Friday, November 30, 2012

Random Musings Before Shabbat–Vayishlakh 5773–That Other Devorah’s Tale

וַתָּ֤מָת דְּבֹרָה֙ מֵינֶ֣קֶת רִבְקָ֔ה וַתִּקָּבֵ֛ר מִתַּ֥חַת לְבֵֽית־אֵ֖ל תַּ֣חַת הָֽאַלּ֑וֹן וַיִּקְרָ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ אַלּ֥וֹן בָּכֽוּת׃

And Deborah, Rebecca’s nurse, died, and she was buried beneath Beit El, beneath the plain; so he named it Allon Bakhuth (weeping oak?)

It has been a very long life, thought Devorah. I have seen and experienced many things. I am old and weary. I’ll just stop and rest here a moment.

Oh G”d of Yaakov, and, if You are indeed the same, G”d, the G”d of Yitzkhak and his father Avraham, tell me, “where did I go wrong?” I suckled the young Rivkah, and spent the better part of my middle age teaching her and preparing her to be a good woman, a good wife, a good mother.And how does she reward my efforts? With bad parenting, for one. Despite my warnings, she so clearly showed her favoritism for the younger of her twin sons. She fawned and doted on him, while all the time remaining dependent on the elder son for his prowess and his ability to put food on their table. She rewards me with the most base deceit of her husband, and the corruption of her younger son. She sets her two sons up to be rivals, with one threatening to kill the other.

And stubborn, Oy! was she stubborn! She treated poor Esav with such disdain after her married those two Hittite girls. Yet when he realized how he had displeased her and his father, he took two more wives from within the clan and still she spurned him.

The younger will rule over the older, this G”d told her and Yitzkhak. Yet her faith in this G”d was so pale she just felt compelled to help things along. Her pansy of a husband just played along, too. Of course, he was a troubled man. His own father had tried to sacrifice him to this G”d. And surely he knew about the dangers of parents creating rivalry between brothers. His own mother had sent his half-brother and childhood companion away.  It’s no surprise he ran away to live with his half-brother Ishmael and Ishmael’s mother after his old man tried to sacrifice him.

Yet he was no better than she. Oh, he was a little more even-handed in his attention to his twin sons, yet, in the end, played along with Rivka’s deception, perhaps because his faith too, was weak. Blind? Yeah, his eyesight was pretty weak. But his other senses were working just fine. He acted for all purposes like he was on his deathbed when Yaakov and Rivkah played their little game with him, yet he’s still alive and kicking all these years later! Off, perhaps, but no fool, he.

They never talked about it, least not that I know. But after that they always seemed a bit estranged. We didn’t see much of him, she and I. We whiled away the hours talking, sewing, and weaving. Then, with me as old as I am, she has the nerve to send me off to fetch Yaakov, to tell him it was time to come home, that his brother’s wrath had passed. So here I find myself traveling with Yaakov and his brood.

Yaakov hasn’t improved much either, I have to tell you. Oh, he does seem to have grown in his faith, but his imperfections remain. His poor daughter Dinah was raped by a local prince. In revenge, his sons killed most of them. And what was his complaint? Not that his daughter was raped, but that his sons had disturbed the good relationship he had with the locals!

If Rivka were here I know she would have died of shame. Not sure how much use she would have been to poor Dinah, though. She was bad enough with her sons, and probably doesn’t have a clue about being a good grandmother to a girl. No experience with girls. She might had a harder time trying to pass one daughter off for another!

Oh, listen to me go on like an old hag. Truth be told, I loved her like a daughter. She had good qualities. Her father-in-law’s servant Eliezer chose her to marry Yitzkhak because of her kindness. She could be a very kind, loving person. She could also be a real bitch. Oh, but there I go again. Sigh.

She was such a beautiful bride. And Yitzkhak was smitten with her. I thought it was a little strange that he bedded her on their wedding night in his mother’s tent, but then again, he was always a bit, well, off. She didn’t seem to mind.

Then all those years trying to conceive. I think they took their toll. She became less kind, It must have been terribly frustrating for her. I offered her the best counsel I could, but she often simply sniped at me, and asked me to keep my, as she called them, trite attempts at making her feel better about her situation to myself.

