶיהָ וַתֵּרֶא אֶת־יִצְחָק וַתִּפֹּל מֵעַל הַגָּמָֽל: סה וַתֹּאמֶר אֶל־הָעֶבֶד מִֽי־הָאִישׁ הַלָּזֶה הַֽהֹלֵךְ בַּשָּׂדֶה לִקְרָאתֵנוּ וַיֹּאמֶר הָעֶבֶד הוּא אֲדֹנִי וַתִּקַּח הַצָּעִיף וַתִּתְכָּֽס: סו וַיְסַפֵּר הָעֶבֶד לְיִצְחָק אֵת כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר עָשָֽׂה: סז וַיְבִאֶהָ יִצְחָק הָאֹהֱלָה שָׂרָה אִמּוֹ וַיִּקַּח אֶת־רִבְקָה וַתְּהִי־לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וַיֶּֽאֱהָבֶהָ וַיִּנָּחֵם יִצְחָק אַֽחֲרֵי אִמּֽוֹ:

Verse 62-we learn where Isaac is living. Verse 63-Isaac encounters the returning caravan with Rebekkah. Verse 64/65-Rebekkah sees Isaac and asks who he is. The servant tells her it is Isaac, and she veils herself. Verse 66-We learn that the servant tells Isaac all that he had done. Verse 67-Isaac brings Rebekkah into Sarah’s tent, consummates the marriage, and finds comfort. All that in six verses? Amazing.

So what is there to be learned from the Torah here giving the Reader’s Digest condensed version of the story, yet having just spelled out the events leading up to it in great detail-twice before?

The text, matter-of-factly, proceeds from there to tell us how Abraham took another wife and she bore him 6 more sons.

וַיֹּסֶף אַבְרָהָם וַיִּקַּח אִשָּׁה וּשְׁמָהּ קְטוּרָֽה: ב וַתֵּלֶד לוֹ אֶת־זִמְרָן וְאֶת־יָקְשָׁן וְאֶת־מְדָן וְאֶת־מִדְיָן וְאֶת־יִשְׁבָּק וְאֶת־שֽׁוּחַ:

So what is the lesson here? Perhaps it is “life goes on.” Both Isaac and his father Abraham do what they need to do to continue with life after Sarah dies. Isaac mourns the loss of his mother. (How Isaac feels about his father is likely another matter entirely. We’ve all discussed before the potential mental state of someone whose father tried to offer them up as a sacrifice!)

[I’d be remiss if I didn’t at least mention how all this might tie in with the thesis of my as yet unfinished biblical fiction book telling the story of how Isaac went to live with Hagar and Ishmael. If my thesis is correct, life for Isaac went on – but away from his parents. With Isaac’s return to the fold after the death of Sarah a new way of making life go on will unfold. I wonder, too, if Isaac would have remained near his father if Rebekkah had not come along while he was back home? The Torah never explicity mentions that Isaac came home to mourn his mother, It only mentions that he had recently arrived from Beer-Lahai-Roi, where he had been settled and living. It doesn’t make clear he has returned to the fold. Is there more to this story than meets the eye. Did Abraham orchestrate all this? Did he time the sending of his servant to find a wife for Isaac with his knowledge that Isaac would be coming to visiting in order to properly mourn his mother? Was this a chance encounter, or an elaborate machination? Was Abraham hoping to bring his son back home through this plan? Had the timing not worked, had Rebekkah not been there for Isaac to see (and vice versa) might Isaac have gone back to Beer-Lahai-Roi and continuing living with Hagar and Ishmael, as I suspect he had been since the akedah?]

Perhaps the Torah omits further detail to illustrate how life must go on. Abraham and Isaac (and Ishmael) must put the death of Sarah behind them. Isaac Must also put behind him the trauma of the akedah, and fulfill his obligation to carry on the lineage by getting married. Not much else needs to be said, so this is perhaps why it isn’t said.

