WalkingTorah - Parashat Toldot (Genesis 25:19-28:9)

WalkingTorah

Where ancient lessons guide modern life

Parashat Toldot פרשת תולדות

November 14, 2015 ב' כסלו תשע”ו

Among the many revolutionary ideas conceived during the time of the American Revolution, one which had a particularly Jewish flavor to it was the notion that the social status of one’s father was no longer relevant. In other words, Americans did not care where you came from, nor who your family was. There was no concept of hereditary title, no idea of formally receiving honor due to one’s heritage. In the new nation of America, what was important was where you were going, and where you ended up.

A similar idea appears in a comment on a story told in Parashat Toldot. After many years of trying to conceive, Isaac and Rebecca become pregnant with not one, but two sons (Esau and Jacob). But there is something strange about Rebecca’s pregnancy. As the Torah describes it: “But the children struggled in her womb, and she said, ‘If so, why do I exist?’ She went to enquire of the Lord” (Genesis 25:22). What, exactly, did she enquire of God?, asks Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzchak, 11th-12th c., Troyes, France; Worms, Germany). Citing a rabbinic legend which has the infant Esau struggling to exit the womb when his mother passed by a house of idol worship, and the infant Jacob attempting the same when passing a house of Torah study, Rashi answers that Rebecca, who did not yet know that she was carrying twins, was extremely distraught over her apparently schizophrenic child. According to Rashi, Rebecca enquired of God the following: “What will be the final status of my child?” In other words, which path will he choose - the path of evil, or the path of good? How will he end up?

This struggle between doing evil, or doing good, is a struggle which each of us goes through our entire lives, says R’ Simcha Bunim of Peshischa (18th-19th c., Przysucha, Poland). The fight between our evil inclination (or, more materially-focused inclination) and good inclination (or, more spiritually-focused inclination) is never over; we can never say that we have finally vanquished our desire to do wrong. (Surprising as it may be, it is not always our evil inclination which trips us up; sometimes our good inclination can be the source of trouble! Just think of a parent who can’t say no to his child. The parent wants his child to be happy, but it is the child’s dentist who is most happy, when the parent’s efforts to bring happiness instead bring on many cavities from sweets.) What is much more important than where a person has come from, more important than whether he struggles with his baser desires, is where is he at now?, and in which direction is he headed? As R’ Simcha Bunim puts it, sometimes the evil inclination lands a blow, while other times the good inclination lands a blow. The key question is, who landed the final blow?

Similar to America’s Founding Fathers’ philosophy, Judaism is more concerned with where one is going than with where one has come from. We all struggle with doing the right thing. There is no shame in periodically losing a struggle with our evil inclination, and we dare not be discouraged for long. We must continue to move forward. We must continue the daily fight to become better people. May we be blessed that when our time on earth is finished, those with whom we came into contact will look back on our lives and be able to say of us, “He fought a good fight to become the best person he could be. His struggle was successful. He ended up in a very good place.”

(Based on ב. יאושזון, מאוצרנו הישן - בראשית, p. 126.)

Rabbi Aryeh A. Leifert is originally from Teaneck, New Jersey. He served as an Assistant Rabbi and Judaics Studies principal in San Antonio, Texas from 2006-2009. In 2009, he moved to Israel with his family, where he works as a licensed tour guide for individuals, couples, families of all ages, groups, schools, and religious institutions. He also offers Virtual Tours of Israel through the internet. He may be reached via his website, WalkingIsrael.com.

WalkingTorah - Parashat Chayei Sarah (Genesis 23:1-25:18)

WalkingTorah

Where ancient lessons guide modern life

Parashat Chayei Sarah פרשת חיי שרה

November 7, 2015 כ"ה מרחשון תשע”ו

“Choose your battles.” How often have we been told this, and how often have we told this to others, when dealing with a situation where, though we might be in the right, is just not worth the aggravation which will result, nor worth the damage which might be caused to a relationship? “Choose your battles” means that there are certain things which are more important than being right. As one who surrenders his right of way at an intersection might say, “I’d rather be alive than right.”

