GEN1222 Envy exacerbates strife. Philistine envy of the success of Isaac in finding water led, according to the Bible, to discord and an end to friendly neighborly relations [this verse]. In the agony of her childlessness, Rachel expressed her envy of the fertility of her sister Leah Genesis 30:1. The result was a strain on their sibling relationship. Ethical condemnation of envy mandates an obligation to avoid creating situations which are likely to provoke envy another people. Parents who single out one child for more favorable treatment are guilty of generating sibling rivalry, envy, and hatred. Jacob, for reasons of his own, made Joseph an object of favoritism. The Bible describes the unhappy consequences.  “When his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren, they hated him and could not speak peaceably to him” Genesis 37:4. Drawing the proper conclusion from this incident, Rav (3rd cent.) issued a timely warning: “Let no man show favoritism in the treatment of his children” Shabbat 10b. Parents may properly reward a child for a meritorious act but should not habitually offer one child preferential treatment in a discriminatory manner. Similarly parents have a right to punish a child who is guilty of wrongdoing. However, they should refrain from imposing a penalty which will irretrievably attach a stigma to a child for the rest of his life. Parents who this disown a child in their will in a moment of great fixation sow the seeds of chronic envy and hostility among siblings.   BLOCH 111

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1223 Envy makes it difficult if not impossible for people to think clearly about the person they envy.  Often the conclusions envious people draw are the precise opposite of the truth. … Genesis reports that when the Philistines, among whom the patriarch Isaac dwelled, envied him his financial success, they stopped up his wells by filling them with earth.  TELVOL 1:301 [See also 31:1 TELVOL 1:301]

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1224 Honest toil and endeavor are certainly highly commendable and praiseworthy traits. Thus, in regard to the wells of Abraham which Isaac dug up again, after the Philistine had stopped them up upon Abraham’s death [this verse], the Sages observe, “How great are the righteous, for they contribute to the social welfare.” Midrash haChefez.   Elsewhere, the Sages remark, “Great is labor, for it brings honor to those who engage in it. Talmud, Nedarim 52b, See also Avos 1:10.   Elsewhere, the Sages remark, “Flay a carcass in the marketplace and accept payment, and do not say “I am a Kohen, I am a great scholar, and this [activity] is hateful to me.” Talmud, Pesachim 113a; Cf. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, end Hilchos Matnos Aniyaim 10:19, and Hilchos Zechiyah u’Mattanah 12:16.  Nevertheless, the Torah Jew will always bear in mind that constructive, honest labor – commendable though it is – is never to be regarded as an end to itself, but rather as a means to the ultimate goal of fulfilling the Divine will. Thus, the individual who toils to provide sustenance for his family and himself, will be sure to provide ample time in his daily schedule for Torah study, for chesed, and for mitzvah performance. He will never lose sight of his obligations to God and to his fellows-man. His quest for material wealth will not be for the sake of acquisition itself, bur rather as an instrument which will enable him to further his aspirations to attain spiritual goals. FENDEL 212-4

