Parashat Vay’chi

A love that causes suffering

Thoughts on parashat Vay’chi

Menachem Mirski

The brethren of Joseph could never have done him so much good with their love and favor as they did with their malice and hatred

Thomas More

There are at least several answers to the problem of human suffering in Judaism. They can be broadly divided into two groups: the first includes basically one concept (although it has some variations), namely the deuteronomic doctrine of retribution (or ‘of a just punishment’), according to which there is no suffering that is undeserved. In other words, all suffering is the result of some sin, which means that if you suffer, you must have done something bad or wrong. The second group includes concepts that recognize that there is undeserved suffering in the world, which usually means that human suffering can and should be explained in some way. One of the concepts belonging to this second group is the Talmudic doctrine of yisurin shel ahava, which can be translated as afflictions of love or punishments/corrections of love. According to this concept, God causes suffering to those He loves in order to perfect them. Suffering in this vision is not seen as evil, but paradoxically, a kind of good that leads to perfection:

A potter does not test defective vessels, because he cannot give them a single blow without breaking them. Similarly the Holy One blessed be He, does not test the wicked, but only the righteous. (Genesis Rabbah 32:3)

Referring to a flax worker, R. Jose b. R. Hanina notes that the more the craftsperson beats quality flax, “the more it improves and the more it glistens.”(Genesis Rabbah 34:2, 40:3, 55:2) God tests only that which can withstand a beating. He administers only those blows that a strong pot, good flax, and a righteous person can endure. Afflictions of love strengthen those who suffer by cleansing them of sin. As Rabbi Shimon b. Lakish is recorded to have said, “Sufferings wash away all the sins of a man.” (Talmud Berakoth 5a.)

This concept also has its popular version sometimes expressed in the words “suffering ennobles”. The rabbis, however, distinguished the sufferings that can be considered the results of the Divine love from those that cannot be, namely, the sufferings that would prevent a person from praying or studying sacred texts. Therefore, this concept has a limited application and cannot be used to explain the monstrosities of the Holocaust or to justify God in its context.

However, it can be successfully applied to the story of Joseph: the humiliation and suffering he endured from the moment he was sold by his brothers, through the humiliation by Potiphar’s wife, as well as through all the years he spent in the Egyptian prison definitely shaped his character. And although Joseph was struggling with various dilemmas when he met his brothers, ultimately there was no trace of resentment or desire for revenge in him. The Torah bears witness to this process several times, which includes this week’s parashah, where the brothers, fearing Joseph’s retribution after their father’s death, are planning to commit one more lie/deception:

When Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “What if Joseph still bears a grudge against us and pays us back for all the wrong that we did to him!” So they sent this message to Joseph, “Before his death your father left this instruction: So shall you say to Joseph, ‘Forgive, I urge you, the offense and guilt of your brothers who treated you so harshly.’ Therefore, please forgive the offense of the servants of the God of your father’s [house].” And Joseph was in tears as they spoke to him. His brothers went to him themselves, flung themselves before him, and said, “We are prepared to be your slaves.” But Joseph said to them, “Have no fear! Am I a substitute for God? Besides, although you intended to harm me, God intended it for good, so as to bring about the present result—the survival of many people.And so, fear not. I will sustain you and your dependents.” Thus he reassured them, speaking kindly to them. (Genesis 50:15-21).

As Thomas Mann put it:

Joseph is the ideal manifested, as the union of darkness and light, feeling and mind, the primitive and the civilized, wisdom and the happy heart – in short as the humanized mystery we call man.

Shabbat shalom!

Menachem Mirski- student rabinacki w Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies, American Jewish University, Los Angeles, USA.
Menachem Mirski is a Polish born philosopher, musician, scholar and international speaker. He earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy and is currently studying to become a Rabbi at the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies. His current area of interests focus on freedom of expression and thought as well as the laws of logic as it pertains to the discourse of ideology and social and political issues. Dr. Mirski has been a leader in Polish klezmer music scene for well over a decade and his LA based band is called Waking Jericho.

Thoughts on parashat Miketz

How do we measure true success?

Thoughts on parashat Miketz

Menachem Mirski

We live in the age of the individual. We are all supposed to be slim, pretty, successful, prosperous, happy, extroverted and popular. The perfect self – that’s the goal our culture constantly encourages us to achieve and we see this everywhere: in advertising, in the press, all over social media. We are told that to be this person you just have to follow your dreams, that our potential is limitless, that we are the only source of our own success.

This image of a perfect self matches to a significant extent the 17 years old Joseph, before he was sold to Egypt by his brothers. Adored by his father, young, smart, arrogant, in colorful clothes, eloquent and articulate. He was also a dreamer pursuing his dreams, not particularly bothered by what other people thought about him.

However, this model of the perfect self can be actually very dangerous. People are very often suffering under the torture of this impossible fantasy. Yes, the opportunities we have are incomparably greater than those of our grand-parents, for example. We have instant access to enormous resources of information, knowledge; it all opens numerous opportunities before us. But because way more people have the same access and the same opportunities we have, the competition is also greater. The paradox of our times is that we can be perfectly safe, secure, have access to advanced healthcare, have well paid jobs, be able to provide for our families – we can be doing very well in many areas of life and can still be depressed – because we didn’t get a promotion, raise or we don’t particularly like our job. Or our new project or new social-media group turned out not be as successful as we initially expected. There are millions of people in the West who are successful, are living perfectly functioning lives, who are safe and secure, have families and friends, money, healthcare and everything they need, and yet they wake up everyday feeling like a failure. The unprecedented social pressure to be more and more successful, in everything, is leading to increases in depression and suicide.