This concept is illustrated by an incident based on the first story described in Parashat Chayei Sarah. After his beloved wife Sarah has died, Abraham comes before the local Canaanite tribe, the Hittites, and asks for their help in securing an appropriate burial place for her. “Bury your dead in the choicest of our burial places,” the Hittites insist (Genesis 23:6). Abraham offers thanks for their generosity, and sets an example for future generations of Jews, who have since endeavored to give their loved ones a fitting and dignified final resting place. Not just any place will do.

But there are some things which are more important than being buried in the “choicest of burial places,” says Rav Moshe Idel of Ponevezh (Panevėžys, Lithuania). He recounts an incident where two Jews came before him, arguing over a burial plot. There were two plots in dispute, and each claimant insisted that he had purchased the more desirable location. Back and forth they went arguing, and no easy solution presented itself. Rav Moshe thought about each petitioner’s claim, and then rendered his decision: The one who died first would be buried in the better-placed grave.

The litigants immediately stopped quarreling. All of a sudden, neither wished to win the case.

Some things in life are certainly worth fighting for. Whether it is fighting to preserve eternal values, or fighting on behalf of justice for the downtrodden, or fighting for the freedom of those being persecuted, there are many worthy causes which demand our commitment. But let us be very careful when choosing what to fight over, and what to let be. May we be blessed with the wisdom and foresight to be able to take a step back from a situation and say, “I may be in the right here, but the price I’ll pay for winning is just not worth it.”

(Story of Rav Moshe Idel cited in ב. יאושזון, מאוצרנו הישן - בראשית, p. 106)

Rabbi Aryeh A. Leifert is originally from Teaneck, New Jersey. He served as an Assistant Rabbi and Judaics Studies principal in San Antonio, Texas from 2006-2009. In 2009, he moved to Israel with his family, where he works as a licensed tour guide for individuals, couples, families of all ages, groups, schools, and religious institutions. He also offers Virtual Tours of Israel through the internet. He may be reached via his website, WalkingIsrael.com.

WalkingTorah - Parashat Lech Lecha

WalkingTorah

Where ancient lessons guide modern life

Rabbi Aryeh A. Leifert (WalkingIsrael.com)

Parashat Lech Lecha פרשת לך לך

October 24, 2015 י”א מרחשוון תשע”ו

It seems that very often in political discourse, one side will accuse the other of being on “the wrong side of history,” or of being “out of the mainstream.” The implication is that this is a negative, with the logic being, why would anyone want to be on the “wrong side of history,” or “out of the mainstream”? After all, don’t we want history to look favorably upon us? Don’t we want to be in sync with the majority of public opinion?

Parashat Lech Lecha might suggest otherwise. After the War of the Kings, described in Genesis 14, Abraham is informed that his nephew, Lot, has been taken prisoner, and is being taken to Mesopotamia by the victorious kings. The word used to describe Abraham, however, is one which only appears in this story. Abraham is called “the Hebrew” (in the original Hebrew, עברי/ivri). The root letters of the word עברי/ivri are .ע.ב.ר/I.V.R. These 3 letters can mean “to pass over,” or “the other side.” In other words, the verse is describing Abraham as “the one from the other side.”

But the other side of what? In Bereishit Rabbah, it states: “The entire world was on one side, and Abraham was on the other side.” In other words, Abraham was preaching one view, that of ethical monotheism, and the world was preaching another view. To cite just a few examples of major differences between Abraham’s (or the Torah’s) view and the rest of the world:

• The world said that human sacrifice, and particularly child sacrifice, was demanded by the gods. Abraham said that such an act was an abomination before God.
• The world said that strangers (that is, non-members of a family or tribe) need not be cared for, and may in some cases be actively persecuted. The Torah demands over thirty times that we take care of, protect, and even love the stranger.
• The world said that if a person murders another, he may either claim sanctuary in the local temple, or pay a fine, to be determined by the social status of his victim. The Torah specifies that if a murderer claims sanctuary, he should be dragged away from the altar itself and punished. And there is no distinction between different victims’ social statuses. All lives are equal in the eyes of God.

We take these values for granted today, but when Abraham began preaching them, they were far from widely accepted. Yet Abraham preached on.

You know who was told he was going to be on “the wrong side of history”? Abraham. You know who was told he was “out of the mainstream”? Abraham. Indeed, if one would want to summarize the Jewish people’s world experience in a few words, one might say that it has been a history of being told that we were on “the wrong side of history,” and that we were “out of the mainstream.” But who cares? said Abraham, and said the Jewish people. We want to be on the side of what is right, and just, and good! This is not a popularity contest, this is a struggle between right and wrong, between just and unjust, and between good and evil.

