PARSHAS KI - TEITZEI SEPTEMBER 1-2/ ELUL 11

ON JEWISH THOUGHT AND ITS CONTEMPORARY APPLICATIONS Parsha Mikeitz in a Nutshell INSIDE THIS ISSUE: Just because a soul is in prison doesn’t mean it cannot dream. Parsha Ki Teitzei in a Nutshell GoingFreedom out to war is not always a bad thing – so long as it is going “out” to war and notWhile going the “in” Exodus to war. freed us from Pharaoh and his taskmasters, it committed us to a greater, more embracing servitude. Future of the World This week’s Torah portion deals with the theme of war. Here we take a look at two visionsDiamonds on the and war Chicken against Israel. Fat An allegory of diamonds and chicken fat that describes the soul’s Thedescent Difficult into the Lamb physical body. The meekness of the sheep, no matter how difficult a problem it poses, can also be reclaimed as a virtue.

WEEK IN REVIEW SEPTEMBER 1-2,2017 ELUL 11,5777 PARSHAS KI TEITZEI 1 Some argue that the disagreement (which many feel is generally the difference between much of Europe and the PARSHA KI - TEITZEI United States, or to a greater extent the split between the West and the Russians and Chinese) is rooted in self-inter- IN A NUTSHELL est: European – and to a stronger degree: Russian and Chi- nese – oil interests are economically entwined with Iran and other Middle Eastern countries. The United States sees its self interest served by confronting Iran and other extremist plethora of Mitzvoth, connections, are iterated: regimes in the Middle East. Some add, that America’s enor- from captives, burial, and found objects, to laws A mous power allows it the confidence to take on any global of mixology, intimacy, and immoral behavior. Laws challenge, presently, Iran. Europe on the other hand does of slavery, military camps, and economics, to mar- not wield such power, so they inevitably take on a more con- riage, fiscal responsibly, and divorce. Amalek (also ciliatory and compromising stance. (See Two Faces of Esau). symbolic of doubt) is the mortal the Jewish people. We always must remember Amalek and how they Others chalk it up to plain anti-Semitism. Some of those tried to squash our freedom as we left Egypt. We advocating that Israel not use force (or “disproportionate” must erase any semblance of this darkness from the force, whatever that means) are just masking in “human- face of the light earth. itarian” terms their antipathy to Israel and their belief that Israel is an “occupier” of Palestinian land. The argument goes (though rarely explicitly stated), that had Israel not existed in the first place we wouldn’t have all our problems with the Muslim world. On the other side, the American Christian Right, for instance, are fiercely pro-Israel and anti any con- RE’EH: OUR SECRET ASSET cessions of land to the Arab world. All these reasons may be valid, but there is something deep- er. hy is there is such a disagreement between intelligent people about May I submit that perhaps the root difference lies in two the strategy for peace in Israel and contrary perspectives on the nature of man and consequen- about the war on terror perpetrated tially, two opposite visions of the world’s future. by Muslim extremists? Some believe that the human being is at heart an animal, al- OneW side argues that we need to sit down with both parties beit an evolved intelligent one, but nevertheless at the core and hammer out a deal. They argue the need for diploma- humans are driven by the narcissistic survival drive (“surviv- cy, negotiations and concessions on both sides. A second al of the fittest”). Allow the “id” out of the box and humans school of thought adamantly disagrees and feels that we can perpetrate terrible atrocities against each other. Their need to show strength, even it requires military action, and intelligence, when distorted, can turn them into barbarians, it would be a disaster to take the path of appeasement or far worse than the most aggressive natural predator. (see at compromise. length Psychology Today).

[There is of course a third category of people who simply The logical conclusion of this perspective – which may be would prefer to ignore the entire issue. For obvious reasons, coined the Darwinian-Freudian model – is that the world this column is not addressing this attitude]. will never change much. We will forever be plagued by war, violence and narrow-minded hatred. Despite moment of What lies at the root of these differences? If both sides are respite, people will inevitably gravitate back to their innate committed to peace and co-existence, why are their posi- animal-like natures, always pitted against each other. Given, tions so diametrically opposed? there are many good and noble people, but a large part (the majority?) the world’s population are selfish, petty and dis-

WEEK IN REVIEW SEPTEMBER 1-2,2017 ELUL 11,5777 PARSHAS KI TEITZEI 2 criminate against each other. not fatalistic).