Our biblical Joseph, after many perturbations, also achieves great success. His success is so great that he is willing and able – in his opinion – to completely forget the ‘old times of his misfortunes’:

Before the years of famine came, Joseph became the father of two sons, whom Asenath daughter of Poti-phera, priest of On, bore to him. Joseph named the first-born Manasseh, meaning, “God has made me forget completely my hardship and my parental home.” (Genesis 41:50-51)

Joseph does not become depressed; the Torah does not mention anything about that. What do we then do wrong with our lives? There are several things worth mentioning here. One of the problems is that we compare ourselves to others, in particular to hyper-successful people. We measure our social status by comparing ourselves to those of much higher status, often assuming that their initial social status was the same as ours. Thus, rather than comparing ourselves to others we should compare ourselves to ourselves a few years ago, to the people we were before. Another thing is that we indulge in all kinds of illusions that the internet creates for us and we don’t actually know what is the real life of those we compare ourselves to. It’s pretty often the case that if we really knew what these people are dealing with in their lives we wouldn’t want to be in their place, no matter how successful they are in other realms. The last thing I will mention here, which is certainly not exhaustive of all the things we can do better, is what we can directly learn from Joseph’s story: the ultimate goal of his tremendous success was to help and save his family. Therefore, at the end of the day the most important thing is what we give back to our family or community. You can be a hero in your own life but you can also be a hero for others – one does not exclude another, on the contrary, these objectives are compatible and mutually supportive. If we know about it way ahead and plan our life accordingly the risk that we will lose our sense of direction and meaning of life is very small.

Shabbat shalom,

Jewish Family on the Verge of Breakdown

Rabbi Mati Kirschenbaum

Angels climbing up and down the ladder that symbolise Jacob’s special connection to the Eternal. Jacob being tricked into marrying Leah instead of his beloved Rachel. The births of eleven out of twelve sons of Jacob. The tragedy of Jacob’s only (known) daughter, Dinah. These are the things that come to our minds when we think of this week’s parashah, Vayetzei. Rarely do we focus on the later part of the current Torah portion, which deals with the separation of Laban and Jacob’s households. Poignantly, it has something to teach us about the state of Israel’s relation to Progressive and Conservative Judaism. Still, in order to understand its message, we need to remind ourselves of events that led to the deterioration of the relationship between Laban, Rebecca’s brother, and his nephew Jacob.

Their relationship starts with a heart-warming family reunion. Laban receives Jacob, fleeing from the wrath of Esau, with great hospitality and treats him as an honoured guest for a month. Sadly, Laban soon starts to take advantage of his nephew’s love at first sight for his younger daughter, Rachel. First, he makes Jacob work seven years to earn the right to marry his beloved. Yet on their long-awaited wedding day, Laban tricks Jacob into marrying his elder daughter Leah instead of Rachel. Laban’s intrigue forces Jacob to endure seven more years of indentured servitude before he is able to marry Rachel. It also sparks bitter reproductive rivalry between two sisters who now vie for attention of their shared husband.

This rivalry results in births of twelve children (eleven sons and Dinah). Blessed (and burdened) with such numerous offspring, Jacob realises that his full economic dependency on Laban does not allow him to adequately provide for his children. He asks Laban for permission to leave with his family. In response, Laban offers to name a price Jacob would accept in exchange for staying. Wisely, Jacob does not ask for a fixed wage. Instead, he requests the freedom to test his cattle and goat breeding skills. From now on, Jacob’s fortune shall be dependent on his herding expertise and adaptability, not on Laban’s favour. Jacob’s decision finds grace in the eyes of the Eternal; soon he becomes a wealthy man. This newly gained affluence irritates Laban’s sons who feel threatened by Jacob’s success. Their dissatisfaction is infectious; soon Laban’s attitude towards him visibly changes. This is when God commands Jacob to leave Laban and embark on the second journey of his life. Rachel and Leah wholeheartedly support his decision. They say:

Are we not accounted by him (Laban) as strangers? Not only has he sold us, but he has used up what was paid for us. Surely all the wealth that Eternal took away from our father belongs to us and our children. So do whatever Eternal has told you.

(Genesis 31:15-16)

Jacob and his family flee in secret. But before they depart, Rachel steals her father’s teraphim, mysterious objects often associated with divination. Unfortunately for the fugitives, after a short pursuit, an angry Laban catches up with them. Because Rachel prevents her father from finding teraphim, Laban lacks an obvious excuse for chasing them. This means that Jacob and Laban need to address the key sore points in their relationship: Laban’s ongoing exploitation of Jacob and Laban’s unwillingness to recognise the autonomy of his son-in-law’s family.

Optimistically, the story finds a peaceful resolution. Laban and Jacob swear an oath not to harm each other; their oath evokes the memory of their common ancestry and shared beliefs. They also put up a stone to establish a border between their domains and to remind next generations about their mutual commitment to peaceful coexistence.

The shifting dynamics between Laban, Laban’s daughters and Jacob reminds me of the complicated relationship between the State of Israel/Zionism and Progressive Judaism. Just like Jacob fleeing Esau found refuge in Laban’s shelter, Progressive Jews embraced Zionism as the threat of Nazism became clear in the 1930s. When the State of Israel became independent, Progressive Judaism fell in love with its cultural vitality just as Jacob (Israel) fell in love with Rachel. It did not matter that the State of Israel, not unlike Jacob’s first bride, turned out to be not quite what they yearned for. Its founders handed over the control of religious matters to Orthodox authorities, putting the Progressive movement in Leah’s position. Still, just like Leah committed to win Jacob’s recognition, and eventually love, Progressive Judaism has faithfully supported the Jewish State even though it didn’t recognise Progressive weddings and gave Orthodoxy monopoly in the area of Jewish funerals.

Sadly, with time the attitude of many Israeli politicians to Progressive Judaism at home and abroad started to resemble Laban’s treatment of Jacob. Promises of giving more recognition to the Reform movement in Israel were repeatedly made and subsequently revoked. However, the new Israeli government has marked a new low in the relationship between Progressive Judaism and the Jewish State. This past week, pressured by its ultra-Orthodox prospective coalition partners, Likud, the winner of the November 2022 parliamentary elections, agreed to end the recognition of non-Orthodox conversion for purposes of citizenship. If this law comes into force, Progressive converts without any Jewish roots will not be able to make aliyah.