Yet, if this is indeed the case, it complicates the question of why the Torah so fully relates the exploits of the servant who retrieves Rebekkah. Why does this aspect of “life goes on” (after all, Isaac had to get married if he was to carry on the story) get so fully explicated when others are not?

It certainly serves to illustrate how and why Rebekkah is really the right person to be Isaac’s wife. She and her family demonstrate hospitality much like their kinsman Abraham. However, the Torah could have made this point without all the other details. It could even make the point that G”d clearly had a hand in these events in a lot fewer words. I’ve taken a stab at a condensation. You might try your own hand at it. It isn’t hard to do so and still convey the general story. But what of conveying the message? Could the message the Torah intends to impart truly be conveyed in another way?

It’s all a puzzlement. And that’s the whole idea. It makes us stop and think. This is not a simple book of history, of stories. The Torah is meant to engage the listener, the reader, to make them wonder why the Torah does one thing in one place and another someplace else. The rabbis worked so hard to try and smooth over the wrinkles in the Torah. And they achieved some amazing results through their midrashim and other interpretations. Yet somehow, I wonder if this misses the point. Need we try to be apologists for these seeming inconsistencies? Do we have to smooth over the rough spots? Are these inconsistencies and rough spots themselves the lessons, the meat of what the Torah is trying to teach us? Life is not perfect. Stories are not perfect. Things happen. Things seem odd. Yet, through it all, life goes on. Sometimes, we learn all the minute details, other times we do not. We simply have to adjust ourselves to this reality and move on.

So, as is often the case, my answer to the question of “what’s wrong with the text?” is that nothing is wrong. All is how it is. Let’s learn what we can from it and move on with our lives. As did Abraham and Isaac.

[Here I am, in 5778, and I read these words, and can’t believe I was willing to just let things slide like that. On the other hand, maybe the fact that I’m responding with a visceral discomfort to what I had written earlier is really maybe evidence of a current discomfort that I’m failing to recognize. At the same time, there’s a part of me that realizes that “moving on” might be exactly the message I need to hear in my life at the moment, and this why I chose this particular musing to recycle this year.]

Life must go on. Life does go on. Yet we are fortunate in that G”d has given us the vehicle to suspend the inexorable march of life and time-Shabbat. Use it wisely, so that dealing with the reality of life that must go on is made just the little bit easier and sweeter that Shabbat, out of all time and place, can make it.

Shabbat Shalom,

©2017 (portions ©2002) by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings on this parasha:

Chayyei Sarah 5777 – Contentment
Chayyei Sarah 5776 – Still Not Warm (Revisited and Revised from 5767’s “Never Warm”)
Khayyei Sarah 5775 – Revisiting L’kha Dodi Likrat Kala
Hayyei Sarah 5774 – The Books of Hagar and Abishag
Hayyei Sarah 5773 – Still Tilting at Windmills
Hayyei Sarah 5772 – Zikhnah
Hayyei Sarah 5771 – The Book That Isn’t – Yet
Hayyei Sarah 5770 – Call Me Ishamel II
Hayyei Sarah 5769 – Looking for Clues
Hayyei Sarah 5768 – A High Price
Hayei Sarah  5767-Never Warm?
Chaye Sarah 5766-Semper Vigilans
Chaye Sarah 5763-Life Goes On
Chaye Sarah 5762-Priorities, Redundancies And Puzzles
Chayeh Sarah 5761-L’cha Dodi Likrat Kala
Hayyei Sarah 5760 – Call Me Ishmael
Chaye Sarah 5757-The Shabbat That Almost Wasn’t

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Random Musing Before Shabbat–Vayeira 5778–The Unintentional Test

The unintentional test was a better test than the intentional one.

The story of the akeidah, the binding of Yitzchak begins with the statement

וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְבָרִים הָאֵלֶה וְהָאֱלֹהִים נִסָה אֶת־אַבְרָהָם וַיֹאמֶר אֵלָיו אַבְרָהָם וַיֹאמֶר הִנֵֽנִי

Some time after these things, G”d put Avraham to the test, saying to him “Abraham,” and he answered “Here I am.”