After those two decades, when she finally did become pregnant, she had a difficult time of it. Those twins acted in the womb as if they were at war with one another. The pain drove her mad. I think that is why she clung so strongly to the words of the G”d explaining the difficulty of her carrying. She was determined that her suffering would not be in vain, and that the G”d’s promise and prediction would come true. More than determined. Obsessed.

Once, Yaakov tricked Esav into giving up his birthright for a bowl of lentil stew. Did Rivka or Yitzkhak say a word to either of them about that? No, the fools just let it go. They let Yaakov lollygag around the camp while Esav was out learning to hunt.

For all her fears, when Yaakov and Esav met again recently, what could have been a nasty confrontation turned out okay. Oh, there’s still little love lost between them, but each of them had achieved enough success to feel good about it, making any serious conflict unnecessary. They met, they danced their little ritual dance, and went their own ways.

Sigh. I tried to be a good nurse and mentor to Rivka. This G”d knows I tried. All the G”ds know I tried. Now I am old, and weary, and tired, and I can try no more. I think I’ll just lie down her for a bit.

וַתָּ֤מָת דְּבֹרָה֙ מֵינֶ֣קֶת רִבְקָ֔ה וַתִּקָּבֵ֛ר מִתַּ֥חַת לְבֵֽית־אֵ֖ל תַּ֣חַת הָֽאַלּ֑וֹן וַיִּקְרָ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ אַלּ֥וֹן בָּכֽוּת׃

And Deborah, Rebecca’s nurse, died, and she was buried beneath Beit El, beneath the plain; so he named it Allon Bakhuth

-----------------------------------------------------------

We don’t know when Rivka died, and we can’t be sure if she died before or after her nurse Devorah did. we only know, from what Yosef says many years later, that she is buried in the cave at Makhpelah. Isn’t it odd that Torah omits the details about Rivka’s death, yet mentions the death of her nurse Devorah?

Is there a missing story here? Did Devorah play a bigger role than the text as we now have it reveals? Was she somehow associated in folklore with this weeping oak tree? (Some of the sages suggest the tree was weeping because there were two deaths – Devorah’s and Rivka’s – in close proximity.)

Ah, if we only had Devorah’s story, we might have a better understanding of the lives of Rivkah, Yitzkhak, Yaakov and Esav. I’ve speculated a bit about what that story might reveal. Like the story of Yitzkhak’s time with Hagar and Ishmael after the akeidah, it’s another midrash waiting to be more fully written.

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
©2012 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings on this parasha:

Vayishlakh 5772 - One and Many, Many and One
Vayishlakh 5771/5763 - The Bigger Man
Vayishlakh 5769 - A Fish Called Wonder
Vayishlakh 5768 - No One's in the Kitchen With Dinah
Vayishlakh 5767-Wrestlemania
Vayishlakh 5766-Like Deity, Like Deity's Child
Vayishlakh 5765-B'li Mirmah
Vayishlakh 5762-Don't Get Mad--Get Even!
Vayishlakh 5761-No Doubt? No Wonder!

 

Friday, November 23, 2012

Random Musing Before Shabbat–Vayeitzei 5773–Mandrakes and More

Some of the musings I have written on this parasha are among my favorites. While there is a new musing here for you to read this year, I did want to take this opportunity to (somewhat self-promotionally) recommend that you take the time to read through some of my previous musings on this parasha, listed and linked at the end. In fact, I’m so excited to have you read them, I’m going you to give you the list right here up front.

Vayeitze 5772 - Stumbling on Smooth Paths
Vayeitzei 5771 - Luz is No Loser
Vayeitzei 5769 - Going Down and Loving It!
Vayeitzei 5768 - Encounters
Vayeitzei 5767-Hapax On All Your Hapaxes
Vayetze 5766-Pakhad HaShem? `
Vayetze 5765-Cows and Cranberries
Vayetze 5764-Terms and Conditions
Vayetze 5763-Now and Then
Vayetze 5762-Change in Perspective
Vayetze 5760-Taking G”d's Place

On now on to this year’s musing.

Mandrakes. Mandragora autumnalis, a plant that is found commonly in the Mediterranean region, including the middle east. Pretty purple blossoms, small round fruits that turn from green to yellow to orange as they ripen. Deep taproots that sometimes (but not always) split and bear a small resemblance to the human torso. There is not a single part of the plant that is not considered poisonous to humans. It is chock full of alkaloids. It can cause hallucinations, hypnotic effects, and even coma.