In such a situation, it would not be surprising for the Jews by choice to say, after Rachel and Leah:

Is there yet any portion or inheritance for us in our father’s house? […] Are we not accounted by Laban as strangers? For he has sold us.

(Genesis 31:14-15)

As contemporary Progressive Jews we cannot allow Israel to become a stranger to us. Now is the time to speak loudly about our contributions to the Jewish State, to support the congregations and organisations that promote Progressive worship and values in Israel.

We might not be able to build a ladder that reaches the sky. And we don’t have to. All we need to do now is to set boundaries in conversations we are ready to engage in, to establish norms that would enable both Progressive and Conservative Diaspora Jews as well as Progressive and Masorti Israelis to be noticed and respected by the rest of the Jewish people.

God, you are called Tzuri – our rock, the rock set on the border of Laban and Jacob’s domain to remind them how much they had in common. We ask for Your assistance to remind the Israeli government that Torah calls for Jewish unity in diversity. We hope that these words of Torah shall one day become the foundation of a more equitable and respectful relationship between Progressive and Masorti Jews and Israel. May this time come speedily and in our days. Amen and Shabbat Shalom!

Mati Kirschenbaum

Noach

The climate change that caused the flood

Thoughts on parashat Noach

Menachem Mirski

The story contained in our Torah portion for this week can be seen as a metaphor of a great catastrophe in which species were decimated or doomed to total extinction… Only a few of them were to survive, a few individuals of each gender, in order to reproduce and prevent the animal life cycle on the earth from a complete extinction. Does it sound completely unreal today? I don’t think so, it is certainly not beyond the scope of contemporary man’s imagination.

The story of the flood ends with a new Divine promise – the promise of the eternal covenant between God and humankind:

יהוה smelled the pleasing odor, and יהוה resolved: “Never again will I doom the earth because of humankind, since the devisings of the human mind are evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living being, as I have done.

So long as the earth endures,

Seedtime and harvest,

Cold and heat,

Summer and winter,

Day and night

Shall not cease.”

(Genesis 8:20-22)

The above verses can only be understood as a proclamation of faith: as human beings we have no way to verify or falsify them. All we can do is hope that it is true and live with faith that it will, in fact, be so. Nevertheless, people have repeatedly challenged this faith throughout history. The greatest and the most bold challenge to this faith today is posed by climate change.

Climate change is a fact and the one we are experiencing in our times is largely man made. Back in 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at the request of the UN produced a report from which we know, among other things, a few fundamental things, namely:

Increases in average global temperatures are expected to be within the possible range of 0.27 °C (5°F) to 4.8 °C (8.6°F) by 2100, with a likely increase of at least 2.7°F for all possible mitigation scenarios.
Except under the most aggressive mitigation scenario studied, global average temperature is expected to warm at least twice as much in the next 100 years as it has during the last 100 years.
Ground-level air temperatures are expected to continue to warm more rapidly over land than oceans.

Around the same time climate scientists and economists issued numerous analyses according to which it is going to be very difficult and economically challenging to mitigate the effects of climate change, deeming the most optimistic scenario of 1.5 °C (2.7°F) by 2100 almost impossible to implement, for a variety of reasons – for example, we would have to close and eliminate almost entire energy industry we have at this moment, not only in the US and Europe, but in the entire world, and do it by 2030.

However, what none of those reports says is that we have 12 years until “we all die in a giant ball of fire”, as some politicians and media figures constantly suggest. The idea that the world is going to end in 12 years is an incredible misrepresentation of what the UN Climate Panel has actually done.

But let’s pause here for a second and think: from the analysis brought by scientists from IPCC we know that even if we stopped using fossil fuels completely and reduced our global emission to net zero by 2030, the average temperature on Earth would probably still have increased by 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) by the end of the century. It obviously means that the temperatures on our planet are growing no matter what we do. These facts are commonly known and all of this is well documented by geologists.

he last great global warming in the history of our planet happened roughly 55-58 million years ago and it is called Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. This warming was caused by a massive carbon release into the atmosphere that has been estimated to have lasted from 20,000 to 50,000 years. Geologists estimate that during this entire period, which lasted for about 200,000 years, global temperatures increased by 5–8 °C, from the average earth temperature of 24–25 °C (75–77 °F) of the preceding Paleocene period. This means that the average temperature on our planet might have been at its pick as high as 29-33 °C (84-91 °F), which is about 16-20 °C (27-34 °F) higher than the current average temperature on earth, which currently fluctuates around 13.9-14.5 (57-58 °F)! Both poles were ice free at that time, as in the preceding Paleocene era; the temperatures of Arctic and Antarctic seas were as high as 23 °C (73 °F). The climate of almost the entire planet was tropical; forests covered most areas of our planet, palm trees grew in areas of northern states, like Wyoming, Montana or Canada. How did it affect the animal kingdom? Because of these environmental conditions of that period an intense evolution of primates took place: The oldest known undoubted fossil primates are about 55 million years old [2][3]. This global warming likely „changed the course of evolution”, as a result of which apes came into being, from which we, humans, have later evolved. The next epoch, the Eocene, kicked off with a global average temperature more than 8 °C (about 14 °F) warmer than today, gradually cooling over the next 22 million years. Having said that, we are also allowed to say that as living beings we are grandchildren or great-grandchildren of the last global warming.