So we’re told from the get-go that this whole scenario is devised by G”d to test Avraham. What is not entirely clear from the rest of the story is whether Avraham passed or failed this particular test. It’s easy, perhaps,  to assume he must have gotten a passing grade, because G”d continued to show favor upon Avraham and keep the promises made to him. However, it could just as easily have been that Avraham did not perform as G”d expected, but G”d learned what G”d wanted to learn from the exercise, and decided to go ahead with Avraham despite any disappointment with the result of the test. Since G”d did not make the desired outcome clear, we can only speculate.

One could perhaps bolster the case that Avraham failed, and that G”d stepped in at the last minute to prevent a disaster, in that G”d had set an earlier precedent in choosing Noah, an imperfect and less than ideal choice, but perhaps the best option available at the time. You work with what you’ve got.

It’s a huge leap from there to Avraham assuming that G”d will destroy the people of S’dom and Gomorrah for their evil ways.

I also think it is foolish to divorce the question of passing/failing in the story of the akeidah from the story of Avraham’s argument with G”d over the planned destruction of of S’dom and Gomorrah. The text makes no argument that this was a test by G”d, but it can surely be viewed in that light.

G”d made the conscious (can we apply that verb to G”d?) choice to tell Avraham that he was planning to go check out the wickedness in S’dom and Gomorrah. It should be noted that at no time does G”d say that S’dom and Gomorroah will be destroyed for their sinful ways. Avraham seems to assume that if G”d find S’dom, and Gomorrah to be as sinful as reported, G”d will punish them with death. Ask yourself why Avraham would assume that. So far, the only real punishment that Avraham has seen meted out by G”d are the plagues and affliction G”d affected Pharaoh for messing around with Sarai with when Avraham tried to save his own skin by pretending she was his sister. When Pharaoh figured out the source of the affliction (and we still have no idea how Pharaoh figured it out, which I wrote about last week) and returned Sarai and sent Avram off with gifts and wealth, G”d relented and stop the punishment – no Egyptians were killed as far as we know. So where does Avraham get off assuming G”d is about to destroy the people of S’dom and Gomorrah?

Avraham, of course, has correctly interpreted G”d’s intentions (or has he?) Avraham challenges G”d asking if G”d will sweep away the innocent with the guilty. G”d doesn’t respond to Avraham saying  “Why do you assume I will destroy them all?” G”d seems to confirm Avraham’s assumption, and simply accepts Avraham’s first offer to save for fifty good people.

Is it possible that G”d had never actually intended to destroy S’dom and Gomorrah, but merely use some other form of punishment to send them a message? Did Avraham assuming G”d’s intentions actually precipitate G”d making that choice? Did Avraham force G”d’s hand in this instance? It’s an intriguing possibility.

Consider a potential inner dialogue of G”d. “OK, this schmuck, to whom I have promised things beyond imagination wants to argue with me, when he really has no idea what I’m planning.  I was just going to bring a plague to the towns, and weed out the wicked. OK, Mr. Wise Guy, be careful what you wish for. Just to make a point, I’ll take your assumption and run with it. Now, argue away, you fool!”

I guess we’ll just overlook the issue of omniscient G”d. Is it fair to bet G”d when G”d knows the results of the wager? Yet G”d lets Avraham try. Toying with him, perhaps?

Because S’dom and Gomorrah were destroyed, we readers assume there weren’t ten good people to be found there. What if G”d had decided to ignore the agreement with Avraham? How would we know? There is also a potential issue of sexism or misogyny here.

Some cite as proof that there were not 10 good people in the town from 19:4

טֶרֶם יִשְכָבוּ וְאַנְשֵי הָעִיר אַנְשֵי סְדֹם נָסַבּוּ עַל־הַבַיִת מִנַעַר וְעַד־זָקֵן כָל־הָעָם מִקָצֶֽה

They had not yet lain down, when the townspeople, the men of S’dom., young and old, – all the people to the last man – gathered about the house.  And they shouted to Lot “where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out, so that we may be intimate with them.

