מעשה בדגל

 

במשך שנים רבות התגוררתי בגלות, במספר מדינות. ייחלתי ליום שבו אוכל לחזור הביתה ולחיות את מהותי כיהודיה בארץ ישראל

למרות המרחק והניתוק ממשפחתי, מחברי ילדותי ומארץ אהבתי לא כבה הזיק הבוער בתוכי. "הביתה, הביתה," הייתה הקריאה שהדהדה אל מול קירות ליבי. בכל הזדמנות שעלתה בידי, לחמתי למען ארצי ועמי והגשמת חלום הדורות לחיות בשלום בארץ אבותינו.

מקצוע ההוראה, אשר בו עסקתי במשך שנים רבות בעת שהותי מחוץ לגבולות הארץ היה אחד האמצעים אשר פתחו בפני אפשרויות רבות להגשים את מטרתי זו.

באחד מהפרקים המשמעותיים יותר בחיי, התגוררתי במדינת טקסס שבארה"ב. שם, נפל בחלקי הכבוד הגדול ללמד עברית בבית ספר תיכון אשר יצא לו מוניטין נפלא בכל רחבי המדינה. באופן טבעי, מרבית תלמידי, אשר הצטיינו בהשיגיהם האקדמאים ובכך תרמו לשמו הטוב של בית הספר, היו ילדים להורים יהודים וישראלים אשר רצו לעודד ולחזק את הקשר עם מורשת ישראל באמצאות השפה העיברית.

קירות כיתתי היו מעוטרים בתמונות מארצנו היפה. סמלים המייצגים את תרבותנו, חגינו ומועדינו הוצגו לראווה לעיני כל. אף דאגתי שדגל ישראל יתנוסס בחלון כיתתנו לתפארת מדינתנו.

בחדר הסמוך לכיתתי לימדה מורה אשר מוצאה מקנדה. רעיון הדגל המתנוסס בחלון כיתתי קסם לה והחליטה לאמץ אותו.עלה המפייל האדום על הרקע הלבן בחלון חדרה לצד תדמיתו של ה"כוכב היהודי,"  כפי שהגדירו אותו חברי למקצוע, הכחול, אף הוא, על רקע לבן, חיו זה לצד זה בשלום ובדו-קיום ראוותי זמן מה.

האידיליה בין השניים נקטעה באיבה ובאופן הצובט את ליבי עד עצם היום הזה.

בוקר בהיר אחד, קרא לי המנהל לחדרו ומסר לי שמספר דיירים בקרבת בית הספר התלוננו על כך שעליהם לקום בבוקר למראה דגל ישראל, מראה אשר מטריד אותם. המנהל בקש שאסיר אותו מאזור החלון ואעביר אותו למקום אחר בכיתתי.

מיד הבינותי את מקור הדרישה. סמל הקשור לעם, לתרבות ולמסורת עתיקת יומין עורר, מאז ומתמיד, ועל לא עוול בכפו, את אותן מפלצות שנאה אשר גרמו לשפיכת דמים שמלאה את נהרות ההיסטוריה היהודית. למרות שקבלתי את הוראתו (וכי עמדה בפני ברירה אחרת?), חוש הצדק והדרישה לשיוויון התקוממו בי ובחוצפתי הישראלית והלגיטימית במקרה הנ"ל, ולמרות שידעתי מראש את התשובה, בכל זאת שאלתי את המנהל אם תגובת אותם דיירים הייתה זהה למראה הדגל הקנדי אשר התנוסס בחלון הסמוך.

כמובן שלא.