I am bringing this analysis here in order to put things in a proper perspective and cool down emotions often accompanying this debate. Our planet, and life on it, not only survived but also thrived during much warmer periods than the one we expect to happen. Obviously, the human factor involved in our current situation makes it unprecedented. However, the scenario that things could get out of hand and the earth could become the second Venus as a result of a phenomenon known as the runaway greenhouse effect was found unprobable by scientists in 2013. For this to happen, our whole human civilization would have to emit 10 times more carbon dioxide than we emit today. One of the important factors to stop this effect is life on earth itself, which is capable of absorbing huge amounts of carbon dioxide. Another argument often raised in this debate is that even a global increase of 3°C (5.7 °F) will bring prolonged heat waves, droughts and increasingly common and severe extreme weather events. This may be true, however, it is also true that the global percentage of people dying in natural disasters has decreased since the early 1900’s by 95%.

Climate economists have done numerous analyses of the matter. In economic terms, spending on physical assets on the course to net-zero would reach about US$275 trillion by 2050, or US$9.2 trillion per year on average, an annual increase of US$3.5 trillion. [1] I don’t think any economy in the world can possibly bear that kind of burden. The UN report from 2014 estimated that, if we don’t change anything, the economical impact of global warming by 2070 would be equivalent to each one of us losing somewhere between 0.2 and 2 percent of our income. Juxtaposing these two analyses also brings us some additional context – the necessary context we need in the debate on climate change. The scientists and economists who prepared the reports for the UN knew that the most aggressive mitigation options – like a complete worldwide resignation from fossil fuels in a decade or two – were impossible to implement without ensuing a global economic collapse.

There is no scientific evidence that climate change we are experiencing in our times poses any existential threat to planet earth and life on it. Climate change is a real problem and it is something we should strive to fix but we also need a sense of proportion in this matter. If you tell people this could be the end of the world for everyone of us – which is what existential threat means – you are telling people that we should spend everything on fixing this problem and not bother about anything else. What poses a real threat – to our economy, and therefore to our societies worldwide, are irresponsible energy policies leading to galloping inflation and financial destabilization of the markets, which happens across the western world due to bad decisions of our political leaders. Calling for complete abolition of fossil fuels is not only irresponsible; it is, in fact, a call for genocide: it has been estimated that if we stopped using fossil fuels today, between 20 and 60 million of people would die from startvation within a few days. Who would be willing to take responsibility for a decision like that? We need to steadily transition to more and more clean energy but it cannot be solely dictated by government fiat or a group of lobbying businessmen: the fundamental solution here is to invest in new technologies (such as hydrogen cars, for example) and improvement of existing technologies (like nuclear energy).

Climate change is not the only challenge facing humanity – everyone realized that during the recent pandemic. Thus, we have to ask ourselves how much we want and how much we actually can spend on mitigating this problem compared to all the other problems we, as humanity, are facing. All of it should be a subject of an open, public, honest, academic and intellectual debate. Unfortunately this debate is all too often exceedingly emotional, partisan, full of fear-mongering, apocalyptic visions invented to scare people and emotionally manipulate them to make them accept everything people in power want to implement in response to these challenges. And it is often the case that real and important questions, as well as good, reasonable ideas for solutions get completely drowned in this entire noise, in this media hype.

There is a lot to study and talk about regarding this problem. I was just trying to hallmark some important issues and make some important, in my opinion, points. There is a widespread opinion that governments should play a central role in the entire process of tackling climate change and restructuring our energy industry. This is, in my opinion, a very dubious and dangerous view, especially if it were to entail unrestrained increase of their governmental powers, without a proper concern on economic stability and growth, and without a proper balance in decision-making. Nobody should have power to unanimously dictate solutions here. Nobody owns the science, nobody is entitled or even able to make predictions with absolute certainty. Science on these problems is not absolutely settled and probably won’t ever be. It’s all based on computer models. Basing on my knowledge of the methodology of science I would say that the certainty of what is going to happen in 100 years is not greater than our certainty regarding events that happened on planet earth 50-60 million years ago. There are so many things we don’t know and can’t predict.

We are not omniscient. Human cognition is always limited. But the world will not end in 2030 or 2050; there is no scientific, nor any other rational knowledge that would suggest anything like that. That kind of ‘predictions’ are typically based on misrepresentation of facts, ignorance and fear. Where our knowledge ends, our faith begins. According to some of our biblical commentators, it was not only arrogance that caused the ancient people to build the Tower of Bavel; it was also, if nor primarily, their disbelief: they did not believe in the Divine promise that there would not be another flood. They rejected faith in God’s covenant with mankind and therefore built a civilization that has collapsed. Let us be mindful and let us not repeat their mistake. We have more time to decide; more than we typically think.

Shabbat shalom!

[1]https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/overview/in-the-news/what-it-will-cost-to-get-to-net-zero

[2]https://www.esrf.fr/home/UsersAndScience/Publications/Highlights/highlights-2013/x-ray-imaging/im2.html

[3]https://milnepublishing.geneseo.edu/the-history-of-our-tribe-hominini/chapter/primate-evolution/

https://climatechange.chicago.gov/climate-change-science/future-climate-change

https://www.britannica.com/science/Neogene-Period

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

The position of man in the universe

Thoughts on parashat Bereshit

Menachem Mirski

God’s unity and oneness is a fundamental theological principle in Judaism. Shema Israel Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Echad! – these are the words we recite twice a day, everyday. There are, however, passages in the Torah that seem, at first glance, to question this Divine unity:

And God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness. They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth.” (Genesis 1:26)

The very form of „let us make” as well as „in our image, after our likeness” served Christian theologians to justify their Trinitarian theology, which is an unacceptable position from the Jewish perspective. But what is then the proprer Jewish interpretation of these words spoken by God Himself?

Maimonides, Rabbi Isaac ben Moses Arama (known as Akeidah) and other commentators explain the expression „let us make” as an invitation to have the upper beings (the angels) and lower beings (the creatures on earth) involved in the creation of man. After God created the upper and lower beings, the need was felt for a creature that would link lower beings with the upper world, so that the lower beings would be able to exist. The man was created partly from the lower beings, from the dust of the earth, as they were created, but the life spirit in him comes from the upper, spiritual beings, like God and angels. This describes the general essence of man. Chazal in Midrash Rabbah 5 tell us that:

When the Holy One, Blessed be He, created man, He consulted with the ministering angels and said to them, „If I create him from the upper beings, he will live and not die, and if from the lower beings, he will die and not live. I will therefore create him from the upper and lower beings, so that if he lives he will die, and if he dies he will live.”

