It has been “Cold War History Week” this week in our home.
With the death of Fidel Castro, we watched as Little Havana (a section of
Miami, Florida) erupted with tears of joy, relief and celebration. We watched
as the Cuban state television showed the Cuban people standing in line and shedding tears of sadness
as they prepare for a funeral. As our
children watched both tears of joy and tears of sadness they became confused.
Their confusion grew as we watched the news and listened to political
commentators from both the Left and the Right offer a harsh and justified
opinion of this Communist dictator who imprisoned, and murdered numerous Cubans
and forced many to flee to the United States.
They listened to Cuban-American legislators from Florida explain why
Castro was so dangerous. They heard how this dictator from this tiny island 90
miles off the coast of Florida managed to convince the Soviet Union to place nuclear missiles in Cuba and aim those missiles at Florida
during October of 1962. They saw comments by President Obama and Prime Minister
Trudeau that reflected something other than the emotions expressed in Little Havana,
or by Cuban Americans, or by those who are students of “Cold War” History. Admittedly
they were a bit confused as they wanted a definitive answer as to whether Fidel
Castro was a good guy or a bad guy. I
explained that sometimes a bad guy might have a redeeming quality or two. I
explained that sometimes the determination of a good guy or a bad buy depends
upon who is looking, which explains Prime Minister Trudeau’s response and the
response of so many Cuban Americans. I explained that sometimes a person might
be too complex, that maybe he started off good and then evolved into something
worse. After all, Castro initially sought U.S. aid to overthrow the Bautista regime in the
late 50’s, and wanted to utilize America’s most sacred documents: The
Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, as the foundation for a more
democratic government. When the United States said “no” to Castro, he found
help from the Soviet Union.
This week, we read from Parsha
is Toldot. We read of the birth of Esav and Yaakov. Even though they were
twins, we learn that these boys couldn’t be any more different. Esav is a
hunter Ish Sadeh – a man of the
field, an outdoorsman, Yaakov is Ish Tam
v’Yashav b’Ohalo – a simple man who resides in his tent. Yaakov is
concerned with the Birthright, receiving blessings and the spiritual world.
Esav is concerned with eating, drinking, hunting and the physical world. We
learn that just like his father, Avraham, who experienced a famine in the land,
Yitzchak also experienced a famine in the land. Unlike his father, Yitzchak
does not go down to Egypt. Yitzchak remains in the land, grows wealthy, and
re-opens the wells that had gone dry in his father’s day. The narrative then
re-focuses upon Yitzchak and his family. Yitzchak, sensing his imminent death,
wants to bless Esav. Rivka overhears this and tells Yaakov to pose as Esav in
order to receive the blessing. Yaakov listens to his mother, and dresses as
Esav. Yaakov receives Yitzchak’s blessing. As a result, Esav is fit to be tied
and threatens to kill Yaakov. The Parsha concludes with Rivka telling Jacob to
go to her brother’s home, convincing Yitzchak that Yaakov needs to leave home
in order to find a wife. Yaakov receives his fathers’ blessing, the blessing of
the Brit, the Covenant that God made with Avraham and Yitzchak, a blessing that
was never intended for Esav. Yaakov
leaves home and Esav moves away as well. He decides to dwell with his uncle
Ishmael among the Canaanites.
Esav on the other hand is Ish
Sadeh, a man of the field, a hunter, a physically oriented person. Yes he sells
his birthright to his brother because he is “starving to death”. He marries the wrong girl from the wrong
tribe which upsets his parents. However, we should keep in mind he fulfills his
father’s request in order to receive his blessing. In fact the ChaZaL, the
Talmudic Sages, ascribe the mitzvah of Av,
Kibud respecting the father, to
Esav. Frequently, Esav would cook and
care for his father. Clearly he was very close to Yitzchak. So when Esav
doesn’t receive the blessing: KiShma
Esav et Divrei Aviv Yitzchak Tzaaka Gedola U’Mara Ad M’Ode; VaYomer L’Aviv
Barcheini Gam Ani Avi When Esav heard
his father’s words, he cried out an exceedingly great and bitter cry, and said
to his father, “Bless me to my Father” (27:34). Four verses later, when it
appears that Yitzchak doesn’t have a blessing in reserve for Esav: VaYomer Esav El Aviv HaBracha Achat Hee
Lecha Avi, Barcheini Gam Ani Avi VaYisah Esav Kolo VaYeivk – Esav said to his father, “have you but one
blessing, my Father? Bless me too my father!” and Esav raised his voice and
wept (27:38). After this big strong
strapping sort of man finished crying he then vowed to kill his brother. For a moment at least, Esav appears
sympathetic, his cry is “exceedingly great”; he “raises his voice and
weeps”. What did these cries sound like?
After all, not all cries sound the same. Was it the type of cry when one has
suffered a sudden loss? Was it the cry of someone who just broke a bone? Was it
the cry upon hearing the news of a loved one? Was it the cry of being at the
end of one’s emotional rope and feeling helpless in the face of life’s
onslaught? The Meforshim (the commentators) are oddly silent about the nature
of the “Tzaak Gedola UMara- the great and bitter cry. Perhaps the
silence suggests that Esav’s response is legitimately reasonable. Maybe the
silence suggests that Esav’s crying is so out of character from the way he has
behaved up until this point and how he acts after the second cry. Regarding the
VaYisah Esav Kolo VaYeivk Esav raised his voice and wept;” the
Midrash Tanchuma comments that Esav wept only three tears. One from each eye
and one that disappeared in the midst of his eye. When God saw that the “wicked
one wept over his life only 3 tears”, that small limited moment demonstrated
the smallest of regret over the what his life had become and might very well be
in the future. For this tiny moment, for this humane cry, God made sure that
Esav received a blessing. Maybe not the one that Yaakov received, but this
minimal blessing reflects the minimal nature of the crying, weeping.
Indeed, Esav was a “bad guy”. He
was and will remain an existential threat to Yaakov until he confronts his Esav twenty years later. But once that existential threat is no longer
considered an “existential threat”, Esav becomes small, small to the point
that his line, his descendants, become utterly meaningless in the narrative of
B’nai Yisroel. Sure there will be moments throughout the Torah where Esav's descendants will engage and even give B'nai Yisroel a difficult time. Yes, the
Talmudic Sages will cast Roman Empire, once an existential threat to the
Jewish People, as Edom (the tribe that Esav's descendants are known as) but they too will disappear from the course of history. So as
our kids watched and listened to the coverage and received an intensive lesson
in “Cold War” History, hopefully they understood that when existential
threats no longer exist, judgements of “good guy” or “bad guy” become much more
complex and difficult to make.
Peace,
Rav Yitz
No comments:
Post a Comment