This week's portion describes the life of Isaac, who lived a more peaceful life than that of his father Abraham, or his son Jacob. Indeed, Isaac is so quiet that some commentaries wonder if he suffered enduring trauma from his near-sacrifice.
I don't think so: it looks like Isaac is quite happy. He lives a conservative life, occupied with re-establishing and protecting his father's wells, rather than digging new ones. This is a valid, and valuable, orientation to the world: not everyone has to be an innovator or a disrupter. Sometimes it it more important to preserve what previous generations have left to us.
The most remarkable aspect of Isaac's life is his marriage to Rebecca. It is the happiest pairing in the Bible. We are even given some insight into the joy and happiness they enjoy in their sexual relations, when the Bible says that Isaac was delighting his wife (Genesis 26:8), which implies he was doing so in an intimate way.
And yet, Rebecca intervenes to make sure that Isaac blesses Jacob, and not Esau, tricking her husband by stimulating his physical senses -- his love of meat, for example -- rather than making the case to Isaac directly herself.
Is that a sign of a healthy marriage, or an unhealthy one? Ultimately, Rebecca is right -- but perhaps insisting to her husband that she knew what was best for the family might have led to tensions. So she fooled him, with Jacob's help.
Notably, Isaac is distraught when he discovers the ruse, but does not blame his wife, or even think to suspect her. The lesson here is not that one should try to deceive one's spouse, but rather that a happy marriage is one in which partners understand each other's motivations in a way that is beyond the need for words.
The additional reading, from I Samuel, talks about the tragic parting of David and Jonathan, the two best friends in the Bible. There is a thematic link to this week's portion, in that Jacob must also part from his family. But the other, perhaps deeper, link, is the story about the bond between these two souls -- one so close that it did not even need physical closeness to endure. The story of Isaac thus evokes themes of love and friendship that recur throughout the Bible.
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
An interesting weekend -- one of the last of Daylight Savings Time -- in which there is much to celebrate, much to contemplate, and a bit to worry about.
The Gaza peace deal is shaky, but holding, after the living hostages returned; the shutdown is still going on, with no end in sight; the China trade war is heating up; and the confrontation with Venezuela continues to escalate.
The "No Kings" protest was a dud, despite the media's attempt to inflate it. What I find fascinating is that the Democrats have basically stolen the rhetoric and the imagery of the Tea Party protests, circa 2009. They claim they are defending the Constitution -- just like the Tea Party did.
On the one hand, this is good. How wonderful to have a political system in which both sides, bitterly opposed though they are, articulate differences through the Constitution -- and not, as in so many other countries, outside it.
On the other, this is sheer hypocrisy for the Democrats. Not only did they malign the Tea Party as ...