This is one of the most penetrating descriptions of man’s existential position. Both his essence and his existence is composed of the contradictory elements: life and death (with the goal of overcoming death and decay through creating life and through the life permeated with creation) as well as the spirit (from the upper beings) and the animalistic aspect (from the lower beings).

The man is therefore a pillar joining the two worlds. However, the goal of human existence is not only to unite these two worlds, but also to lift this lower world to the higher one. According to Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, the Hebrew word for a man – adam – is not derived from adamah – the Hebrew word for the earth – but the other way around. Man is therefore a creative force which is to transform the surrounding reality so that it serves not only him, but also God and God’s plans. This idea is also included in the plural form in the Torah verse above: God uses this plural form just as a king uses the royal plural to stress that all of man’s actions are on behalf of the community and for the good of the community, and by community we mean all existing beings, the lower and the upper beings.

How is man to achieve these goals: joining these two worlds and elevating the lower world? Through actions through and within the Divine commandments – mitzvot – and this is a central element of human nature. Because man was created in the image of God he obtained special features differing from other creatures: intelligence, ability to understand the world and free will. However, man does not obtain these features at birth: every human being is meant to achieve this status over time. Therefore a man can ascend, to become God-like, but is also liable to fall into the abyss and become beast-like. On the practical level it all boils down to one ability: to say no to ourselves, to restrain our own natural impulses. According to the biblical metaphysics every creature acts in accordance with its natural tendencies and is a slave to its passions, but man can control his natural tendencies and that’s the most important way man resembles his Creator: that is the image of God that is part of his essence. We are to take care of the world and all the lower beings; but they, as well as nature and its resources, are to serve us in our duty to serve God. Our obligation is to find the proper balance in this structure; if we succeed in that, the entire world will not only survive but will grow and flourish.

Shabbat shalom!

Miketz

Thoughts on Parashat Miketz

Menachem Mirski

How should we live? On what basis should we make life choices? Should we trust God, ourselves, or maybe other people, for example those from the government? Or maybe we should trust only some people, or for example experts and science and technology?

Of course we can find answers to these questions in the Torah and Rabbinic literature. Last week’s Torah portion ends with the story about Joseph interpreting the dreams of the cupbearer and the chief baker. According to the prophecies conveyed in both dreams the chief baker will be sentenced to death, whereas the cupbearer will be restored to serving at the Pharaoh’s court. Joseph knows that this will happen, that’s why he asks the cupbearer:

But think of me when all is well with you again, and do me the kindness of mentioning me to Pharaoh, so as to free me from this place. (Gen 40:14)

In this week’s Torah portion we read that Joseph had to wait for two years to get out of jail:

After two years’ time, Pharaoh dreamed that he was standing by the Nile, when out of the Nile there came up seven cows, handsome and sturdy, and they grazed in the reed grass. (Gen 41:1-2)

Why is the Torah even mentioning this? Why did 2 years have to pass before the Pharaoh had a dream that only Joseph could explain?

According to Midrash Bereshit Rabbah Joseph had to spend two additional years in prison because the Divine plan for the world and the people of Israel had to be fulfilled. But the Midrash adds one detail: these two years correspond to the two words that Joseph “inadvertently” said to the cupbearer:

But think of me… and [mention me] to Pharaoh… (Gen 40:14)

Joseph was punished because these words show his desperation, and at the same time his lack of faith in the Eternal. Joseph sinned because he did not have trust in the Eternal, but instead he was relying on one, ordinary person (which actually sounds quite rational, considering the possibilities and limitations and the strengths and weaknesses of an average person). Joseph was punished because he was a tzadik, and Adonai medakdek im tzadikim k’chut ha’saara – Adonai is scrupulous with tzaddikim even to a single hair. The essence of being a tzadik is therefore extraordinary scrupulousness and completely entrusting God with one’s life, in every aspect of one’s life. Everything comes down to fulfilling God’s law and to faith in the Eternal; since everything that happens in our lives comes from Him (including of course various punishments and rewards). But on the other hand in the rabbinical tradition we have a clear doctrine stating that we should never, especially in difficult situations, expect that a “miracle will happen” and we shouldn’t rely on such faith:

A person should never stand in a place of danger saying that they on High will perform a miracle for him, lest in the end they do not perform a miracle for him. And, moreover, even if they do perform a miracle for him, they will deduct it from his merits. (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 32a)

So is there a contradiction between these two concepts? No, if we define more precisely what faith in God is. First of all, faith in the Eternal does not come down to believing in miracles. The great majority of paths that God shows us in our lives do not have a miraculous or supernatural character, but are rather completely ordinary and natural. Relying on miracles is perceived as “testing God” and is forbidden:

Do not try the LORD your God, as you did at Massah. (Deuteronomy 6:16)

Actually in Massah the Israelites did try God: while standing in front of the Horab Mountain, waiting for Moses to miraculously retrieve water from the rock for them, they asked:

“Is the Eternal present among us or not?” (Ex 17:8)

Let’s go back to the questions we asked at the beginning: How should we live? On what basis should we make life choices? Should we trust God, ourselves, or maybe other people, for example those from the government? Or maybe we should trust only some people, or for example experts and science and technology? Certainly we shouldn’t put all our eggs in one basket and not leave everything to God, whom we should nonetheless trust. So in each situation we should have a multi-prong approach and have several alternative plans. We should trust both people and ourselves, as well as science and technology, but consider each of them with prudence and necessary critical thinking.