Those of you familiar with the Harry Potter books and movies know of the many folk legends that have arisen about the plant (though JK Rowling took the legendary plant’s nature a bit to the extreme, the basic legend about the plants screaming when pulled from the soil is authentic folklore.)

Despite the apparent dangers, it has a long history of use as an aphrodisiac, as attested to in this parasha. Though the etymology is uncertain, the plant’s Hebrew name seems to illustrate this connection in the similarity of the word for beloved, דּוֹד dod, and the plant, דּוּדַי  dudai (all the various words from the דוד dalet-vav-dalet root, including David, Dod, Dudai, etc.are related, if somewhat tenuously, in their meanings.)

After Reuven, Shimon, Levi and Yehudah, Leah had stopped bearing children. Her sister Rachel, in her frustrated barren-ness had given Yaakov her handmaiden (or, to be more direct, her servant/slave) through whom Yaakov fathered Dan and Naftali. So following Rachel's example, Leah gave Yaakov her handmaiden (servant/slave) through which he fathered Gad and Asher.

Then things get weird for a bit. Scholars of literary bent suggest that the story of the mandrakes found in verses 14-16 is a simple diversion, meant to break the narrative and create a little tension. Perhaps.

One is nevertheless forced to ask what prompted Reuven to be on the lookout for mandrakes and bring them to his mother Leah? (For purposes of this musing, I’ll step over all the obvious Freudian inferences, but I leave you to mull those over.)  Though the text doesn’t say it outright, the inference is that it is lack of filial duty on the part of Yaakov. Yaakov didn’t seem to have any problem with his sexual prowess, or ability to father children. The elephant in the room here is that everyone knew that Yaakov loved Rachel more than Leah. Perhaps Reuven was trying to make his mother happy by providing her with the opportunity for some, as Dr. Ruth Westheimer would put it “good sex!” It has to be noted, however, that mandrakes were touted not just as an aphrodisiac, but as a cure for being barren-so it was more than sex that interested Leah – it was the chance to give Yaakov more sons. Probably. Or maybe not.

So what happens? Rachel asks Leah if she can have some of the mandrakes (which also begs the question of how Rachel knew that Reuven had brought mandrakes to Leah. Ponder that one for a bit. Lots of plausible answers, nevertheless an unanswered question. Whenever Torah has an unanswered question, I wonder why there is an unanswered question? Immediately after, I wonder if that, perhaps is the point: to make me wonder. ) Leah sharply answers her sister that she has already stolen her husband. So Rachel makes a bargain with her sister: she will insure that Yaakov has sex with Leah that evening if she can have some of the mandrakes. Boy, there’s healthy family and sexual relationships…not.

Leah’s fortunes turn – and she bears two more sons to Yaakov – Yissakhar and Z’vulun. Then, as Torah notes almost in an afterthought, she bears him a daughter, Dinah.  Only after that is Rachel’s womb opened by G”d and she is able to bear Joseph.

The text seems to tell us that the mandrakes did not help Rachel – only G”d could do that. (Yet it is not as clear as to how useful the mandrakes were for Leah. She got her chances to bear two more sons and a daughter – but was it because of the mandrakes that she used on her husband, or simply because of the persuasive powers of her sister?)

As I pondered this, I also began to think about the complicated nature of the relationships presented here. One man. Two wives. Two concubines. (Perhaps more concubines, we can’t be sure.) One wife beloved, the other less (or unloved altogether?) Add to the mix rivalries, real or perceived, and things get even more complicated. What about how Leah and Rachel felt? Did they love Yaakov? Can we impose our modern sensibilities and understandings about romantic and sexual love upon these biblical tales?

I think we do our ancestors a disservice if we try and write it all off by saying that in those times, procreation, and specifically bearing male children, was the only important thing. It can be difficult to be unsure of either the romantic or sexual feelings of your spouse or partner. Imagine Rachel wondering if Yaakov still loves her despite her inability to bear him children? Surely Leah wondered if Yaakov loved her, or even if he desired her. Was procreation all that Yitzchak was thinking about when he met Rivkah? Was that all that Yaakov cared about when he served Laban for his two daughters? I somehow doubt it. Love, in some form, and not just desire, was surely part of the equation. Romance and romantic love are not the sole purview of later generations.