תחושת הכאב, ליבי המתכווץ, הבלוטה ההולכת ותופחת בגרוני שכמעט חנקה אותי וים הדמעות שפרץ מעיני בעת שהסרתי את הדגל המסמל, עבורי, את כל אותם עקרונות אשר עליהם גדלתי ולאורם חונכתי, אלה שלמענם לחמתי ואותם לימדתי את תלמידי, עדיין, שנים לאחר מכן, מלווים אותי. למדתי שלמרות שהינני אזרחית אמריקאית, כיהודיה, אין זה הבית הלאומי שלי וכי עלי לקבל את מרותם ולחיות על פי כללי ההתנהלות של אותם אשר בקרבם  בחרתי לחיות.  באותו רגע גם הפנמתי את התובנות כי אם ברצוני לחיות כבת חורין ולהפגין את לאומיותי בראש חוצות, ללא חשש וללא פגיעה ברגשותיהם של הסובבים אותי, אוכל להגשים משאלה זו אך ורק בביתי, "בארץ ציון וירושלים."

אז שבתי הביתה!

מסתבר שזו לא בדיוק המציאות אשר לה ייחלתי לאחר למעלה משלושים שנות העדרות.

לפני למעלה משבוע, התעוררתי לקריאת השכמה כואבת ונוראה שהרעידה אצלי את אמות הסיפים. בתאריך ה-17.11  העלתה חברת הכנסת גלית דיסטל אטבריאן הצעה לתיקון חוק המועצה להשכלה גבוהה לפיה, "מוסד ציבורי להשכלה גבוהה שלא יניף את דגל המדינה כפי שמחייב חוק הדגל ייקנס ויופחת ממנו 10% מתקציבו השנתי." כמו כן, מבקשת הצעת החוק להוסיף לחוק הדגל "את החובה להניפו לא רק על בניין המנהלה הראשי של מוסדות להשכלה גבוהה אלא גם בכניסה הראשית לכל קמפוס של המוסד." הצעת החוק נדחתה.

גיגול קצר ומהיר של הנושא הראה כי במדינת ישראל קיים "חוק הדגל והסמל" אשר התקבל בכנסת בשנת  1949     החוק קובע, בין היתר, את הכללים להנפת דגל המדינה ולהצבתו. על פי חוק זה (סעיף 3), יונף הדגל על בניין המנהלה של המוסדות להשכלה גבוהה.

סעיף 2א לחוק שהתווסף ותוקן בתיקונים מס' 2 משנת התשמ"ז – 1986,  קובע את החלת חובת הנפת הדגל והצבתו  "על בניין המנהלה של המוסדות להשכלה גבוהה." סעיף 3 בחוק אף הוא תוקן, התשנ"ז - 1997 ונתווסף לו סעיף קטן (א) הקובע כי דגל המדינה יונף "על הביניין הראשי או בחזית  הביניין הראשי של מוסד חינוך מוכר כמשמעותו בחוק לימוד חובה, תש"ט – 1949 ."

יתר על כן, בשנת התשנ"ז -1997, הועברה בקריאה שלישית הצעת חוק (פ /13 /629), חוק הדגל והסמל (תיקון הנפת הדגל במוסדות לימוד) של חה"כ לימור לבנת.

החוק פותח במילים, "בכל הכיתות של מוסדות החינוך היסודיים, העל-יסודיים והאקדמאים במקום שייקבע ע"י הנהלת המוסד יונף דגל ישראל. מטרת החוק היא לנהוג כבוד, להגביר את  המודעות לערכים, לסמלים, לערכי המדינה ולשמליה במוסדות החינוך. זה מקובל גם בדמוקרטיות מאוד גדולות, בארה"ב ודאי. ראיתי זאת גם בפריז וגם במקומות אחרים. אני חושבת שהעובדה שבמדינת ישראל, למרות שבמהלך השנים כבר היו תיקונים אחדים לחוק הדגל והסמל, הנושא של מוסדות החינוך לא נפתר."

בתאריך 29.5.2001, דיווח עיתון "הארץ" כי על פי חוזר מנכ"ל אשר נשלח למנהלי בתי הספר כשבוע קודם לכן, "על כל בית ספר, המוכר כמוסד חינוכי מתוקף חוק לימוד חובה, להניף את דגל ישראל בחזית. החוק," מוסיף "הארץ," תקף כמעט לכל מערכת החינוך: בתי הספר הממלכתיים והממלכתיים-דתיים, בתי הספר הערביים ואף מרשת מעיין החינוך התורני של ש"ס, או בתי הספר המשתייכים לחינוך העצמאי של אגודת ישראל. החוק מחמיר מאוד עם סרבני הנפת דגל המדינה וקובע עונש של שנת מאסר אחת לעבריינים."