Trusting God entails mainly fulfilling His commandments. And when it comes to our expectations towards Him, then yes, we can expect from God help in every life situation. But we shouldn’t expect that God’s answer will have a miraculous, supernatural character or that it will be exactly as we wish. God usually offers us many different solutions; they are not always what we’d imagined they would be, although they often come close. Joseph trusted one possibility; a possibility that God didn’t actually consider in His plans.

God’s answer can come in different shapes: for example the Eternal gives us wisdom as well as inspiration and motivation to act and He removes the obstacles standing in our way. But in order to access His help and protection, we must open our hearts and minds to the world as widely as possible, so that we can notice everything that the Eternal has planned for us, since everything that happens around us is an element of the Divine plan – usually an element “which is not aware of itself”.

Shabbat Shalom!

Translated from Polish by: Marzena Szymańska-Błotnicka

Vayishlach

Don’t worry, nothing is really happening

Thoughts on parashat Vayishlach

Menachem Mirski

Worry is psychologically consuming. Fear of the unknown may lead us to many irrational actions and reactions, some of which may hurt us or keep us in a mindset that limits us emotionally and intellectually, not allowing us to function normally and efficiently.

In this week’s parsha Jacob returns to Erec Israel after his 20-year stay at Laban’s in Charan. He prepares to meet with Esau at Seir, in Edom. He sends messengers to Esau in hope of a reconciliation. The messengers return to Jacob with a following message:

“We came to your brother Esau; he himself is coming to meet you, and there are four hundred men with him.” (Gen 32:7)

The news frightens Jacob greatly:

[…] in his anxiety, he divided the people with him, and the flocks and herds and camels, into two camps, thinking, “If Esau comes to the one camp and attacks it, the other camp may yet escape.” (Gen 32:8-9)

Jacob prepares for war. He prays, he sends Esau a large gift (consisting of hundreds of heads of livestock) to appease him. At some point, after crossing the ford of Jabbok, he is left alone and wrestles with an angel:

And a man wrestled with him until the break of dawn. When he saw that he had not prevailed against him, he wrenched Jacob’s hip at its socket, so that the socket of his hip was strained as he wrestled with him. Then he said, “Let me go, for dawn is breaking.” But he answered, “I will not let you go, unless you bless me.” Said the other, “What is your name?” He replied, “Jacob.” Said he, “Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with beings divine and human, and have prevailed.” (Gen 32:26-29)

According to the rabbis, the man/angel sent by God was a spiritual representation of Esau. He was sent to empower Jacob spiritually and to convince him that the meeting with Esau will be a success for both of them. However, even the fact of overcoming God Himself did not make Jacob calm. Just before meeting his brother, he reorganizes his retinue to possibly save those he loved the most:

He divided the children among Leah, Rachel, and the two maids, putting the maids and their children first, Leah and her children next, and Rachel and Joseph last. (Gen 33:1-2)

But ultimately all this fear and panic turns out to be something completely futile because:

Esau ran to greet him. He embraced him and, falling on his neck, he kissed him; and they wept. Looking about, he saw the women and the children. “Who,” he asked, “are these with you?” He answered, “The children with whom God has favored your servant.”

Jacob didn’t see Esau for more than 20 years and the last memory he had about him was that Esau promised to kill him. His fears were somewhat right and justified, but it seems that they determined his inner life too much. For example, the not entirely clear message he received from his envoys, was interpreted by him unambiguously negatively, as a direct threat to his and his family’s life. His own sense of guilt might have played some role in all of that. Obviously, based on the past behavior of Esav, Jacob’s fears seemed legitimate but because many years had passed since that time they were, in fact, only “theoretically legitimate”.

And that’s the point, that’s the major issue here. Everything Jacob did preparing himself to meet with his brother was based on speculation. He did not have a chance to verify his presumptions prior to the meeting, when he ultimately confronted them with reality. He was “in his bubble”, to use a contemporary colloquialism, and got stuck in it.

Experiences of that kind are becoming more and more common today, in the digital era. People become anxious, insecure and sometimes even terrified solely on the basis of supposedly true and rational information, which they themselves are unable to confront with reality. More and more people are afraid of things our grandparents would not treat seriously even for a second. Fear is commonly used as a tool to “divide and conquer” by various political demagogues, tyrannical governments and, unfortunately, various powerful media machines in the “democratic, free world”. There are people in this world, quite powerful, who want us to live in fear or to be constantly caught up in problems that are not really relevant. Population that is afraid or confused is much easier to control and manipulate. Information disseminated to the general public is often framed in the way to achieve that goal.

People today are often too preoccupied with their feelings, thoughts, as well as with not particularly real issues. They escalate in their minds everything they feel strongly about. Being worried all the time about “things that might happen” is psychologically damaging and detaches us from reality. It is similar to materialism and being caught up in buying things we don’t really need. It’s like chasing the wind. None of this makes any sense. From our individual, everyday perspective none of what happens on facebook or any other social media platform ultimately matters.

There is also no point in worrying about things that we know will eventually happen to us, such as old age and the diseases that will affect us then. “There is no point in experiencing now, in your imagination, the suffering that is to come in the future” – as the Polish philosopher, Tadeusz Kotarbiński, wrote.

The best way to end our fears and internal struggles is to confront our fears with reality. If we are unable to do so at the moment then prayer, studying Torah and other spiritual practices can help us to maintain the balance and to keep us sane and reasonable. If you are currently worried about something, try to remember your past worries that have never been substantiated. None of them ultimately mattered, right? At the end everything was perfectly fine. It will be so also this time.

Shabbat shalom!

Toledot

When Something Goes Wrong, You May Have to Do the “Wrong” Thing

Thoughts on Parashat Toledot

Menachem Mirski

The main theme for this week’s Torah portion is the struggle between Isaac’s two sons, Jacob and Esau. The struggle between them begins already in the womb: Jacob, still unborn, tries to pull Esau back into his mother’s womb.