Hopefully, millennia-old truths will eventually be seen as being on the right side of history, and be incorporated into the lives of the mainstream. Until then, however, may we be blessed with the courage to stand up for what is right, not necessarily for what is popular at that moment in time. In this way, we will truly be worthy heirs to the legacy of Abraham, “the one from the other side.”

(Bereishit Rabbah cited in ב. יאושזון, מאוצרנו הישן - בראשית, p. 65)

Rabbi Aryeh A. Leifert is originally from Teaneck, New Jersey. He served as an Assistant Rabbi and Judaics Studies principal in San Antonio, Texas from 2006-2009. In 2009, he moved to Israel with his family, where he works as a licensed tour guide for individuals, couples, families of all ages, groups, schools, and religious institutions. He also offers Virtual Tours of Israel through the internet. He may be reached via his website, WalkingIsrael.com.

Pro-Israel videos from Prager University

Here are some videos (none longer than 6 minutes) related to the Israeli-Arab conflict, and Radical Islam, courtesy of Prager University. They are excellent resources to use as "ammunition" in the battle to defend truth and freedom, against the forces of lies and totalitarianism. Only by consistently fighting for good values can we expect to win this war. This conflict is being fought at least as much in cyberspace and in the court of public opinion as it is being fought on the battlefield. For the world's sake, may we be successful.

• Dennis Prager - The Middle East problem
• Anne Bayefsky - Is the UN fair to Israel?
• Alan Dershowitz - Israel's legal founding
• Alan Dershowitz - Are Israeli settlements the barrier to peace?
• Alan Dershowitz - BDS: The attempt to strangle Israel
• George Gilder - Do you pass the Israel Test?
• Raymond Ibrahim - Radical Islam: The most dangerous ideology
• Kenneth Meshoe - Is Israel an apartheid state?
• Haroon Ullah - Why do people become religious extremists?

WalkingTorah - Parashat No'ach

WalkingTorah

Where ancient lessons guide modern life

Rabbi Aryeh A. Leifert (WalkingIsrael.com)

Parashat No’ach פרשת נח

October 17, 2015 ד’ מרחשוון תשע”ו

Just who was Noah? Was he a righteous man? Was he an average man? According to the Torah (Genesis 6:9), the answer could not be clearer: “Noah was a righteous man; he was blameless in his age.” What more is there to say? He remained an exemplary person in a generation of incredibly wicked people. He was truly “a diamond in the rough.”

Actually, there is a lot more to say, according to Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzchak, 11th-12th c., Troyes, France). Citing a famous comment on this verse, in which the seemingly extra phrase “in his age” is noted, Rashi says: “Some of our rabbis have understood this in his favor, in that had he lived in a generation of other righteous people, he would have been even more righteous. There are others, however, who interpret this to his detriment. Compared to the evil people surrounding him, he was a righteous man. But had he lived in the generation of Abraham, he would not have amounted to anything.” In other words, if your neighbors are robbing seven days a week, and you are only robbing six days a week, then compared to them, you’re a pretty good guy!

So which is it? It seems that Noah was a righteous man. But was he righteous objectively, or merely subjectively? According to the Amshinover Rebbe (Rabbi Yaakov Dovid Kalish, 19th c., Mszczonów, Poland), we must pay careful attention to how Rashi names the two parties to this dispute. The group which describes Noah as objectively righteous is “our rabbis.” The group which labels him as merely subjectively righteous is the “others.” The teachers and leaders of the Jewish people, the rabbis, give Noah the benefit of the doubt. They want to assume the best of him, that anyone whom God deemed worthy of being saved from the Great Flood must surely have been a truly good person. Why go out of their way to cast aspersions on him?

On the other hand, it is a no-name group, the “others,” who try to cut Noah down, suggesting that he was not really that great a man. They did not judge Noah favorably, though they had evidence to do so, says the Amshinover Rebbe, and they violated to principle of giving “the other” the benefit of the doubt.