According to this view, history is the greatest witness to the [Another variation of this way of thinking holds that a strong fact that people have always been at war with each other. military is necessary to serve as a deterrent to the self-inter- People have done terrible things to each other. Thus it was est, which can lead to cruelty, innate in human nature]. and thus it will be. The only difference between one war and another is the time, place and the name of the empires and Then there is a diametric opposite view of the human be- countries involved. ing and vision of the future. One that believes that we are fundamentally good people, driven to achieve heightened This school of thought argues that there will always be na- states of consciousness and discover harmony. Survival is a tions and cultures that will be dictatorial, autocratic and definite part of the human experience, but transcendence is ruled not by democracy, but by a minority in power. Some ultimately more dominant. regions will always be ruled by religious forces. Most of the Arab/Muslim countries fall into this category. Thus, the firm belief is that we will achieve global peace, and we will create a world in which war and injustice is entirely This world view dictates that the best strategy is to tolerate eliminated. This view, therefore, feels that everything possi- the powers that be, as long as they ble must be done to help bring about a new era of universal don’t cross certain lines (or even if peace and global co-existence, even they do). Even if we disagree with if it means confronting and overturn- the totalitarian policies of these According to this view, history ing existing regimes and causing countries it is better to live with the is the greatest witness to the short term unrest. The temporary known evil – which lends a certain pain is worth it because of the long level of stability – rather than upset fact that people have always term good that it will achieve. the balance and then have to deal been at war with each other. with the unpredictable and unsta- Is it possible that some of those ad- ble unknown. Case in point: Iraq. People have done terrible vocating appeasement simply do not believe that the world can ever The argument goes: Since we don’t things to each other. fundamentally change for the bet- really believe that we can ever wipe ter? Do they possibly not have con- away evil and ever put a stop to the fidence in the power of the human unending, inherent greedy grab for power and control, we spirit to prevail over the material must make the best with what we have, to ensure a relative- ego; that the power of love can prevail over the love of pow- ly stable world. er? Is it conceivable that today’s disagreements about the attitude to the Muslim world and its war against Israel are Of course, once in a while, when a Hitler emerges who re- rooted in these two different world visions? fuses to maintain the status quo and demonstrates his real wishes to annihilate the free world, it becomes clear that Some will argue that one can embrace the second school of there is no choice but to wage total war with the demand for thought – the firm belief in a utopian future – and still not unconditional surrender and the overthrow of the existing need to go to war against the totalitarian regimes. The best destructive regime. approach, they argue, to affect change in the Middle East regimes, is through peaceful dialogue, diplomacy, politi- But as long as it does not come to a blatant attack as perpe- cal and cultural exchange, not through aggression. On the trated by the Nazis, we have to make the best with existing contrary, the thinking goes: Since we believe in the inher- circumstances. ent goodness of man, our ultimate solution will be achieved through peaceful interventions, not through war. According to this rather somber – or some would call: re- signed – world view, diplomacy, the U.N. and politics plays The problem is what is to be done when Muslim fundamen- an important role of maintaining the fragile balance. (Of talists brazenly attack innocent people – whether they are in course those that feel this way will call themselves “realistic,” Israel, India, Spain, New York or Great Britain?

WEEK IN REVIEW SEPTEMBER 1-2,2017 ELUL 11,5777 PARSHAS KI TEITZEI 3 discrimination. An absolute certainty that we can create Can you just negotiate with a Hitler who declares his inten- such a world, and we will do whatever it takes to achieve it. tion of annihilating you? Can diplomacy work with a group which explicitly calls for your destruction? If necessary, we will not shrink away from battling the forc- es that want to destroy the foundations of civilization – the What this really comes down to is finding the unique com- Divine dignity of each and every person, regardless of back- bination, the delicate balance, between a profound belief in ground. Of course, this commitment includes every possible the magnificence of the human spirit and a beautiful future, effort to help inspire, through discussion and diplomacy, all and a sober recognition of human frailty and that we are not countries, cultures and religions of the world to revolution- quite there yet. ize their educations systems so that they not teach hate, destruction and deification of martyrdom through killing It requires the humble wisdom of knowing when to go to innocent people. battle against destructive forces, while retaining convic- tion in the goodness of man. Indeed, because of the love of But, diplomacy cannot compromise the protection of the beauty and faith in the greatest possibilities, we sadly have innocent. Discussions are only possible when we are not un- to at times do what it takes to fight when mans’ most base der the gun. As long as there are looming threats of terror elements emerge. No different than, say, a loving parent everything must be done to eliminate the enemy. Yet, we who must discipline a delinquent child out of love and con- must never forget that our war is not merely against others fidence in the child’s potential goodness. and their distorted ideology; it is a war for an ideology. It is not merely a defensive battle, but a proactive, offensive one: The opening of this week’s Torah portion captures the sub- To build a world the way G-d intended – a world in which all tle balance: G-d’s creatures live in complete harmony. When you go out to wage war upon your enemies, G-d will A universe in which there will be no more evil and destruc- deliver them in your hands. tion, because it will be “filled with Divine knowledge as the waters cover the sea.” The two operative phrases are “go out” and “upon,” seeming- ly superfluous terms. The Torah is telling us that “war,” even when necessary, is not the natural state of affairs. The inher- ent nature of existence is good. But at times, when you must battle forces that conceal that goodness, you “go out” – out- side of your inherent nature – to wage battle. And there- fore you always remain “upon” – above and more powerful – than “your enemies.” Even when you fight your adversary, THE DIFFICULT LAMB you never become defined by it. Even as you wage war you always remain above it. ou shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep go astray and ignore them; return them to Diplomacy is fine – if it isn’t a smokescreen masking a phi- your brother… So shall you do with his ass, losophy of resignation and fear. A peaceful approach must so shall you do with his garment, and so shall come from a position of strength, coupled with the courage you do with every lost thing of your broth- to go to war if necessary – in the firm belief that we can and er… will build a better world. Y Obviously, the duty to return a lost object to its owner is not The month of Elul, in which now find ourselves, offers us this limited to oxen, sheep, asses and garments, but applies—as option: The absolute belief in the human spirit, the power the verse concludes—to “every lost thing of your brother.” of infinite hope, as reflected in Moses’ relentless efforts to The Talmud explains that the Torah cites these examples be- achieve reconciliation following betrayal (as discussed in cause each of them teaches us another of the laws regard- last’s week’s article). ing lost objects.[1] However, while it deciphers the laws to Elul offers us a vision of the future – of a world which diverse be derived from “ox,” “ass” and “garment,” it does not succeed nations will live in complete peace, without hate, war and to do so in the case of the “sheep.” “The lost sheep is a diffi-

