Yitzchak and Yaakov

On Tuesday we spent class today talking about Yitzchak (Isaac) and Ya’akov (Jacob). The first story we talked about isn’t very well known, but, in my opinion, offers wonderful insight into the nature of Am Yisrael and our relationship with the world. Yitzchak (about whom very little is written) is an interesting character. It seems likely that the experience of almost being sacrificed by his father must have been a traumatic one, and may well have stuck with him for the rest of his life. He certainly comes off as less charismatic and powerful than his father (Avraham) and son (Yaakov). One of the few stories that centers around him tells us that he was quite successful materially, having accumulated large herds of animals. It goes on to say that he dug a well, only to have his neighbors stop it up. He moved to a new location, dug another well and again had angry neighbors ruin it. After this pattern repeats itself a few times his neighbors finally give up and allow him to have his well (the story is in Genesis 26 for those who are interested). While he may not have the dynamism of the other members of his family, this story clearly demonstrates that Yitzchak is persistent and a hard worker, even in the face of adversity. In many ways this story parallels the history of Am Yisrael. Am Yisrael has managed to be successful in many (if not most) places and times throughout world history, often in the face of tremendous adversity, like Yitzchak in this story. This excellent article tries to explain which traits enable different groups to succeed in America, and I found it connects wonderfully to the story about Yitzchak. In my opinion Am Yisrael displays all three of the traits mentioned in the article. Do you agree?
After these few verses about Yitzchak we dove headfirst into Yaakov, one of Yitzchak's sons. As many of you undoubtedly know, Ya'akov had a twin brother, Esau. Esau came out first, making him first the born (which entailed quite a few important privileges in those days), with Ya'akov hanging on to his heel (thus his name, which means "heel", not exactly the most flattering name you can imagine). As a child we see Ya'akov (who is more of an "indoor kid" in contrast to Esau the manly man) buy Esau's birthright for a bowl of soup and steal (with his mother, Rebecca's, help) the special blessing meant for the first born. Many of the students suggested that this doesn't sound like a reasonable story. Even if he were old and seeing poorly, is it really possible Yitzchak, who seems to be coherent, couldn't recognize his own son? Perhaps he secretly wanted to give Ya'akov the blessing? Perhaps Rivka (Rebecca, his wife) was the real head of the household and that's what she wanted? Ya'akov then flees before Esau decides to react. On his way north to find a wife from among his mother's kinsmen Ya'akov has a dream in which Hashem promises him more or less the same things he promised his father and grandfather, namely to make him a great nation. But Ya'akov, instead of being thankful, vows that IF Hashem takes care of him and helps him and provides for him and makes him successful and helps him safely return then he'll take Hashem as his one and only God. When I asked the students to describe Ya'akov up to this point they used words like "cunning", "sneaky", and "immature", all of which I think are accurate descriptions (what smart students I have!).
He then meets his relative Rachel and falls in love with her. Her father, Laban, demands that he work for him for seven years as payment for her hand in marriage. When the seven years are up somehow he accidentally marries Leah, Rachel's eldest sister. This, too, seems a bit unrealistic. Along with the traditional explanation--that Laban and Leah simply tricked Ya'akov--there are modern, liberal interpretations that suggest that it's possible that Rachel and Leah tricked him, or perhaps he simply felt bad for Rachel's homely older sister. Regardless of how it happened Ya'akov, who up until now has been the one doing the tricking, gets tricked. I think that in this particular story it's easier to see the Tanakh as a work of literature and guidance, rather than a 100% true account of events. If so, then this is a perfect example of karmic/divine justice. Maybe Ya'akov gets exactly what he deserves. In order to marry Rachel he then has to work another seven years.