But the children struggled in her womb, and she said, “If so, why do I exist? ”Meaning of Heb. uncertain. She went to inquire of the LORD, and the LORD answered her, “Two nations are in your womb, Two separate peoples shall issue from your body; One people shall be mightier than the other, And the older shall serve the younger.” When her time to give birth was at hand, there were twins in her womb. The first one emerged red, like a hairy mantle all over; so they named him Esau. Then his brother emerged, holding on to the heel of Esau; so they named him Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when they were born. (Gen 25:22-26)

It was Jacob who was supposed to be Icchak’s firstborn, but things simply “went wrong”. The entire story of rivalry between the two brothers is about a reversal, a correction of “what went wrong” at the time of their birth, and God legitimizes it by foretelling the final outcome of this rivalry. This struggle is even reflected in Jacob’s name: the name Yaakov means heel holder or supplanter, and its root akav means to follow, to tail, to watch.

[Esau] said, “Was he, then, named Jacob that he might supplant me these two times? First he took away my birthright and now he has taken away my blessing!” And he added, “Have you not reserved a blessing for me?” (Gen 27:36)

In biblical times the birthright son was entitled to a double portion (that is, twice as much as any other son) of the father’s inheritance: one portion as a son, the second portion as the new head responsible for the whole family including the care of his mother and unmarried sisters (Gen 48:22, Deut. 21:17). Given the biblical descriptions of Esau’s character and lifestyle we can rightly conclude that is was not a good fit for the forefather of the Chosen People:

Jacob said, “First sell me your birthright.” And Esau said, “I am at the point of death, so of what use is my birthright to me?” But Jacob said, “Swear to me first.” So he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob. (Gen 25:31-33)

First of all, Esau seems to be underestimating the privilege of being the firstborn, to say the least. Secondly, his hunting lifestyle leaves much to be desired. Ibn Ezra in his commentary to Gen 25:32 states that:

He was daily exposed to danger when he went out hunting, as an animal might kill him. Thus there was a possibility that he would predecease his father.

Given all of that it seems that Esau was not the most reliable person to bear all the responsibilities associated with being the firstborn, and we know that his father, Icchak, was advanced in years at that time.

This sheds additional light on Rebecca and Jacob’s deceptive actions to take Esau away from his birthright. The welfare of the whole family, tribe, the future of the chosen people and the fulfillment of God’s promise were at stake here. What was important here was not who was actually born first but who was a better fit for a leader of the tribe; a better fit – socially, psychologically and intellectually – to be the father of the Chosen People.

In ancient times, and basically until modernity, people didn’t question existing laws, regulations and customs as they do today. These laws and customs have always been “calculated” on large groups of people, and thus were not flexible and typically allowed no exceptions. The strictness of the law and custom “required” lying. In psychology, situations like these are called lie invitees. Rebecca and Jacob had to use a trick, to achieve a goal desired not only by them, but by God himself. In order to “correct the things that went wrong” at the beginning they had to act unethically. Our story is then a story about the necessity of an exception in custom and culture.

This is a story about the circumstances in which the existing ethics and law need to be questioned, suspended or broken for a higher purpose. It is about an exceptional situation where the only law is the will of God. We deal with a similar situation in Akeda (Gen 22) as well as in the story of Pinchas and Zimri (Num 25). The situation here seems to be less drastic, but it still posed a direct threat of the death of one of the people involved: Esau promised to kill Jacob, and therefore Jacob had to flee. Our story seems to convey a theological statement that God’s will sometimes override the Divine law. It’s not a norm, however, it’s an exception. This story can be also used as an illustration that sometimes reason, human design and common sense have to triumph over convention, a given state of affairs or even nature.

Shabbat shalom,

Truth vs Peace

Thoughts on Parashat Vayehi

Menachem Mirski

“No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth”, said Plato. “Cherish those who seek the truth but beware of those who find it”, said Voltaire. “The truth is, everyone is going to hurt you. You just got to find the ones worth suffering for”, said Bob Marley.

Is telling the truth always good or necessary? Is telling the lies always wrong? Many books were written on these topics, many people have tried to give an ultimate answer to it. Soon after this problem seems to be resolved there comes another answer to it. Also our Torah portion for this week touches this subject. It tells us the story of Joseph’s brothers who openly lie to him:

When Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “What if Joseph still bears a grudge against us and pays us back for all the wrong that we did him!” So they sent this message to Joseph, “Before his death your father left this instruction: So shall you say to Joseph, ‘Forgive, I urge you, the offense and guilt of your brothers who treated you so harshly.’ Therefore, please forgive the offense of the servants of the God of your father.” And Joseph was in tears as they spoke to him. (Gen 50:15-17)

Joseph cried because he immediately noticed that his brothers were lying. This lie was nothing compared to what they had done to him when they sold him to Egypt many years earlier. In his eyes, the brothers’ lie was a rather pathetic expression of their fear, helplessness and sense of guilt. How do we know about this? The rabbis give us some hints. According to Rabbi Luzatto:

He understood that the brothers had instructed the messenger what to say; otherwise Jacob would have told himself. Joseph therefore wept at seeing the tragic state of his brothers, going in fear of their lives and forced to such shifts to stave off his vengeance.

There is no reason to believe that the brothers told their father the truth about the sale of Joseph: the Torah does not mention that Jacob found out about it. Nahmanides explains it as follows:

It seems to me that the plain meaning of the test is that Jacob was never told of the sale of Joseph by his brothers, but imagined that he got lost in the fields and was sold by his finders to Egypt. His brothers did not wish to divulge their misconduct, especially, for fear of his curse and anger. […] Had Jacob known it all the time, they should have begged their father to command Joseph to forgive them […].

The idea that Joseph himself told his father about it also seems improbable. First, he had forgiven his brothers and saw a divine plan in it. So he had no reason to take revenge on his brothers, and it would be revenge to disclose this information to his father, Jacob.