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1225 Jewish pacifists rely on a number of quotations from Scriptures in order to support their view.   To Isaiah Zechariah they add Jeremiah, who urged, “Bring your necks under the yoke of the King of Babylon and serve him and live.” Support for their view is also derived from the patriarch Isaac’s non-resistance to the perpetual Philistine vandalism [Genesis 26:18-this verse]. A remarkable passage is quoted from Josephus who said that the Jewish statesman, Agrippa, pleaded with his countrymen for non-resistance to the Romans, and, in a speech, said, “Nothing so much damps the force of strokes as bearing them with patience; and the quietness of those who were injured diverts the injurious persons from afflicting” Jewish Wars II 16-351. Many quotations can be cited from Talmudic literature which reflect a spirit of non-violence. For example, “Be of the persecuted rather than the persecutors” Bava Kamma 93a.  “Who is the hero of heroes? He who transmuteth a foe into a friend.” Avot De Rabbi Nathan 23   Clearly, however, the citation of verses is inconclusive. For every illustration of an Isaac’s nonresistance to vandalism by the Philistines, there are five examples of resistance to violence, such as Abram’s war with the Kings. For every verse supporting pacifism there are five supporting war when a just peace cannot be achieved. God is called Shalom, “Peace”; He is also called Ish Milhamah, “A man of war.” The Psalms (33:16) say, "A mighty man is not delivered by great strength;” while Deuteronomy (13:6) says, “Thou shalt forcibly remove evil from the midst of thee.”   Although Isaiah and Micah pleaded that swords be beaten into plowshares and spears into pruning hoax, Joel, in bitter irony, cautioned the nations to transform plowshares into swords and printing hooks into spears. In addition, there is a “sense of the Bible” that can be derived from the spirit and the style of the whole capital and rabbinic literature. If an ideal such as pacifism were a divine imperative, a fundamental Jewish ethic, one would not need a verse here or there, an incident in Genesis, a quotation from Avot, in order to substantiate it. There would be an unmistakable literary and historical pattern. Instead, the pronouncements, even if they are pacifistic in nature, are without pathos and passion. One looks in vain, in the few declarations of pacifism, for the same intensity that we find uttered in the cause of peace (shalom), which appears some 220 times in Scripture alone, and in almost every major prayer.   The prophets preach peace, but denounce those who cry “’peace’ when there is no peace.” The greatest desire for peace cannot, by itself, avert war. “The watchman,” Ezekiel cries, “who sees the sword come, and blows not the horn so that the people may be forewarned for battle, and someone thereby dies in the vain hope for peace; his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand” (33:6).   Leading Jewish thinkers have recognized that no definitive Jewish stand can be derived from explicit statements in the Bible. It is my conviction that the Jewish tradition rejects pacifism, the comprehensive objection to all wars not only because there is no specific Biblical authority, but because the very concept contradicts, and even betrays, the Jewish spirit.   (By Maurice Lamm, "After the War--Another Look at Pacifism and Selective Conscientious Objection (SCO)") KELLNER 222-224

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1226 Rav Aryeh of Bresslau (18th century) writes Teshuvos P’nei Aryeh ch. 98 that sinah is gross disgust and repulsion. It can be caused by a person’s behavior, or by his very different personality, that you cannot stand.   … this type of dislike is not a violation of harboring hatred in your heart.  This is the type of sinah that Yitzchak referred to when saying to Avimelech [this verse].  The term sinah refers here to the hatred of repulsion without wish to harm.   This may also be the type of hatred referred to when it is written “And Hashem saw that Leah was hated.” Genesis 29:31 Yaakov wished her no harm, but he wished to be somewhat distant from her. [The reason for this was because she cooperated with Lavan’s deceit. It is possible that this was repelling to Yaakov because he symbolized truth – “Grant truth to Yaakov.” [Micah 27:20 – AJL]   … Yaakov could not have actually hated her as a sinner for her role in Lavan’s fraud, because they would have then been forbidden to live together as husband and wife. Furthermore many Rishonim assert that you may not even hate a rasha [i.e., evildoer – AJL] until he has rejected your rebuke and continued sinning, which was not the case by Leah. However, that could be explained according to the Midrash that Yaakov called Leah a deceiver, the daughter of a deceiver. Leah responded that Yaakov, too, deceived his father, Yitzhak, when he pretended to be Esau. From this is seems that Yaakov did rebuke her, and she rejected his rebuke.]   CASTLE 513

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1227 [[GEN65]] See [[GEN65]]Genesis 1:26 likeness COHON 207-8

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1228 [The class of those who speak lashon hara [evil speech] [includes] … a malcontent.]   Shlomo, a”h, said Proverbs 18:8, “The words of malcontents are as from those beaten (kemislahamim), and they descend into the pit of the stomach.” What this means is that the malcontent is a person whose manner and nature is to complain and grumble, and to always find criticism with his neighbor, concerning his actions and words. Even though his neighbor acts with him in a straightforward manner and in no way wrongs him, nonetheless he judges everything in a negative light, without giving the other the benefit of the doubt, and every error is turned into malicious intent.   He makes himself as one oppressed and beaten, as if he had been sorely sinned against by his neighbor, when [in truth] he is the one who strikes and beats, since his words descend into the of the stomach.   For one who vents complaints against another, when the latter has not harmed him and has only treated him well [this verse], is a raging storm upon the heart, Jeremiah 23:19, and he is like one who shoots arrows, which descend in to the pit of the stomach.   GATES 445