However, if you go back and look at Avraham’s negotiations with G”d, neither party specifies that only men count. They reference only the term “tzaddikim” (righteous people) which in that plural form could refer to men and women.

Avraham may have passed this unintentional test by choosing to argue with G”d to spare the city for the sake of a few righteous people. G”d, however, might have failed to hold up the bargain. S’dom and Gomorrah might have been destroyed even though there might have been at least ten tzaddikim present.

When G”d is the house, maybe it’s not wise to make the bet? I am reminded of these lyrics from the song “Gethsemane” fro JC Superstar: “G”d Thy will is hard, but You hold every card…”

When G”d puts us to the test, it’s hard to know the right answer. When we put G”d to the test, it may be equally hard for us to really know our own desired outcome. (And if G”d is truly omniscient, then free will is a chimera, and our efforts to discern are pointless.)  Despite that, it seems to me that the unannounced and unintentional tests may prove a better way of learning about the testee (and the tester.) I know I learn a lot more about G”d and humanity from the story of S’dom and Gomorrah than I do from the akeidah. How about you?

Shabbat Shalom,

©2017 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings on this parasha:

Vayeira 5777 – He’s a Family Guy (?) (Redux and Revised 5769)
Vayeira 5766 – The Price of Giving (Redux/Revised 5766)
Vayeira 5775 – He’s a Family Guy (Revised Redux 5769)
Vayeira 5774–Plainly Spoken (Redux & Revised from 5762)
Vayera 5773 – Do Your Own Unpacking
Vayera 5772 – Well?
Vayera 5771 – Density
Vayera 5770 – Not Even Ten?
Vayeira 5769 – He’s a Family Guy (?)
Vayera 5767-Revised 5759-Whoops! (or Non-Linear Thinking)
Vayera 5766-The Price of Giving
Vayera 5765-From the Journal of Lot Pt. II
Vayera 5762-Plainly Spoken
Vayera 5760/5761-More From the “Journal of Lot”
Vayera 5759-Whoops! (or “Non-Linear Thinking?”)
Vayera 5757-Technical Difficulties

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Random Musing Before Shabbat–Lech Lecha 5778–Take My Wife–Please

I’m sorry, but I just can’t divorce what I am reading in this week’s parasha, Lech Lecha, in light of all the recent revelations of sexual abuse by the powerful in the arts and media (and other industries.)

How are we supposed to deal with a text in which, in order to save his own skin, Avram-soon to be Avraham – pleads with his wife Sarai – soon to be Sarah – to pretend to be his sister.  His logic is so misogynist as to be painful. My wife is so beautiful, the other men will not be able to resist wanting her. They will kill me so they can possess her for themselves. If she pretends to be my sister instead, they won’t bother trying to get me out of the way. Of course, the remaining unspoken part of that logic is that the Egyptian men will still have their way with Sarai, they just won’t have to kill Avram in order to do so. He’s okay with that, apparently.

Does Avram really understand the enormity of what he is asking his wife to do? Of course, we do need to consider the situation in view of the ethics and morals of that time, and not necessarily those of our own times. Or maybe we should? It seems not much has changed in the ensuing millennia. Women are still looked upon by far too many men as simply playthings, conquests to be had.

By simply chalking this up to the differing ethics of Avram’s time, we succeed only in whitewashing the misogyny. We don’t know how Sarai/Sarah felt about being asked to do this. The Torah is silent – in fact – Sarai/Sarah is given little voice, except when it is convenient to portray her as frivolous and a liar when she laughs at the thought of her husband, who probably hasn’t been able to get it up in years, actually impregnating her. It is Sarah that receives G”d’s tokekha. Did Sarai/Sarah acquiesce to Avram/Avraham’s demand because she loved him enough to to place her own virtue below the life of her husband? Did she acquiesce because she felt she had no choice? Was it something else in between those extremes, or something entirely different?  Was she a calculating woman who saw that debasing herself could enrich her husband, and that ultimately her debasement would be trumped by the wealth and lifestyle they would share? How long would she have been willing to play out this farce, had not G”d outed her by punishing the Egyptians?