למרות התיקון בנוגע להחלת חובת הנפת הדגל במוסדות להשכלה גבוהה אשר, כאמור, התווסף בשנת התשמ"ז -1986, נראה שאכיפתו עדיין אינה מתבצעת בכמה מהמוסדות הללו. זו הסיבה, כך מסתבר, העומדת מאחורי הצעת החוק של ח"כ דיסטל-ארטביאן.

באותה מידה שחה"כ ליבנת קבעה החמרה עם סרבני הנפת הדגל במוסדות חינוך המוכרים ככאלה מתוך חוק לימוד חובה, כך מבקשת חה"כ דיסטל-ארטביאן  אכיפת התיקון לחוק הדגל אשר הועבר ב-  1986 בתוספת ציון העונש הכרוך בסרוב לביצוע החוק. בנוסף לקנס, היא מציעה הפחתת 10% מתקציבו של המוסד אשר אינו פועל על פי הוראות חוק הדגל.

כמו כן, מבקשת הצעת החוק להוסיף לחוק הדגל את החובה להניפו בכניסה הראשית לכל קמפוס של המוסד להשכלה גבוהה ולא על בניין המנהלה בלבד.

כפי שציינתי, החוק לא עבר.

ואני לתומי, חשבתי שחזרתי הבייתה, לבית הלאומי של בני עמי היקרים, הבית אשר לו ייחלנו, כעם, במשך אלפי שנים ובהם אני, "הקטנה והדלה באלפי מנשה," אשר, לחזור איליו, כמהתי במשך עשרות שנים.

Vayishlach - the Art of Diplomacy

 

After over twenty years of absence, the decision has finally ripened in Yaakov, and he is preparing to leave his father in law’s home in Padan Aram and move back to resettle in the Land that G-d has promised him and his posterity. During the years that he was living with Laban, Yaakov flourished, built a strong family, amassed wealth, and many assets. Now, he is ready to legitimize his status as primogeniture and fulfill his calling as a son of the Covenant.

That major step, however, is cloaked with distress and much concern for him. There is still one issue that needs resolving, his strained relationship with his estranged brother, Esav, who vowed to kill him for having stolen his birthright. As much as Yaakov is looking forward to meeting his brother, the fear that Esav might launch a war against him hovers over his head. He does not want to kill, nor does he want to be killed.

Yaakov who is determined to go ahead and meet Esav, elects to use a three-pronged approach. The first step he takes is in the form of appeasement. He sends Esav gifts of cattle and flocks and instructs his messengers to tell Esav that: “it is a present sent unto my lord, even unto Esav; and behold, he also is behind us.” (Bresheet 32:19). Furthermore, in verse 21, Yaakov expounds and adds to his message, “Moreover, behold, thy servant Yaakov is behind us. ‘For he said: ‘I will appease him with the present that goeth before me, and afterward I will see his face, peradventure he will accept me.” It could not be more obvious that Yaakov’s hand is stretched out for Peace.

The second plan that Yaakov conceives of will be echoed many centuries later in the immortal words of the Roman Military expert, Vegetius, “Si vis, para bellum” (If you want Peace, prepare for war). While aiming for peace, Yaakov is preparing for the possible eventuality of a war with his brother. “And he divided the people that was with him and the flocks and the herds, and the camels, into two camps. And he said: ‘If Esav come to one camp, and smite it, then the camp which is left shall escape.” (32:8-9). Yaakov is splitting his household into two camps to ensure that, at least some do survive if a war does break out.

Finally, as a true son of the Covenant, Yaakov puts his trust in G-d through prayer. He reminds Him of His promise to watch over him and multiply his seed. (32:10-13).

When Esav and Yaakov eventually meet, both brothers seem to have transformed, through character development, into mature men who have learned to respect each other and put family before everything else. They part ways in peace and continue with the course of their lives.