So what can we learn, what can we take away from the tale of the mandrakes, indeed from the entirety of Yaakov’s relationship with his wives? Mandrakes, or their modern equivalences, may not be the answer. Relationships, romantic and sexual, are too complex to be dependent solely on medicines, drugs, aphrodisiacs, et al. What makes relationships work? What made relationships work for our ancestors? What makes them work for us? The answers might not be so different. One answer, and the one that speaks to me loudest, is finding/putting G”d in the relationship.

Yes, I know it’s very Buberian of me, but I do believe that G”d is found in our relationships one to another. I believe this is true for deep romantic relationships and even true for more superficial, even purely sexual ones. Sex, even when not for procreation, is still G”dly. What could be more G”dly than such intimate sharing, even if it is just sharing of bodily and physical pleasures? Both romantic relationships and physical ones are fully capable of being fully I-You (person as Human) rather than I-It (person as Object). Yes, some physical relationships may be purely I-It. By the same token, some romantic relationships may also be purely I-It. Being purely romantic or sexual is not necessarily the determinant factor in whether the participants are treating and seeing each other as human beings or objects.

(We do have the complication of Yaakov'’s relationships with his concubines, and specifically, Zilpah and Bilhah, with whom he fathered children, with them acting in place of his wives. I have a very difficult time finding anything other than an I-It relationship there, both between Yaakov and his concubines, as well and Rachel, Leah and their handmaiden/slaves. I am, and will always be, troubled by the knowledge that some of our tribal ancestors were the result of this sort of non-G”dly relationship-though I understand that some might see these relationships as entirely G”dly because they served G”d’s purposes.)

Mandrakes and other stimulants, drugs and aphrodisiacs might be seen as getting in the way of true I-You relationships. When mandrakes, or any aphrodisiac, are used surreptitiously, it ought to be suspect  Nevertheless, I can imagine situations in which such things are useful enhancements and not impairments.  Please don’t misunderstand me: using an aphrodisiac, or a drug in order to take advantage of another human being is wrong. No ifs, and, or buts. Intent matters.Both partners should be aware when enhancements are being used to improve the physical (or romantic) nature of the relationship. Nevertheless, like the rabbis of the Talmud who liked to explore all the possibilities, there are all sorts of situations we can stipulate. Some of them are even presented to us in the Torah. Lot’s daughters plying him with wine in order to have him father children by them – entirely wrong, or mitigated by their belief that they might be the last people left in the world? Torah is replete with morally and ethically cloudy situations.

The text doesn't tell us if either Rachel or Leah used the mandrakes on Yaakov as an aphrodisiac. It does seem to imply that this sort of human superstition/interference plays no part or has no impact on the outcome. That is up to G”d, we are led to believe. (It is clear that mandrakes do have some chemical and hormonal compounds in them that could affect human responses, sexual and otherwise, so it’s not entirely ineffectual.  Like many magical or superstitious beliefs, it is not without foundation.) I might suggest to the author(s) of Torah that there was a missed opportunity here to state unequivocally that, when it comes to things like barren women, magic and superstition are worthless – it is all up to G”d. However, sometimes subtlety can be more effective. It’s up to us to reach this conclusion from the way the Torah relates the tales. 

Mandrakes are part of a much larger set of things that can be used for enhancing relationships, romantic and physical. In addition to drugs, stimulants, aphrodisiacs, toys, and more, sometimes words alone are enough. The use of them does not preclude a true human-to-human relationship, and does not preclude the finding/locating of G”d in that relationship. For this to be true, it must be a relationship between two human beings, and not one human being and another thought of as purely object – whether object of love, desire, physical pleasure, etc. I strongly believe that what makes any relationship, romantic or sexual, good, or perhaps better, stronger, deeper, is if one can find/place G”d in that relationship.

This gets even more complicated because romantic and physical relationships are often entwined, and the things that satisfy the romantic aspects and the sexual aspects are often different, and even, at times, at odds with one another. A certain amount of selfishness is sometimes needed. It’s that old yetzer tov/yezter ra thing. Good relationships seek balance between them. Where do we find that balance, or at least where do we go to help us seek that balance? The answer is, I think, simple and complex at the same time. The answer is the G”d of our understanding.