I have already mentioned several times the well-known comment that the family stories in the Book of Genesis are predominantly the stories of dysfunctional families; that these stories often tell us how not to deal with each other and that they capture aspects of ethics that are very difficult to codify into a moral or religious law.

However, let us consider what the case of the lies of Joseph’s brothers will look like in the context of the ethics of Judaism. The Torah does not absolutely forbid lying as such. The 9th commandment of the Decalogue, lo taane ve’reacha ed shaker, commonly translated as You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor, is restricted to bearing a false testimony in order to harm someone. Its literal meaning is: You shall not answer your neighbor, false witness! A false witness is one whose testimony may even be theoretically true, but has no basis in his experience, e.g. they say that they have seen something but in fact only heard about it, etc. The rabbis, however, put many restrictions on what we can say to others: for example, revealing private information about others (gossip – rekhillut) even if true, is prohibited, unless revealing this information can protect someone else from abuse or harm. Obviously, deliberately misleading others (geneivat da’at) through “smooth speech” or seductive language is a violation of Jewish norms of speech and prohibited (however, trying to persuade the people who are informed that they are being persuaded to buy or believe something is not considered misleading and it is allowed.)

So what do the rabbis say about our story? One of them, Rabbenu Bahya Ibn Pakuda, tells us that we may deviate from the literal truth in order to preserve peace between people. Joseph brothers, tormented by their sense of guilt, felt their lives were in mortal danger. Our Sages regarded their conduct as warranted on the principle that truth has sometimes to be subordinated to more important values.

Some say that this means that truth, no matter how important, is not an absolute value and sometimes it must give way to other values and two of them sometimes are more important: peace and life. I believe that this opinion confuses the truth as such, understood by philosophers as accurate cognitive representation of reality with the mere act of ‘telling the truth’ assessed from the perspective of ethics. Telling the truth is sometimes inconvenient, sometimes gravely dangerous but sometimes necessary, even if it ensues sacrifices and sufferings, necessary to begin something new, to say goodbye to something we don’t want anymore or to put reality back on track which I wish everyone in the New Year 2021!

Shabbat shalom

Menachem Mirski- student rabinacki w Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies, American Jewish University, Los Angeles, USA

Miketz

Truthfulness, impartiality and pragmatism

Thoughts on parashat Miketz

Menachem Mirski

One definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. While there is a lot of truth to this rather amusing statement, I challenge this conclusion. It would be absolutely true if we had full control over the results of our actions and over other factors that influence those results, however, we have no such control. Additionally, we don’t get everything right the first time we try – so repeating it again, might in fact produce a different result. The same is true of risk-taking situations: these situations, by definition, do not guarantee the desired results. Therefore, at the onset, the truth of the statement is limited.

In this week’s Torah portion, we come across a story that seems quite puzzling in light of the ending of the previous Torah portion. As you may remember, in last week’s parashah, Joseph interprets the dream of the chief cupbearer and predicted correctly that he would be released from prison and regain his former position. Joseph asked the cupbearer not to forget about him. And while he had proof that Joseph interpreted the dream correctly the cupbearer did nothing. But in this week’s Torah portion the situation is completely different. Joseph again interpreted a dream, in order to get out of prison, and in fact, had a different result. Here is what follows after Joseph interpreted Pharaoh’s dream:

The plan pleased Pharaoh and all his courtiers. And Pharaoh said to his courtiers, “Could we find another like him, a man in whom is the spirit of God?” So Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Since God has made all this known to you, there is none so discerning and wise as you. You shall be in charge of my court, and by your command shall all my people be directed; only with respect to the throne shall I be superior to you.” Pharaoh further said to Joseph, “See, I put you in charge of all the land of Egypt.” And removing his signet ring from his hand, Pharaoh put it on Joseph’s hand; and he had him dressed in robes of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck. He had him ride in the chariot of his second-in-command, and they cried before him, “Abrek!” Thus he placed him over all the land of Egypt. (Gen 41:37-43)

How did Pharaoh, unlike the cupbearer, come to believe Joseph when there was no way of proving his interpretation? The dream was about a rather distant future. What was the criteria of truth here? Why did Joseph achieve a different result? Why did Pharaoh listen to this message, from the lowest among the lowest in the social hierarchy, while ignoring his court magicians? Why were the magicians’ explanations not convincing while Josephs were?

We do not know, we can only speculate. We know from my previous sermons that Joseph was seen as truthful and sincere. Perhaps the magicians interpreted the dream in such a way as to please the Pharaoh, but Pharaoh who was quite disturbed by it, didn’t “buy” their “positive” interpretation, while Joseph’s was perceived, in the blink of an eye, as more sincere and truthful and thus more believable. Additionally, Joseph’s interpretation was pragmatic, he immediately gave Pharaoh practical advice on how to deal with the coming famine. Another factor that may have been appealing in Joseph’s response is that he, as a Hebrew, a stranger in the land of Egypt, had at heart, the future of that land. This is also an expression of pragmatism, but what is crucial here is that it is a sign of Joseph’s impartiality.

Let me say it again: truthfulness, impartiality and pragmatism. These are values that we should consistently support and work towards. Not only because untruthfulness, partiality and detachment abound. But because these three values sometimes are in conflict. Pragmatism can mean, and often does mean, being partial. It can also mean silence on topics that need to be addressed openly. I don’t think I need to give any examples here – there are many of them in various areas of our life: in our professional and private life, at work, at home or in our relationships. Similarly being truthful at all costs is also not wise. We know well that not every thought has to be expressed the minute we think it. Not every message or email has to be delivered the minute it is written. We need to be thoughtful about things. What I’m advocating for is to have all these three – truthfulness, impartiality and pragmatism – in our hierarchy of values and strive to always find the right balance among them and their consequences.

Shabbat shalom!

Menachem Mirski- student rabinacki w Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies, American Jewish University, Los Angeles, USA