The Midrash explains that the conflict between the brothers started already in their mother’s wombs (Bresheet 25:2). It was over the inheritance and control of the two worlds, this world, the corporal one, and the world to come, the spiritual world.

The Mahara”l of Prague dwells on this issue in his book, “Netzach Yisrael” (The Eternity of Yisrael). He claims that Yaakov was born with the inherent tendency towards the world to come, while Esav’s natural inclination is towards the physical world. The latter came into the world a fully physically developed newborn (with hair). Yaakov came out holding Esav’s heel. He, apparently, needed Esav’s support and was dependent on him. Esav’s descendants, the Mahara”l explains, feel at home in this world and reside in peace, alongside it. They have a stronghold in it which allows them to determine where war and peace should nest.

Unlike Esav, the core and the role of Yaakov and Am Yisrael (the children of Yaakov whose name changes to Yisrael, later, in this Parashah), continues the Mahara"l  is spiritual. Their task is to improve the world and build the House of the Lord. It is, therefore, only a matter of courtesy to seek permission from Esav, the one who controls the corporeal, earthly world prior to entering to make changes in it.

Even though G-d promised the Land to Yaakov and his future generations, Yaakov still seeks Esav’s consent and permission to enter it, as reflected in this his week’s Parashah. Yaakov’s future generations will, likewise, need the approval and the back of Esav’s offspring, concludes the Mahara”l.

This, as it turns out, is, indeed, the case through our Jewish history. Each time our People wish to pursue our yearning desire to leave the diaspora to join the Family of Nations, we seek the approval of the representatives of Esav.

The next time we encounter such an effort is when Am Yisrael leaves Egypt and is about to enter Eretz Yisrael, the Land that was promised to them. In that instance, they seek permission from Edom (named after Esav).

Similarly, after the Babylonian exile, Cyrus, the Persian King, issued his renowned Declaration. It granted and authorized the right of the Jews to return to Zion and build the Second Temple.

In modern times, we detect the same course. Did not Herzl, the founder of Political Zionism, bounce from one world leader to another, from the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire to the Kaiser, king of Prussia to seek permission from a great power to support his idea to establish a Jewish Homeland? Did not Chaim Weitzman approach Lord Balfour with the same request, an encounter that produced the Balfour Declaration and later, the San Remo Accord which decreed the rights of Jews to build their National Home in Eretz Yisrael, their ancestral Homeland?

Yes, that is our forefathers’ legacy to us. What a great privilege it is to be part of a nation, a culture that abides by international laws, engages in the art of diplomacy in a manner that dignifies not merely its members but also displays respect and courtesy towards those who are in power, in a mere effort to seek approval for what has already been rightfully ours.

Shabbat Shalom Fellow Jews and Am Yisrael and a wonderful weekend to all.

Yaakov's Dream, a Reassurance of Divine Providence

 

I remember reading, once, an anecdote about two friends who were competing over who would tell the biggest lie. “I was in the museum and saw the axe with which Caine killed Abel,” said the first. “That is nothing,” retorted the other, “I was in the museum and saw the ladder which Jacob saw in his dream.”

In many cultures, the image of the ladder signifies the links between Heaven and Earth, Spirit and Matter and the Metaphysical and Physical spheres of our existence. There are those who believe that not everyone has the capabilities nor the readiness to experience or conceive of a journey between these two realms. They presume that it is reserved to a very select few and when they least expect it.

This week’s Parashah, Vayetze, shares with us one such episode. It recounts the famous dream Yaakov experiences on his way from Canaan to his uncle’s home in a faraway land, as he is trying to escape the wrath of his brother, Esav.

Needless to add that Yaakov’s circumstances are far from soothing. They are rather bleak. He is alone and vulnerable. He is in an unfamiliar terrain with an uncertain future. One cannot even start to fathom what goes through his mind as he falls asleep on the cold ground under the canopy of darkness, using a stone for a pillow.