Finally, after many years working for Laban Ya'akov sets out on his own to go meet Esau. As you'll recall, their last meeting didn't go so well. Ya'akov has no idea what to expect. In the meantime it seems like he's changed. He is now older, married and has a family. He's been on the other side of cunning, immature behavior. The way he speaks and behaves is quite different from when he was a child. The night before he meets Esau he has a dream in which he wrestles with what tradition says is an angel (the text is unclear), hurting his hip in the process. As morning comes he refuses to let the angel go without receiving a blessing. In reply the angel names him Yisrael, literally "one who struggles with God" (a name henceforth used to describe the Jewish people. What does that say about us?) in place of the rather embarrassing "Ya'akov"
When the time comes to meet Esau Ya'akov (now Yisrael) divides his party into two camps, hoping to save at least one of them if Esau attacks. He sends gifts ahead to Esau. Here the Tanakh, once again, shows itself to be an incredible piece of literature (whatever else it may or may not be). When Yisrael sends a messenger the only answer he receives is "Esau himself will come meet you" When Esau approaches he has 400 men with him. Up until the very moment they meet there's an incredible sense of tension, just like you'd expect from a great novel, movie or TV show. It's unclear what Esau intends to do. In the end they have a happy reunion; Yisrael has grown up and Esau doesn't hold a grudge. A bit later we see them bury their father Isaac together.
Looking back on Ya'akov the students had a number of interesting thoughts. Many of them thought he'd undergone a profound change. Others felt like he was still the same person, but, like many adults, had simply learned to control the negative impulses he gave in to as a child. Still others felt like he hadn't really matured at all. Almost all of them agreed that this struggle to mature is an accurate picture of reality, and part of what has made the Tanakh such a well-known and well-read book for thousands of years
One of the most interesting parts of this story, and of the Tanakh in general, is that our heroes are far from perfect. I don't think it's out of place to say that Yisrael was kind of a jerk as a kid. This is true of many of the important characters in Jewish history (we'll see in a few days, for instance, that both Moshe Rabbenu and King David commit even more grievous sins). While I certainly know less about other religions than about Judaism, I don't think Christian saints, for example, are as likely to have led such morally suspect lives (and if someone knows differently, please correct me!) From these stories we learn the importance of tshuva, the process of constantly looking at yourself and trying to improve. Am Yisrael has a specific time once a year, Yom Kippur, where we do this, but ideally it's supposed to be a life long process. I find that idea--that the best people don't start perfect but spend their lives trying to be better--to be an accurate reflection of my own experiences, and I'd suggest that this realistic view of human nature is one of the keys to Am Yisrael's longevity. What do you think it says about Am Yisrael that all of our heroes are deeply flawed? Would we be better off having at least one perfect hero? Do you think Yisrael's story is representative of the human condition? How much of this idea is specifically Jewish and how much is universal?

