The Republican Convention occupied much of the news
this week. Even on talk radio here in Toronto, one of the programs was
dedicated to American trivia and American politics. Granted, there were all
types of news worthy issues that came out of the Republican National
Convention. However one story of particular interest was what didn’t happen at
the convention. What didn’t happen was the Modern Orthodox Rabbi who converted
Ivanka Trump, Rabbi Lookstein, was asked to begin the convention with a
convocation. The Rabbi is retired from both the Jewish day school and the
congregation that he led for decades; so he agreed to speak. Soon after he
accepted the invitation, graduates from his school, and former congregants send
out a petition trying to make it clear to Rabbi Lookstein, that speaking at the
Republican National Convention would tarnish him and the community due to guilt
by association. The person who began the petition explained that Rabbi Lookstein's words would be diminished by the fact that the presumptive
nominee had said controversial, demeaning and often time’s hateful words, and
the Rabbi would be associated with those words. Furthermore, there are many who
have voted for the presumptive nominee who are part of the racist underbelly of
the United States, including David Duke and those of his ilk. So even if the
presumptive nominee is not a racist, the fact that he never disavows that
racist undercurrent of the electorate is equally as problematic.
This
Shabbat we read form Parsha Balak. Balak was a Moabite King. After watching
what B’nai Yisroel had done to the Ammonites, Balak was distressed. He realized
that fighting B’nai Yisroel with a regular army was doomed to fail because he realized
that God had blessed them. Being a clever king, Balak surmised that the only
way to fight B'nai Yisroel was to fight them on a spiritual level. Since God
blessed B’nai Yisroel, Balak wanted to find someone to curse them. There lived
a prophet, a “Prophet Consultant,” a “hired gun” if you will, named Bilaam.
King Balak hired Bilaam to curse B’nai Yisroel. Bilaam is visited by God and told
not to curse B’nai Yisroel. Bilaam ignores the visitation. On his donkey
heading towards B’nai Yisroel’s camp, and preparing his curses, the donkey
stops. Although Bilaam could not see the angel standing in the middle of the
road with a sword drawn, the donkey did. As a result the donkey refused to
continue forward. Finally Bilaam realizes that there is a divine force in the
middle of the road and must confront it. Bilaam listens and heads toward the
camp. Looking down upon the encampment, Bilaam blesses B’nai Yisroel with words
that we say upon entering into any synagogue, words that we teach our children
at the youngest of ages. Ma Tovu
Ohalecha Yaakov Mishkenotecha Yisroel –
How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places O Israel – Kinchalim Nitayu K’ganot Alei Nahar
K’Ahalim Natah Adoshem Ka’Arazim Alei Mayim – stretching out like brooks like gardens by the river, like aloes
planted by Hashem, like cedars by the water (Num 24:5-6). Try as he might,
Bilaam is unable to curse B’nai Yisroel, rather he blesses them.
These are certainly beautiful words, so beautiful in
fact, that they are part of the morning service. These words are so beautiful
in fact, that we say them every morning. Yet, despite these beautiful words,
ChaZaL, the Talmudic Sages, look at Bilaam and they see a disingenuous person.
The Commentators wonder why God gets so angry with Bilaam for going with Balak
and the Moabite officers even when God told him to go with them. V’Yavoh Elohim El Bilaam Lailah, VaYomer Lo Im Likro
Lecha Ba’u Ha’Anashim Kum Leich Itam V’Ach et HaDavar Asher Adabeir
Eilecha Oto Ta’Aseh – Hashem came to Bilaam
at night and said to him “If the men come to summon you , arise and go with
them but only the that I shall Speak to you – that you shall do. Bilaam BaBoker VaYaChaVeish et Atono
VaYeilech Im Sarei Moav – Bilaam arose
in the morning and saddled his she-donkey and went with the officers of
Moav. VayiChar Af Elokim Ki Holeich
Hu…. God’s wrath flared because he
[Bilaam] was going... Why does God so angry? What did Bilaam do so wrong?
What did ChaZaL see in the text to warrant such a deep seated disgust with
Bilaam? Certainly it could not have been the words of blessing uttered at the
end of the Parsha. Rather the problem is what the word “with” means. God says “Leich
Itam” – go with them. Bilaam, we are
told “Valeich Im Sarei” Bilaam went
with them [the officers]. The issue is the way in which Bilaam went with them.
God’s instruction “Leich Itam”
suggests a passive sort of going. Several of the classical commentators
including RamBan (13th Century France) and Sforno (16th
Century Italy) suggest that word “Itam”
suggests that passive accompaniment. However Bilaam saddles the donkey himself,
which already suggests an active desire to go. We saw this with Pharaoh
saddling his chariot to chase B’nai Yisroel, and we saw this when Avraham
saddles the donkey first thing in the morning when preparing to fulfill God’s
instructions regarding offering Yitzchak as a sacrifice. “Im” also defined as “with” or “along with”. “Im” suggest a type of
equality. That is, Bilaam actively accompanies the Moabite officers and Balak.
In a sense Bilaam was an active participant in his desire to curse B’nai
Yisroel. ChaZaL’s disdain and animosity towards Bilaam was because he clearly intended
malice towards B’nai Yisroel. He actively pursued his intentions until God became
explicitly involved.
It is safe to say that the Rabbi Lookstein had no
intention of harming people, saying nor saying hateful words. Rather quite the
contrary, Rabbi Lookstein’s words were designed to provide a moral voice to the
convention and a reminder of the foundations upon which the process is built,
democracy, law, the constitution and goodness. His words were actually quite
beautiful. The problem is association. I have no doubt that the intention of
Rabbi Lookstein’s association with the RNC would have been passive
accompaniment as God had instructed Bilaam. It appears to be a very fine line
between passive accompaniment and active accompaniment. In fact its two
letters: “Aleph” “Tav” or “Ayin” “Mem”. However after watching how this
campaign preys upon fear and ignorance, do I really think that the American
public would see that difference? Maybe,
but I am guessing that those whose fears and ignorance are preyed upon are
unable to see the difference.
Peace,
Rav Yitz
No comments:
Post a Comment