Shortly thereafter, the most unexpected vision appears to him. “And he dreamed and Behold! A ladder set up on the ground and its top reached to heaven; and behold, angels of G-d were ascending and descending upon it.” (Bresheet 28:12).

As a child, I remember wondering why the “angels of G-d” appeared to be ascending the ladder and only then descending it. Later, I was introduced to Rashi’s explanation of this verse. According to him, the ascending angels are those that accompany and protect Yaakov while he is within the borders of Canaan (the future Eretz Yisrael). The descending ones, explains Rashi. are the ones who are going to escort and guide him on his sojourn outside of the Land.

The dream itself, its meaning and its purpose engaged the minds and the imagination of many artists and poets around the world. They were also the subject of interpretations of many of our Jewish sages.

I tend to think that the purpose of the dream is mainly to comfort Yaakov, reassure him and strengthen his trust in G-d.

Yaakov, I believe, is not only concerned about his physical safety through his journey. He is also worried about being spiritually forsaken by G-d Himself. His apprehension, it would seem, stems from the conviction prevalent among Jewish scholars that Eretz Yisrael is unique in the sense that the connection with G-d and His worship can be expressed better within its borders and stands several levels above that which is practiced outside of it. Rabbi Ovadia Sforeno, for instance, suggests, in his commentary to Bresheet 11:31, that the reason Terah left his home to move to Canaan (prior to God’s decree to Avraham) was because the Land was known as a place for acquiring and improving mental faculties.

Similarly, during the famine years in the days of Yitzchak, G-d commands him not to leave Eretz Yisrael even though the latter wants to follow in the footsteps of Avraham, his father, and go down to Egypt. G-d appears to Yitzchak and tells him not to leave the Land. The Midrash, Bresheet Raba, Chapter 64, section 3, depicts it as an indication that Yitzchak, in his purity and because of his virtue, should serve as an example to clinging to the Land even during famine times.

The belief that G-d can be worshipped only in Eretz Yisrael is also echoed in the famous verse in Psalms 137:4, “How can we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land?”

The “changing of the angelic guards,” as Rashi interprets their ascension and descension on the ladder, may, likewise, serve as a hint that the angels of G-d who escort Yaakov through Eretz Yisrael, could not leave its borders for the same reasons listed above.

These, might, also, be the concerns of Yaakov as he is on the verge of despair, shortly before he has a constitutive experience via a dream. In it, he is elevated, through a metaphorical ladder to a reassurance from G-d Himself: “I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go, and I will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.” (Bresheet 28:15).

Rabbi Sacks, as always, offers a very interesting perspective to this episode. He claims that the “verb used at the beginning of the passage, ‘He came upon a place,’ in Hebrew vayifga ba-makom, also means an unexpected encounter. Later,” continues Sacks, “in rabbinic Hebrew, the word ha-Makom, ‘the Place,’ came to mean G-d. Hence the poetic way the phrase vayifga ba-makom could be read as ‘Jacob happened on, had an unexpected encounter with G-d.”

With restored confidence that the Shechinah will never desert him, Yaakov wakes up from his metaphysical experience to the mundane world which lies at the foot of that magnificent visionary ladder. What he “realized when he woke up from his vision,” Rabbi Sacks tells us, “is that G-d is in this place. Heaven is not somewhere else, but here – even if we are alone and afraid – if only we realized it. And,” concludes Sacks, “we can become angels, G-d’s agents and emissaries, if like Jacob, we have the ability to pray and the strength to dream.”

Sacks’s message, I believe, is that if wish it, we all have the power to see, in our dreams, the ladder that Yaakov saw in his.

Shabbat Shalom, Am Yisrael and fellow Jews and a wonderful weekend to all

Primogeniture

 

One of the topics of this week’s parashah, “Toledot,” addresses is the rights of the Firstborn. In the Tanach, as was the case in the ancient Levant, those rights referred only to first born males.

“Primogeniture” is the Latin term that describes such practices. It reflects the right, by law or custom, of the firstborn male child to inherit the family estate, in preference to their siblings.