Where was G”d in the relationship between Yaakov, Rachel and Leah? Was G”d in Yaakov, Rachel, and Leah’s relationships with Zilpah and Bilhah? Does the interest in using mandrakes on the part of Leah or Rachel diminish G”d’s part or presence in those relationships? Even more difficult to consider – does their use of Zilpah and Bilhah as surrogates diminish G”d’s part or presence in their relationships to each other and to their servants?

I pray that we all find the a way to get the love, sex, balance and more that we need in our lives. More importantly, I pray that we all find the way to find/place G”d in all our relationships, one human being to another – to those special to us, as well as to the stranger.  May this be G”d’s will. May this be our will.

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other Musings on this parasha (same list as at the beginning)

Vayeitze 5772 - Stumbling on Smooth Paths
Vayeitzei 5771 - Luz is No Loser
Vayeitzei 5769 - Going Down and Loving It!
Vayeitzei 5768 - Encounters
Vayeitzei 5767-Hapax On All Your Hapaxes
Vayetze 5766-Pakhad HaShem?
Vayetze 5765-Cows and Cranberries
Vayetze 5764-Terms and Conditions
Vayetze 5763-Now and Then
Vayetze 5762-Change in Perspective
Vayetze 5760-Taking G”d's Place

Technorati Tags: ,,,

Friday, November 16, 2012

Random Musing Before Shabbat–Tol’dot 5773–More Teleology

I’ve spent some time writing about and discussing Rivka’s complaint about her difficult pregnancy, as expressed in the words of  25:22,
אִם־כֵּ֔ן לָ֥מָּה זֶּ֖ה אָנֹ֑כִ
in previous musings like Is This All There Is?

This year, I want to spend some time thinking about G”d’s answer to Rivka.
וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהוָ֜ה לָ֗הּ שְׁנֵ֤י גיֹיִ֯ם֮ בְּבִטְנֵ֔ךְ וּשְׁנֵ֣י לְאֻמִּ֔ים מִמֵּעַ֖יִךְ יִפָּרֵ֑דוּ וּלְאֹם֙ מִלְאֹ֣ם יֶֽאֱמָ֔ץ וְרַ֖ב יַעֲבֹ֥ד צָעִֽיר׃
G”d said to her: “Two nations are in your womb; and two peoples from it shall diverge; one nation from the other shall be stronger; the older will serve the younger.” (translation is my own)
Now, we already know the story, and that this is what comes to pass. However, we also know that how it comes to pass does involve some trickery, deceit, and dissembling.
So what we have here folks is - are you ready for it? – a bit of teleology. This is setting up a nice whitewash for Yaakov’s two offenses against his brother Esau, first in getting Esau to sell his birthright for a bowl of lentil stew, and then tricking his father into giving him Esau’s blessing. Sort of gets Rivka and Yaakov off the hook. Though not in my book. As far as I am concerned, nothing justifies how Esau was tricked, nor the tactics of Yaakov and Rivka.

Now we can argue that Esau has little regard for his birthright if he would give it away so easily, but his father’s blessing is another matter. Esau was really upset with Yaakov, enough that he wanted to kill him.
Yes, we can also argue that Rivka was upset with Esau’s choice of two Hittite wives, and favored Yaakov, but that still doesn’t justify her egging her son on into tricking Yitzchak into giving Yaakov the blessing due Esau as the eldest.

I have to ask, does G”d really not care how G”d’s desired ends are achieved? Sadly, I have to answer yes. G”d appears not to care at all. It’s just one setup after another.

“Hey, you two, eat of any fruit in the garden except from this tree in the center here.”

“Build an ark. I screwed up and I’m starting over with you.”

“Hey Abie, go take a little trip, who cares where?”

I will not destroy, even for the sake of ten.”

“Don’t look back.”

“I’ll make your descendants numerous.”

“Listen to your wife - you can throw the lady and your son out.”

“Yeah, I know she’s old and barren, but she’s gonna have your baby, buddy-boy. I’ll get the last laugh on her”

“Hey, Abie, grab Yitz and skeddadle on up this here mountain and offer him up to me.”