Many of us have opportunities to act as the rabbis, or as the “others.” When we see someone greater than we are, in whatever field, we may be tempted to belittle the person’s accomplishments. “He’s not that great,” we might say. “Compared to his siblings, what has he really done?” Why do we feel the need to do this? Perhaps it makes us feel better about ourselves, in that we have not accomplished as much as the object of our scorn. But this does not help us do better in that field. Pulling someone else down does not mean that we’ve gone up at all. We may feel like we’ve moved closer to that person, but in reality, we’ve stayed in the exact same place.

May we be granted the moral strength and wisdom to avoid being in the company of scorners and cynics, the “others,” and be counted among the rabbis, always trying to see the good in those around us.

(Amshinover Rebbe cited in ב. יאושזון, מאוצרנו הישן - בראשית, p. 33)

Rabbi Aryeh A. Leifert is originally from Teaneck, New Jersey. He served as an Assistant Rabbi and Judaics Studies principal in San Antonio, Texas from 2006-2009. In 2009, he moved to Israel with his family, where he works as a licensed tour guide for individuals, couples, families of all ages, groups, schools, and religious institutions. He also offers Virtual Tours of Israel through the internet. He may be reached via his website, WalkingIsrael.com.​

Differences between Left & Right positions

In May 2015, radio talk show host Dennis Prager began a series of articles on the differences between left-wing positions and right-wing positions on various macro issues. Of course, macro issues will necessarily influence one's views on micro issues. I think that this series will help both sides better understand why they believe what they believe, and help them better explain their positions to the other side. Keep checking back here for the latest articles. Enjoy!

1) May 26, 2015 - To defend a position, you must understand both sides

2) June 2, 2015 - Battling society vs. battling yourself

3) June 9, 2015 - "Does it do good?" vs. "Does it feel good?"

4) June 16, 2015 - The Left rejects painful truths

5) July 7, 2015 - It's all about big government

6) July 28, 2015 - The Left's contempt for America

7) August 18, 2015 - How do you know what's right and wrong?

Responses to the Iran nuclear deal, across the political spectrum

So many commentators have added their voices to the discussion about the recent Iran nuclear deal. Here is a list of some of the best opinion and news pieces, from across the political spectrum. Please send me more that you think should be added. (List follows alphabetical order.)

* Ben Sasson-Gordis, Avishay (Huffington Post, July 21, 2015) - Why the Iran deal is Israel's best alternative

* Beinart, Peter; Frum, David; Goldberg, Jeffrey (The Atlantic, July 17, 2015) - Is there a viable alternative to the Iran deal?

* Friedman, Thomas L. (New York Times, July 14, 2015) - Obama makes his case on Iran nuclear deal

* Goldberg, Jeffrey (The Atlantic, July 14, 2015) - The single most important question to ask about the Iran deal

* Goldberg, Jeffrey (The Atlantic, July 16, 2015) - Israeli Opposition Leader: Iran Deal Will Bring Chaos to the Middle East

* Krauthammer, Charles (Washington Post, July 2, 2015) - The worst agreement in US diplomatic history

* Krauthammer, Charles (Washington Post, July 15, 2015) - Worse than we could have imagined

* Kurtzer, Yehuda (eJewishPhilanthropy, July 21, 2015) - On Jewish leadership in a time of crisis

* Milbank, Dana (Washington Post, July 15, 2015) - Obama's news conference was a case for American weakness

Some soul-searching needed in Islam

A Muslim terror cell was recently broken up in Britain.  A number of its members were British-born and raised.  Among their plans for terror were: poisoning hand creams and smearing them on car door handles, and welding blades to a truck, which would then be driven into a crowd of people.  Their goal was to dwarf all previous terror attacks on British soil.

Here is my question: If there would be a similar percentage of Christians or Jews who would either carry out, or plot to engage in, terror attacks as do Muslims (who freely claim their are doing it in the name of Islam), do you think the Christian and Jewish worlds would engage in some soul searching?  Perhaps along the lines of "Why are these people distorting our faith?" or "Is there something in our faith which supports these acts, and upon which they are basing their crimes?"