Avraham Avinu (Abraham our father)

     On Monday we spent our class talking Avraham Avinu (Abraham our father). We began by talking about his call from Hashem (Genesis 12) and whether or not we thought it was a literal call or more of a gut feeling or inspiration. The students offered a number of interesting suggestions for what kind of man they thought Abraham must have been, which I hope they'll share in the comments. I also asked them if they think they go with their gut/inspiration, and, if so, if that's a good thing.
     Moving forward in Avraham's life we see that he travels along derekh hahar (the mountain road) to arrive at Shechem (near modern day Nablus in the West Bank). Whereas most of the modern Israeli population is located on the coastal plain, traditionally it's the mountainous interior where most Jews lived. This is an important fact to keep in mind when we talk about giving up land for peace. The Tanakh tells us that Avraham avinu, the founder of our people, lived in the area that, if there's a two state solution, will one day be a part of Palestine.
     He then continues down into Egypt where he curiously refers to his wife Sarah as his "sister". After giving the students a chance to think of reasons why he might do this I told them about the Nuzi documents, documents found in modern day Iraq that mention a legal principle in which the sister-wife is the most important wife. But if we accept that explanation then there are other incongruities in the story (and my understanding is that the most recent evidence suggests that sister-wife explanation might be flawed). For example, if this was a well-known status, why were the Egyptians angry when they found out about it? Understanding the Tanakh is rarely simple. Solving one problem often creates another.
     We then talked about one of Avraham's most well-known brits (covenants), his circumcision. As with every covenant there are two sides; Avraham promises to walk in Hashem's ways and God promises to give Avraham the land of Canaan and make him the father of a great nation. The physical sign for this brit is circumcision (brit milah in Hebrew).
     Perhaps more interesting than the brit milah itself is what happens afterward. Avraham is sitting in his tent, talking to Hashem when three strangers walk up. Avraham immediately rises to greet them (after just getting circumcised as an old man no less!), completely ignoring Hashem. In these few short verses we learn a number of things (and see how the Tanakh is simultaneously an incredible piece of literature and an instruction manual for how to live your life). First, we see Avraham ignore Hashem (who is in the middle of bikur holim, visiting the sick) for the sake of three strangers. In Judaism we divide the 613 mitzvot (commandments) in a number of ways: do/don't do, understand (don't murder) and can't understand (keeping kosher), etc. In Avraham's behavior we see one of the most important divisions, the difference between mitzvot ben adam l'makom (commandments that deal with the relationship between humans and god) and mitzvot ben adam l'chavero (commandments that deal with the relationship between humans). Unlike other religions of the time (and perhaps even of our own time) in Judaism the interactions between people are more important than those between people and Hashem. As I'm sure many of you are aware on Yom Kippur Jews are expected to apologize to the person we wronged, not ask forgiveness from Hashem.
Another interesting mitzva we see demonstrated here is "welcoming the strangers." Even today in desert cultures the idea of hospitality is incredibly important. Given the difficulty of traveling in the desert--little food, even less water--hospitality may well save your life. So while Avraham is making the effort toward his guests in this case, he may well be the needy one next time. Not only is "welcoming the guest" a lovely value, it's a clear reminder of the fact that Am Yisrael began in a desert landscape as nomads.
     Having learned a bit about what kind of man the founder of Am Yisrael is we arrived to what, in my opinion, is the most challenging aspect of the Avraham story. Hashem tells Avraham he's going to destroy Sodom and Gemorrah. Avraham, unhappy with this decision, argues with Hashem, questioning whether Hashem will destroy the righteous together with the wicked. Avraham negotiates with Hashem over how many righteous people need to be present to make the towns worth saving, starting with 50 and eventually talking Hashem down to ten. What chutzpah! A few verses later Hashem commands Avraham to sacrifice his only son, Yitzchak, and Avraham doesn't make a peep. For me, this is a difficult series of events to try and understand. We know that Avraham is willing to argue with Hashem, but doesn't try to save his only son. Is Avraham willing to argue for the public good, but not for his personal happiness? Is God testing Avraham? If so, what's the test? Is it, as tradition teaches, a test of Avraham's faith? Is it a test to see whether Avraham understands that Judaism is a truly different religion that doesn't demand human sacrifice? Is Avraham testing God? How do you think this episode affects Avraham's relationship with God? His relationship with Yitzchak? How do you think this event affects Yitzchak? I look forward to hearing all your suggestions in the comments. 

Gezer: Who Were the Canaanites?

      At the end of class on Thursday, when we discussed the development of civilization in the ancient Near East we briefly mentioned Avraham Avinu (Abraham Our Father, the first Jew). The first thing we see with Avraham is that Hashem tells him "Lech Lcha" (which the students are reading for homework tonight), instructing him to pick up, leave his home in Mesopotamia, and go to Canaan (also the inspiration for an excellent Debbie Friedman song). We looked at the route he took and the places he visited, and saw that, given the population and movement patterns in this region it seems like quite a reasonable story (at least in that particular aspect).  Having established that Avraham was coming to Canaan we set out to explore Gezer and try to understand the Canaanites who dwelt there.
     The first place we stopped was an overview, from which we could see the entire surrounding area. This lookout was an excellent place to see the main geographic features of Israel. Next to the Mediterranean Sea is the coastal plain, where the majority of Israel's population resides today (though not in the past). Moving east the land slowly starts to rise into the the Shfeyla (foothills). As you continue toward Jerusalem (east) the land continues to rise into the Judean Mountains before falling abruptly into the Jordan Valley (which includes features such as the Kinerret, Jordan River and Dead Sea). Here's a picture:

     Gezer is a little bit south of Tel Aviv near where the Shfeyla meets the coastal plain. By using their knowledge of Israel's location between Mesopotamia and Egypt and seeing the geography the students realized that Gezer was right on a major north-south trade route (it's possible I gave some hints in that direction). Actually, Gezer is at the junction of Derekh Hayam (the coastal highway referred to above) and the Yafo-Jerusalem highway, the historic road that is one of Israel's main East-West roads. Given its location at a major international junction, Gezer was an important center of trade, which is probably one of the main reasons a settlement developed here. From our lookout we could also see the surrounding area is widely used for agriculture, telling us the land is fertile, another reason we might expect a people to live here. 