“The younger will rule over the elder.”

“Yeah, I’m gonna go let them suffer for 400 years while I take a break. Then I’ll take notice of them.”

“Oh this is fun. I’ll let them get this close, and then let them screw it up so they have to wander for 40 years.”

“I am so enjoying this. Moshe’s so tense, I know if I just tell him to talk to the rock, he’s gonna hit it, and then I won’t have to let him into the promised land. Ha.”

“I’m their King, they don’t need one. But what the heck, I’ll mess with thema little and give them a human King!”

And so on and so forth.

Now, putting on the modern liberal hat, we just assume that a later redactor put in verse 25:22 just to allow Rivka and Yaakov a cover for their sins. Yet, even if we remove the modern lens, we’re still stuck with the fact that this verse provides a convenient foreshadowing of the events that will occur. Taken that way, it is G”d saying “pay no attention to the man behind the screen.” This is how G”d wants it to turn out, and if it gets a little sloppy in the execution by G”d’s all-to-flawed creations, well then – so what? We get things to where G”d wants them. (Or, from the redactor’s point of view, we get them to where they actually wound up later.)

I’m just not comfortable with this-whether it is G”d’s approach, or the redactors. War, murder, infidelity, theft, jealousy, and more. All of these are just fine as long as they eventually help bring about the desired end result. Not in my book. I find myself troubled by both a G”d and a redactor that would find almost anything acceptable in pursuit of G”d’s ultimate goals-whatever they might be, if there even are any, and if we even have a remote chance of trying to discern exactly just what those goals are.

The haftarah for this parasha, from Malachi, last of the prophets, is a teleological dream. When asked how G”d shows love to the people of Israel, G”d’s answers that it is in how G”d will continually insure the defeat of the Edomites, even though they are part of the family, so to speak, being the descendants of Esau. It wasn’t enough that G”d allowed (or, if you prefer, stood idly or helplessly by) Yaakov to cheat his brother out of birthright and blessing. Even now, centuries in the future, G”d continues to insure that Yaakov’s descendants will rule over Esau’s. Yet more fulfillment of G”d’s oracular response to Rivka’s complaint. Sheesh, G”d. That’s over the top. Truly.

Thank goodness I don’t believe in a puppeteer G”d who spends time manipulating each and every jot and tittle, causing each moment of joy and each moment of pain, to what end only G”d supposedly know. No, my understanding of G”d, at least at present, involves a G”d who steps back after setting things in motion and just lets things take shape. The question is whether or not G”d simply adjusts the plan based on what choices humans make, or if those random choices simply are the plan and there is no ultimate goal. Or yet a third alternative – that on occasion G”d does act the puppeteer, meddling slightly and delicately to set things back on the right course (much like the Second Foundation does in Asimov’s Foundation series. Asimov’s Second Foundation, which helped to subtly guide humanity through history’s twists and turns turned out to not be located at the far end of the galaxy, as some suspected and believed, but right at it’s heart. Torah is a similar case. We can look in the margins, build a fence around her, develop esoteric schemes to analyze her, but, in the end, the answer is
כִּי-קָרוֹב אֵלֶיךָ הַדָּבָר, מְאֹד:  בְּפִיךָ וּבִלְבָבְךָ, לַעֲשֹׂתוֹ)
..for this word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it. (Deut. 30:14)
We could spend countless hours trying to figure out what it is that G”d wants us to do in order for G”d’s plans to work out. There are times when G”d can be obvious about this (as in the bit of text above,) but much of the time G”d is not at all obvious.  So it seems to me that all this analytical effort on our part might be wasted. It’s wasted, in part, because we may be looking for understanding and meaning deep down, or far away, when all we need to know is right there in front of us, plainly. As a friend wrote to me recently (though on an entirely different subject) it is “not some esoteric gematria that needs to be studied and spun.” It is a lesson I sometimes forget. Words can mean what they plainly say. Sometimes that cigar is just a cigar. But the Torah is such a convoluted smoke! And sometimes, in the Torah, the cigar isn’t a cigar at all.
How are we to navigate this ever-shifting landscape? Thinking plainly and clearly.  Putting one foot in front of the other. One day at a time. Doing justly. Loving mercy. And walking in humility with G”d.