Some of the stories in the book of Bresheet surround the status of the Firstborn. We read about Cain and Abel competing over G-d’s approval of their respective sacrifices. We follow Sarah’s worries over Avraham’s inheritance, doing all that is in her power to ensure that it will go to her son Yitzchak rather than to Yishmael, his eldest son from Hagar. In this week’s Parashah, we encounter the struggle between Yaakov and his older brother, Esav, over the Birthright and the blessings of Yitzchak, their father.

In all three of the above examples, it seems that the Torah rejects the practice of primogeniture, which was prevalent in ancient times in the region, favours the younger sons and elects to endow them with that right. What, one may ask, is the purpose of such a, rather revolutionary, step?

In the first account, the decision was made by G-d. He chose Abel’s sacrifice over that of Cain.

In the case of Isaac and Yishmael, however, that preference of the former is embedded in the legal norms of that era, as reflected in the Hammurabi Code of Law, and which pertain to the inheritance rights of the son of a maid/slave, the status of Yishmael, Hagar’s son. That is this issue which is at the core of Sarah’s concern.

Article 170 of the Code states that if a man’s main wife bore his children as did his maid, the father shall bequeath all he owns to the children from his main wife, during his life. If the father passes away without declaring his rightful inheritors, his assets will be divided between all offspring regardless of who their mother was. Hagar was never the legal wife of Avraham. Sarah was. Hagar was a maid and a servant who bore a son to Avraham when Sarah thought that she was barren. Yishmael, though the eldest, was never the legal heir of Avraham. Sarah was his wife and Yitzchak, the younger son, was the legal heir.

In order to understand the choice of Yaakov over Esav, it is important to add that the term primogeniture, sometimes, also entails succession to power and office and not merely rights to tangible possessions. In other words, the Firstborn right can be onerous, demanding and carry responsibilities - a dutiful task suited for only a few selected ones. In early times, the Firstborn would substitute the father and was honoured accordingly. In ancient Egypt, for instance, Firstborns were revered and worshipped like gods. Hence the significance of the tenth plague, the plague of the Firstborn since according to our sages when G-d avenges upon a nation, He initially avenges upon its gods.

It is indeed true that when Yaakov asserts “I am Esav, your Firstborn,” (Bresheet 27:19) he not only lies, but he also commits fratricide and condemns Esav to oblivion both as a human being and his rights to inheritance as well.

Several Jewish commentators offer various justifications for Yaakov’s lie. Isaac Abrabanel, for instance, suggests that Yaakov lamented to Esav that the latter was never around the house, always roaming in the fields and not fulfilling his duties as the Firstborn while he, Yaakov, had to attend to their sick father, feed him and Esav when the latter returned from his hunting. According to Abrabanel, Yaakov went even further to suggest to Esav that if he were not ready to assume that role, he would gladly take his place and feed him as should the eldest brother address the needs of the younger one. Esav, explains Abrabanel, pondered in his heart and decided that he was better off relinquishing those duties. Yaakov took them upon himself and promptly offered Esav bread and lentil soup, as would the Firstborn do to his younger sibling.

Rabbi Shmuel Ben Meir (Rashba”m) provides a different rationale. According to him, Esav was willingly renouncing his Firstborn right claiming that his hunting activities often put him in harm’s way. Therefore, he reckoned, there was no point in him waiting for his father to die to qualify for that right.

Finally, Rabbi Sacks, who bases his interpretation on Rashi, suggests that as much as Esav tried to deceive Yitzchak, the latter “was not deceived as to the nature of his elder son. He knew what he was and what he was not. He knew he was a man of the field, a hunter, a mercurial in temperament, a man who could easily give way to violence, quickly aroused to anger, but equally quickly, capable of being distracted and forgetting. He also knew,” concludes Rabbi Sacks that Esav “was not the child to continue the Covenant.”

It is, therefore, not by accident that Yitzchak preferred Yaakov over Esav.

This week’s Parashah teaches us that leadership should not necessarily be granted to the Firstborn son but rather to the best one.

Shabbat Shalom