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1229 This teaches us that reproof leads to peace. Sifrei, Deuteronomy. TEMIMAH-GEN 120

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1230 The great talmudic examples of filial piety are drawn from the life of Dama ben Netinah, “a non-Jew from Ashkelon.” Kiddushin 31b, and elsewhere.   In this he followed in the footsteps of Esau, of whom R. Simeon ben Gamliel said, “I served my father all my life, but I never served him a hundredth as well as Esau served his father.” Genesis Rabbah 65:16  So highly valued was this filial devotion that God granted Rome (Esau) all “this glory” (or, dominion) as reward. Tanhuma (ed. Buber), Kedoshim 15 (p. 40a). Midrash ha-Gadol, cited by Theodore-Albeck (Genesis Rabbah, II, 728 [1:3], relates these last two midrashic statements: R. Simeon ben Gamliel contrasts the behavior of Esau, who served his father in royal costume, with his own habit of attending to his father in ordinary dress. Hence, the descendants of Esau merited secular dominion in this world.  Middah ke-negged middah; kabod is returned for kibbud.   What induced the rabbis to find in Esau and his descendants models whom Jews might well emulate? The biblical suggestion that Esau was ever ready to fulfill his father’s command [Genesis 27:3-4] hardly warrants, in itself, such fulsome exposition; furthermore, the Bible has already presented Esau as paining his father greatly through his marriage [this verse] and will show him cynically expectant of his father’s death [Genesis 27:41] The rabbis differed on the interpretation of this verse. For some it showed Esau’s solicitousness toward his father; for others it indicated his eagerness to see his father dead.    See Genesis Rabbah 67:8 (p. 764), and notes.  A reasonable suggestion is that the rabbis were, in fact, impressed with the gravity and importance of filial piety among the Romans. They were certainly aware of both patria potestas and the concern for filial piety among the moralists and thinkers. Patria poestas and, in fact, the entire “legal” conception of the family were in an irreversible decline during the rabbinic period, it is true, but as part of the history of Rome, they provided a good justification for the origins of Rome’s greatness. Furthermore, the ethic expressed in patria potestas was imbued, in more humane fashion, throughout the Roman world in this period. In Hellenistic Alexandria, “the honor of parents was a popular theme of pedagogic moralizing,” I. Heinemann, Philons Griechische u. Judishe Bildung, pp. 257 and it was a staple of Stoic thought. Patria potestas was doubtless considered savage and inhumane in allowing parents to expose an unwanted child and to deny all property rights to the son. But the rabbis found the Romans exemplary even when measured by the Jewish standard of filial ethics. The behavior singled out for rabbinic praise—Esau’s eagerness to satisfy his father’s wish and the royal clothes he wore while serving him; Dama’s refusal to disturb his father even at the price of financial loss and his patient and passive endurance of his mother’s rage and blows—is not that described by patria potestas but rather by pietas and reverentia, the kind of filial respect and honor deemed exemplary in Jewish ethics. Clearly, then, this ethics was considered part of the heritage of all mankind. BLIDSTEIN 36

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1231 Challenges to the filial relationship were often precipitated by the marriage of the child, first by the choice of the mate and then by the variety of stresses that the filial and marital states impose upon each other.   The patriarchs provided clear models here.   Of Esau it was written [this verse]. But of Jacob it was told that “he obeyed his father and mother” and went to Paddam-aram to take a wife of his mother’s family Genesis 28:7.   The Midrash is more explicit: “The way of a fool is straight in his own eyes: But he that is wise hearkens to counsel” Proverbs 12:15. “The way of the fool” – this is Samson, who said, “Get her for me, for she is good in my eyes” Judges 14:3. “But he that is wise” – this is Jacob, as it is said, “He listed to his father and mother.”   Genesis Rabbah 67:12  It is to be noted, though, that in all the incidents cited above, the parental preference or antipathy is not arbitrary but is substantively grounded: a wife of Israelite or related stock is preferable to a Hittite or Philistine woman.   What is stressed, therefore, is not parental prerogative but parental wisdom—and, of course, the propriety of parental involvement.  BLIDSTEIN 83-4

SHOW FULL EXCERPT