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
©2012 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings on this parasha:
Tol'dot 5771 - Keeping the Bathwater
Toldot 5769 - There's Gotta Be Something Better Than This
Toldot 5768 - Alternate Histories, Alternate Shmistories
Toldot 5767-They Also Serve...
Toldot 5765-Purposeless Fire
Toledot 5764-What a Bother!
Toledot 5763-Not Sticking in The Knife
Toledot 5762-Winners and Losers
Toledot 5761-Is This All There Is?
Toledot 5758-Like Father, Like Son

Friday, November 9, 2012

Random Musing Before Shabbat–Hayyei Sarah 5773–Still Tilting at the Same Windmills

Something about this parasha and its associated haftarah keep tugging at me. There are themes I come back to, time and again.

One theme to which I will always come back, until I eventually write that darn book I keep saying I’m going to write someday, is the Beer-Lahai-Roi connection. Beer-Lahai-Roi being the site of G”d’s annunciation to Hagar and also the place from which Yitzchak returns to bury his father. All part of my theory that after his father tried to kill him, Yitzchak went off to live with Ishmael and Hagar.

These two musings are among my takes on this:

Hayyei Sarah 5771 - The Book That Isn't - Yet
Hayyei Sarah 5770 - Call Me Ishmael II

I also found it interesting how two years in a  row I came back to the haftarah, and in both those musings, I used the same essential reference to Don Quixote (the book and the musical.)

Hayei Sarah  5767-Never Warm?
Chaye Sarah 5766-Semper Vigilans

I’ve not yet tired of tilting at windmills, even ones I’ve engaged with before.

As I continue to get settled in my new location, I hope you’ll forgive the recent rash of repeats. I’ve new ideas and new thoughts to share, once things settle down. In the meantime, enjoy the musings mentioned above, or one of these others:

Hayyei Sarah 5772 - Zikhnah
Hayyei Sarah 5769 - Looking for Clues
Hayyei Sarah 5768 - A High Price
Chaye Sarah 5763-Life Goes On
Chaye Sarah 5762-Priorities, Redundancies And Puzzles
Chayeh Sarah 5761-L'cha Dodi Likrat Kala
Hayyei Sarah 5760 - Call Me Ishmael (the original)
Chaye Sarah 5757-The Shabbat That Almost Wasn't

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian

©2012 by Adrian A. Durlester

Friday, November 2, 2012

Random Musing Before Shabbat-Vayera 5773-Do Your Own Unpacking

I've had a lot of fun with this parasha over the years. It's rich with story, drama, intrigue, and more. I've pummeled Vayera with a Family Guy parody "He's a Family Guy?" 
(
http://www.durlester.com/musings/vayeira5769.htm )

I've woven creative midrash in diary/journal form in "From the Journal of Lot Part II"
(
http://www.durlester.com/musings/vayera5765.htm )

I've punned my way through the parasha while making connections to some classic sci-fi with "Well...?"
(http://www.durlester.com/musings/vayera5772.htm )

I've struggled with anachronistic and out-of-sequence text in "Whoops! Or Non-Linear Thinking"
(
http://www.durlester.com/musings/vayera5767.htm )

I've compared human and Divine wickedness and found us all equally guilty in "Not Even Ten"
(
http://www.durlester.com/musings/vayera5770.htm ) (By the way, for a beautiful and insightful operatic explanation of the true meaning our ten and minyan, I encourage you to read "Ten to the Power of One" by Stacey Robinson on her blog ( http://staceyzrobinson.blogspot.com/2012/10/ten-to-power-of-one.html )

I've encouraged you to delve deeply into the densely packed content of this parasha and the entire Torah in "Density" (http://www.durlester.com/musings/vayera5771.htm)

I've wondered over the puzzle that is Sarah's lie in "Plainly Spoken" (http://www.durlester.com/musings/vayera5762.htm) and I've mused about possible lessons in giving that we can glean from the story of Elisha and the Shunnamite woman in "The Price of Giving" (http://www.durlester.com/musings/vayera5766.htm )

As you read last week I'm on the move to a new home, so busy as I am unpacking and all that, I offer any and all of these previous musings for your reading pleasure. Enjoy.

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
© 2012 by Adrian A. Durlester