To even bring up an issue like this opens one up to charges of Islamophobia.  I welcome such charges.  Keep burying your heads in the sand.  But a phobia, by definition, is a baseless fear.  Do you really think peace-loving people, non-Muslim OR Muslim, have nothing to fear from a large number of Muslims who claim they are acting in the name of Islam?  Do you think it is just an unfortunate coincidence that nearly all acts of terror in the world today are carried out by those who claim they are acting in the name of Islam?

Did sexism defeat Fiorinna and Whitman?

Carly Fiorinna and Meg Whitman lost in their attempts to defeat Barbara Boxer and Jerry Brown for senator and governor of California, respectively.  Why did they lose?  For any number of reasons which I do not want to deal with now.  Here is one reason you will not hear, neither from the mainstream media, nor from either of their campaigns, nor from conservative commentators: sexism.  And why will you not?  Well, for Fiorinna, it's quite obvious: she was running against another woman.  For Whitman, it's also obvious, but for a different reason: she's a conservative, and when conservative women, -blacks, -Hispanics, or other "minority groups" lose, they do not claim that it was due to bigotry against them.  They take their losses like mature adults, regroup, and ready themselves for the next political fight.  Are there exceptions?  There must be; I just can't think of any.  In general, though, this assertion is true.

Liberals, on the other hand, are quick to play the racism-, sexism-, or other -ism- card frequently.  Don't take my word for it; just read nearly every one of the New York Times' columnists, be it Dowd, Rich, Blow, Krugman, Kristof, or others.  Why did person X not vote for President Obama?  He's a racist.  Why did person X not support President Obama's health care legislation?  He's a racist.  Why did person Y not vote for John McCain?  It can't be that he's an age-ist; he's principled!  And why did person Y not vote for Sarah Palin?  He's not a sexist; he's principled!  Funny how the bigotry charges overwhelmingly go one way, isn't it?  Do most Democratic candidates or there supporters make these charges?  I think not.  When the charges are made, however, you can bet the farm that they will be coming from the liberal side.

Why is this?  The reason is simple.  Liberals generally try to silence the other side by throwing out labels which discredit them: sexist, racist, homophobic, et al.  Once you have labeled your opponent as such, dialogue is unnecessary; how can one speak with such a bigoted person?  And then you need never deal with the issues.  Liberals claim that they wish to engage in a spirited debate about any number of issues.  Problem is, though, they just can't seem to find any non-sexist, -racist, -homophobic, et al people to talk to.  Such a shame, it is.

So much for freedom of speech at NPR

NPR's Juan Williams says in an interview that when he gets on to an airplane and sees Muslims in "Muslim garb," he "get[s] nervous."  Then he gets fired for these comments.

Imagine if Mr. Williams had said the same thing about Jews or Christians.  Would he have been fired?  Of course not; far from being offended, people would think he was delusional.  When was the last time Jews murdered others in the name of Judaism, or Christians in the name of Christianity?  Stumped?  You're not alone.  For Muslims, however, one need only go back a few weeks (no matter when you are reading this).  Is this tragic?  Certainly.  Is it true, though?  To deny this is to deny the earth is round.   But NPR is much more concerned with being politically correct (read denying reality) than with transmitting truth.  As I have said to many friends, the issue is not whether or not Muslim terrorists are misrepresenting their faith; that is for Islamic scholars to decide.  It is an undeniable fact, however, that for the majority of Muslim terrorists, they think that they are faithfully performing their god's will.  Are they all idiots, or is there something else going on here?

So Juan Williams says what is on millions of Americans' minds.  Are millions of Americans anti-Muslim bigots?  (To the media elite, that is a rhetorical question; it is a given.)  Or, in fact, are they just not oblivious to the events unfolding before their eyes, and do they just want to protect their families?

Are the majority of Muslims terrorists?  The notion is absurd.  But even according to the most conservative estimates, 10% of the Muslim world supports violent jihad to impose shariah.  Friends, that's 130 million people.  That's nearly one-third the population of the United States, and more than four times the population of Canada.  The majority of Muslims are not Arabs.  But the majority of Arabs are Muslims.  Why is this obvious truth any less legitimate than pointing out that the majority of terrorists are Muslims?

Considering there have been exactly zero protests by American Muslims against religious violence committed in the name of their faith, cut us all some slack if we are a bit more suspicious of someone dressed in Muslim garb than we would be of a Hasid from Brooklyn, an Evangelical from San Antonio, or a nun from Seattle.