Somehow, Pharaoh finds out that Sarai really is Avram’s wife. The Torah is also surprisingly silent on how that little tidbit came to be known. What caused Pharaoh to put two and two together and blame recent misfortunes on his having taken Sarai as a wife? A world of possibility exists in between the lines of the Torah. did someone tell him? Did he catch Avram and Sarai meeting secretly? Did one of Pharaoh’s courtiers, or one of his other wives somehow catch wise?

Later on, uncomfortable with her having failed at her wifely duty to bear a son, she offers her husband her handmaiden. When her handmaiden Hagar gets preggers and starts to act a little uppity (at least from Sarah’s perspective) she mistreats her. Avram punts (or considers dealing with emotional women-y stuff beneath him) and leaves things in Sarai’s hands. Hagar runs away, only to be told by G’d “get your tuchis back to your master, and just learn to deal with your mistress’ harshness.” Yay, G”d. Not.

It’s a regular soap opera, isn’t it?

Gotta give some props to Avram. Though he is not specifically quoted as saying anything in Torah, one can reasonably infer from verse 17:20 that Avram wanted to be sure that Ishmael, as his son, would be blessed by G”d, as in that verse G”d promises to heed Avram’s request to make Ishmael the father of a great nation, along with Avraham’s yet to be conceived and born son through Sarai-now Sarah.

Perhaps G”d asked Avraham to circumcise himself as a bit of a mea culpa? Though after Avraham and Ishmael, most everyone else gets circumcised at 8 weeks. (Let’s not get ahead of ourselves with the Dinah story just yet. Yaakov turns out to be an even bigger misogynist.) Missing from Torah are what were likely Avram’s true words: “You want me to cut off what?”

Yes, the Torah is not history. It makes no claim to being a true and accurate portrayal of the values and mores of the civilizations of which is speaks. Just as recent scholarship has shown the early Egyptian dynasties to be far less oppressive and demagogic than they are usually portrayed, the society of biblical times must have been far less as troubled as the one the bible actually portrays (or, for that matter, could be a lot worse.) The Torah is using story to teach. Makes one wonder why it is teaching us such troubling ethics and morals, why it has a G”d that is prone to emotion and tantrums. Or is the Torah exaggerating the bad things in order to cause us to react to them, to say to ourselves “that isn’t right, we shouldn’t be like that?” Wouldn’t be the first work of a religious (or other) nature to purposefully try to piss us off in order to provoke a reaction. Negative psychology, perhaps? Ah, but I fear that this is wishful thinking, and the misogyny and other troubling ethics and mores we find in Torah really is there because that is how those who composed and redacted this story really felt things should be. Who really knows? And that’s the joy of it – we don’t. We were given a Torah with lots of missing things, lots of difficult to understand things. Why, it’s a bit of a mess, thank you, G”d, or whomever is responsible for this.Then the rabbis and gedolim came along and said “hold my beer.”

Shabbat Shalom,

©2017 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other Musings on this parasha:

Leḥ Leḥa 5777 – Embracing the Spirit of Avram
Lekh Lekha 5776 – The Other Siders (Redux 5766)
Lekh Lekha 5775 – More Nodding Heads, Whistlign Airs, and Snickersnees
Lekh L’kha 5774 – Theistic Singularity: Revisiting the Intellectual Ekhad
Lekh Lekha 5773 – The Journey Continues
Lekh Lekha 5772 – Out of Context
Lekh Lekha 5771 (5765, 5760) Things Are Seldom What They Seem An Excerpt from the “Journal of Lot”
Lekh Lkha 5770 – Revisiting the Ten Percent Solution
Lekh L’kha 5769 – Of Nodding Heads, Whistling Airs, and Snickersnees
Lekh Lekha 5768 – The Covenant That (Almost) Wasn’t – Excerpts from the Diary of Terakh
Lekh Lekha 5767-Penile Pilpul
Lekh Lekha 5766-The Other Siders
Lekh Lekha 5765 – Redux 5760
Lekh Lekha 5764-Ma’aseir Mikol-The Ten Percent Solution
Lekh Lekha 5763-No Explanations
Lekh Lekha 5761-The Intellectual Echad
Lekh L’kha 5758-Little White Lies