WEEK IN REVIEW SEPTEMBER 1-2,2017 ELUL 11,5777 PARSHAS KI TEITZEI 4 culty,” it concludes the Talmud, meaning that the legal signifi- son who fights, ignores or even betrays his G-d can come cance of the word “sheep” in the verse proved difficult for the to recognize the truth and rectify his behavior. But you sages. cannot convince the “sheep” of the error of his ways—he fully agrees with you. You cannot fan the flames of his The Zohar tells us that the Torah has both a body and a soul. The heart—he is already fired with inspiration. He knows the “body” of the Torah is its “physical” part—the historical events it truth, he cares about the truth, he desires to do what is recounts and the laws it legislates. But implicit in this body is a right—but he is too timid to do anything about it. “soul,” a mystic dimension in which every story has its sublime analogy and every legal nuance its spiritual counterpart. This is the deeper significance of the Talmud’s words, “The lost sheep is a difficulty.” Regarding the “ox,” “ass” or Accordingly, the mitzvah of returning a lost object applies not “garment,” there are ways of dealing with a soul’s loss. But only to the physical property of one’s fellow but to his spiritual what is to be done with the “sheep”? Here the Talmud has possessions as well. If you encounter a life gone astray—a con- no formula, no logistic solution. fused mind, a dysfunctional heart, a soul that has lost its moral compass or spiritual sensitivity—restore it to its owner. You may Nevertheless, the Torah commands: “Return them to not remain indifferent to the spiritual plight of a brother any your brother!” Every spiritual loss is recoverable, every more than you may ignore his wayward ox. deficiency can be transformed into a positive force. An ox run amok is a destructive force, but when properly har- Specifically, the four examples of “lost objects” enumerated by nessed and channeled, its passion diverted to holy ends, Torah correspond to four prototypical maladies of the human “Much grain yields the might of the ox.” The obstinacy of soul. the ass, properly sublimated, translates into endurance and perseverance in remaining true to one’s mission and The ox is a powerful and volatile beast. When provoked, it is vir- G-d in the face of trial and difficulty. Treachery, too, has tually unstoppable. One moment it is grazing quietly; the next, its positive uses; physical life is itself an act of subterfuge it is a thousand pounds of charging flesh and brawn, crashing on the part of the soul, who assumes a material body and through everything in its path. We all know its spiritual cous- identity only to exploit them to serve its spiritual goals. in: the contrary, opinionated brute who lashes out at anything that is disagreeable to him or challenges the tranquillity of his And the meekness of the sheep, no matter how difficult mastication. a problem it poses, can also be reclaimed as a virtue. Meekness can be recast as self-abnegation to G-d—a When the ass rebels against its master, it doesn’t rage and self-abnegation that spawns not the passivity and resig- gore—it digs in its heels and coldly disregards its master’s com- nation of the lost sheep but the resolute and uncompro- mands, pleas, even the blows raining down on its back. Spiritu- mising activism of he who has surrendered his ego and ally, the obstinate ass is worse than the raging bull. The “ox” at its encumbrances to serve an omnipotent master. least responds; the fact that he is provoked means that he has been challenged. On the other hand, coldness and indifference signify a greater distance from holiness and truth.

The “garment” represents an even more noxious spiritual mala- dy. The Hebrew word for garment, beged, is related to begidah, “treachery.” The antagonistic ox and the indifferent ass might resist or ignore their master, but they do not hide behind a contrived identity. The beged personality is one who misleads others—and worse yet, himself—as to where his loyalty lies, making it far more difficult for him to own up to his behavior and rectify it.

And then there is the sheep—a creature characterized by meekness and docility. While this might seem a lesser ill than the previous three, it is the most difficult to overcome. A per-

WEEK IN REVIEW SEPTEMBER 1-2,2017 ELUL 11,5777 PARSHAS KI TEITZEI 5