While trade and fertile land are important, in Israel the most important issue for establishing a settlement is always water. As opposed to Egypt and Mesopotamia where a large part of their water needs are met by rivers, in Israel rain and springs are the primary sources. Unfortunately, in Gezer's case there was water nearby, but not within the city. This is a big problem since it means they'd be susceptible to a siege by an enemy army (they'd run out of water). To solve this the Canaanites who lived there built a huge tunnel, from which they could safely bring water into the city, even under siege.

archaeologists digging out the water tunnel

     Speaking of armies, as a major trade center at the junction of two significant roads the residents of Gezer certainly knew their city would be eyed by ambitious foreign rulers. To prevent this they built a massive wall 16 feet thick around the entire city. The one entrance point, a gate, was protected by an even thicker tower. The students were all amazed at the organizational and technological prowess demonstrated by the incredible size of the water tunnel, wall and tower. The Canaanites were nothing to sneeze at.

     Before continuing our exploration of Canaanite culture I want to explain briefly how archaeologists determine the location of places as old as Gezer and study them, which I did with the students throughout the course of the tiyul. First of all, they use the Tanakh and other sources to give them an idea what they're looking for and where. Then, they look for the flat-topped hill called a tel, which is a basically an artificial hill caused by many layers of civilization laying one on top of the other. You can see tel Gezer's funny flat-topped shape in this aerial view:

     Archaeologists also look to local names for hints as to where ancient settlements might have been. In our case the area of Tel Gezer was known as "El Jazzar" a likely Arabization of it's biblical (or even pre-biblical) name. In most instances even if you've found somewhere that fills a settlement's four basic needs (water, food, trade and defense), looks like a tel and has a modern name similar to something we see in the Tanakh, it's still quite difficult to identify it 100%. With Gezer, by sheer good fortune, archaeologists found a number of boundary stones around the tel which clearly proclaim the area as Gezer. Having identified the tel, rather than haphazardly digging the discovers dig what's called a "trench", a long, narrow hole that goes all the way down to the very bottom level of civilization. Ideally, this gives them an overview of how many layers there are, when they're from, and some idea of how important the site will be. 

     Having touched on a few of the tools in an archaeologist's tool box, let's return to the Canaanites. Given the immense size and impressive engineering of the tel's structures the students were quite impressed by the Canaanites. When we compare their lifestyle with the tent-dwelling wandering of Avraham Avinu, almost every student agreed Gezer would be a lot nicer place to live (I may have pointed out the Abraham's goat skin tent probably didn't smell all that great). The last part of Canaanite culture we learned about was their religion. In discussing Egyptian and Mesopotamian societies we mentioned that religion played an important role in establishing the organization required in "civilization". The same is true for the Canaanites. In their polytheistic religion gods behave and seek the same pleasures as men. That means that in order for the ancient Canaanites to curry favor with the gods (for example, to get them to give the proper amount of rain at the proper time) they appealed to their appetite, by giving them burnt offerings, their thirst, by giving them wine, and their sexual needs, through the use of temple prostitutes (both male and female). If, after ALL that the gods still couldn't be cajoled into helping, there is evidence that suggests that the Canaanites sacrificed their children in the basin by the monoliths pictured below.  (As with any academic argument there are dissenting opinions. Anyone who's curious feel free to be in touch and I'll point you in the right direction) 

     While the students understood the Canaanite mindset--that you have to give the gods your most valuable possession--it was still tough for them to internalize that someone could do something so terrible. Can you see the Canaanites' viewpoint? Do you think you could do something like that if you were brought up in that culture? Is there a parallel to modern western culture (materially rich but morally problematic)? Tomorrow we'll be looking at Akedat Yitzhak (the sacrifice of Isaac) and seeing how it compares with what we saw at Gezer.