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Random Musing Before Shabbat–Noach 5778-Armageddon, Loopholes, and Theisms

Some random, disjunctive thoughts about the parasha this week.

First, I had the strangest dream last night, the first of its kind that I can recall. For some reason I was with my mother Goldie (z”l) and we were listening to an expected broadcast of national import. I’m doing my best to recall details, but like most dreams, it’s not entirely coherent. What I can recall is that the nations of the world  were about to announce their decision regarding some action that the U.S. had taken. The broadcast began and a spokesperson starting speaking about how the world could no longer tolerate the U.S.’s behavior, and, just then, the display and audio changed to an emergency action notification to seek shelter that nuclear attack was imminent. I helped my mother down to a car and we set off for some safe location. Eerily, no one else seem interested in escaping the coming holocaust and there was no traffic or even people on the streets. Though it tugs at my memory that there is much more details to the story, that’s about all I can recall. Perhaps, between contemplating the present state of the world, of our country, and adding to that teaching students about an trying to come to my own understandings of the biblical flood my mind turned to this scenario. The parallels seem clear, even if the story is not. The people (in this case, the country) were sinful and evil, and destruction was to be wrought upon them for their sinfulness. I seemed to believe there was safety  to be found somewhere, which I guess makes me a Noah figure, of sorts. The dream didn’t get far enough and I wonder if I would have been proven to be like Noah, not caring about all the others, or would I have tried to help more people get to this elusive place of safety from nuclear Armageddon.

Random thought number two. I’ve been participating in a new Facebook group devoted to Six-Word Prayers. My first contribution to the group was this:

Not by flood is a loophole

Is that really a prayer? I think so. It is my way of putting G”d on notice that I’m wise to G”d’s imperfections, and I won’t give them an easy pass. The very fact that I’m making it a prayer is testament to my desire to be in relationship with G”d.

In B’reishit 9:15 G”d explains the rainbow as the sign of a covenant that G”d will never cause the waters to become a flood to slaughter all flesh. You bet your bippi that’s a loophole. Not just in the surface understanding, either. Most people understand that to mean that it gives G”d an out to destroy the earth by other means, and it does. However, the clever wording also allows G”d to gather waters into a flood to destroy less than all flesh, or for other purposes.

If you continue reading, it appears that G”d has created the rainbow as a sign of this covenant because apparently G”d’s is going to need a reminder of this covenant? This won’t be the last time we’re reminded that G”d can be forgetful (or perhaps deliberately ignore.)

Another random though is related to a resource I was pointed towards to describe the students the parallels and differences between the various ancient flood narratives – Noah, Atrahasis, Utnapishtim, etc. Though attempting to use a somewhat academic approach to comparing the stories, the site’s descriptions of the parallels and differences turned out to be somewhat biased by a more traditional Jewish perspective. Many of the comparisons depended upon Talmudic or midrashic understandings, and not just the pure biblical text. I am not surprised that a site presenting things from a more orthodox Jewish perspective would simply assume acceptance of orah Torah (and its subsequent iterations in Mishna, Gemara, Talmud, Midrashim, Halakha, and more.) I often use such sites in my teaching – however, I am always careful to represent the various biases of the perspective of the different resources I provide to my students through my teaching.

Though it attempted to present materials in an academic/scientific manner, the site had all sorts of underlying assumptions. There was no hint that all these etiological stories found early (and later) in Genesis were precisely that – etiologies, not history. (Right here in this parasha we have a number of etiologies, including the story Noah as the first drunkard, the origins of the Canaanites, the story of midgal Bavel to explain why we all have different languages. I believe that even among many orthodox there is a general understanding that the creation story, the flood, and perhaps other parts of the Torah are clearly metaphors/similes/analogies – stories meant to explain, to teach, but not meant to be bona fide histories.)  [Here’s an interesting aside. In discussing the Noach story the other day with the 6th and 7 grade students, a number of them were insistent that Noah brought dinosaurs with him on the ark. Is this their attempt to reconcile science and religion? I didn’t have time to explore it with them, but I intend to do so. As a strong opponent of pediatric Jewish education, this is a concerning development.]

Also, in summarizing comparisons, it makes some claims which do not conform to my understanding of the realities of the biblical text. It claims that the pantheon of polytheistic gods of the Babylonians and Sumerians were entirely anthropomorphic whereas the G”d of Torah is not. I don’t even know where to begin with that one. Torah is replete with verses that show G”d in an anthropomorphic light, engaging in human-like behaviors and thoughts. It claims the Mesopotamian gods were capricious whereas the G”d of Torah was just and moral.  Oh right, the G”d of Torah is never capricious.

The site clearly attempts to portray the Torah’s account of G”d and the flood in a positive light, while pooh-poohing the other Mesopotamian stories. I find this sort of promoting Judaism at the expense of other religions (even those long gone) troubling. A religion should stand on its own. Additionally, western religion may believe than monotheism is superior to pantheism, but it’s not at all an open and shut case. A Deity smart and worthy to be a Deity is smart enough to understand that different peoples may need different types of manifestations and understandings of the Deity. A pantheistic concept is simply one of those manifestations. “Heresy!” I hear people shout. Heresy according to the so-called oral Torah, perhaps, though I’m not even sure that’s true. If nothing else, the very word “El”him” should give us pause. It, too, is a loophole.

Think, for a moment, on why we’ve settled on “Ad”nai” as our substitute word for G”d’s name. What’s does it mean? My Lord. Put the emphasis on the word “my” and think about that in a collective sense, and you’ll see it still allows for other and different understandings of the Deity. My understanding of G”d. Might not be your understanding, and that’s OK.

I understand that clinging to an understanding of G”d through a monotheistic lens is necessary for adherents to classic rabbinical Judaism. However, even among the Orthodox there is a growing if begrudging acceptance of the notion that for much of their history the ancient Israelites were not monotheistic at all, but monolatrous – worshipping a primary G”d without denying the existence of other G”ds. It’s a logical way to operate in ancient times, and perhaps even today. It was not entirely unusual for travelers from another place to worship and offer sacrifices to their own god in the temple of the god of the place they were visiting. This sort of live and let live attitude has much to recommend it.  This sort of attitude could go a long way to preventing the scenario about which I dreamed.  My understanding of the principles upon which this country were founded is that this is exactly how we are expected to do things.

Time to put this train called the U.S. back on the right track.

Shabbat Shalom,

©2017 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other Musings on this Parasha:

Noah 5777 – Tzur Yisrael and Standing Rock
Noakh 5776 – Two Short Thoughts on Noah
Noakh 5775 – To Make a Name For Ourselves (Revisited)
Noakh 5774 – Let’s Rebuild That Tower
Noakh 5773 – Nothing New
Noakh 5772 – The Long Haul
Noakh 5771 – Redux 5765 – A P’shat in the Dark
Noakh 5770 – Don’t Ham It Up
Noah 5768 – Redux 5761 – Getting Noticed
Noakh 5766-What A Nimrod! (Revised)
Noakh 5765-A Pshat In The Dark
Noach 5764-Finding My Rainbow
Noach 5763-Striving to be Human
Noach 5762-To Make a Name for Ourselves
Noach 5761-Getting Noticed
Noach 5760-What a Nimrod!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment