english – lech lecha
WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM AVRAHAM’S DEFENSE OF JUDAISM
“Street-smart” people know how to deal with sticky situations. Not all of us are blessed with their talents. Indeed, even they may not be aware of how they naturally behave. I would like to examine one of the techniques used by the “street-smart personality,” and suggest that it may also serve the rest of us in certain situations. I will call it “defensive-to-offensive positioning.” Ironically, we can learn the technique from none other than Nimrod, King of Ur Kasdim, and sworn enemy of our Patriarch Avraham. As we study the famous Midrash about Avraham smashing the idols – and its aftermath – we will notice the centrality of this technique in the first disputation Judaism ever experienced.
Let’s consider a situation almost all of us encounter at one time or another: having to defend our religion, beliefs, and/or identity against the attacks of an anti-religious Jew. More often than not, the questions or attack of the critic are not rooted in a search for truth as much as they are rooted in self-defense. At some point in the argument, we usually have the following challenge thrown at us: “Prove to me that G-d exists.” And many people foolishly attempt to do so.
The attempt is foolish because a Jew who is in denial of G-d’s existence – and is not looking to change as much as he is looking to defend himself – will not be willing to accept our beliefs unless he can feel, see, and hear G-d. The facts and phenomena that point clearly in the direction of a Creator will be ignored. The harmony of creation will never be enough for such a person. Even if the religious Jew succeeds in defending his beliefs and his religion, the anti-religious critic will often avoid giving the subject any serious thought, and simply proclaim that he simply does not “buy it.”
This is the place for the offense/defense technique. Every athlete or person who enjoys sports knows that it is better to be on the offense rather than on the defense. When on the offense, you never lose. You either gain a point or you do not. On the defense, however, you either lose a goal or save yourself from losing one. In every debate as well, one will always find himself either in the offensive or defensive position.
When you are defending Judaism against someone who is not really seeking the truth, he or she will never let you feel that you defended your religion or beliefs successfully.
What should you do? Stop defending, and go on the offensive. Turn the tables and say something like this: “I challenge you to prove to me that G-d does not exist.” This usually scares them off because this was something they attempted unsuccessfully throughout their lives. Such people may have convinced themselves about their proof against G-d’s existence in order to avoid responsibilities. The non-believer defends his own weak position by attacking you instead. The best way to deal with such a person is to defend yourself by quickly and smoothly shifting position and putting him on defense. By doing so you are in the “no-loss” position in this debate. The only defense the attacker has is to put you back into defense mode. Never let him do it.
In the following famous Midrash (Rabba 38), the “defensive-to-offensive positioning” technique is clearly seen throughout the debate between Avraham and Nimrod. Avraham Avinu’s father Terach was an idol manufacturer and retailer. Terach asked Avraham to manage the business while he was away. When the first customer walked in, Avraham asked him how old he was. The man responded that he was sixty, and immediately realized how foolish he was to bow to a one-day old idol. Needless to say, he left the shop with an empty shopping bag.
Later, a woman walked in with a bowl of soup which she left as an offering to the idols. When Terach returned, he was taken aback by the wreck in his shop. Avraham pointed an accusing finger at the big idol with a sword in his hand, and explained that the idols quarreled over the sacrifice. The big one had destroyed all the other smaller idols. Terach told Avraham that he does not believe the story because the idols cannot move. Avraham took this opportunity to question his father about believing in and promoting such a “god.”
Now, news of this episode reached the ears of the ruler ofUrKasdim, Nimrod, and he was hardly willing to close his eyes to Avraham’s “apostasy.” He commanded Avraham to bow down to fire, his god. Nimrod believed in fire as almighty because fire can destroy anything on earth. Avraham responded by bravely pointing out to Nimrod that water is more powerful than fire because water extinguishes fire. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to bow down to rain clouds? Nimrod proceeded to command Avraham to bow down to the clouds. But Avraham challenged him again: Isn’t wind more powerful since it can push around the clouds? Perhaps it would be more appropriate to bow down to the wind? Nimrod then commanded Avraham to bow to the wind. This went on a few more rounds until Avraham made it crystal clear to Nimrod that the most powerful force in the universe – and the Creator of fire, rain, wind, etc. – is an immortal Almighty G-d .
What was Nimrod’s response? Denial. Nimrod forced Avraham to prove the existence of his G-d. “I bow only to fire, and I will throw you into it! Let us see your G-d come and save you!”
At first glance, Nimrod’s response is rather hard to fathom. Didn’t Avraham prove to him that fire cannot be all-powerful? How did Nimrod stick to his belief in this public debate without first defending his position? The answer is that Nimrod just switched from defense to offense. By turning the tables and having Avraham and his G-d prove themselves, Nimrod avoided having to defend himself. This is what street-smart people do. They just go on the offensive instead of defending their shaky positions.
Of course, we can defend Judaism against any and all attacks, but we do not feel obliged to do us when challenged by people who are not seeking the truth.
Now, Avraham’s brotherHaranwas not sure if Avraham was right about his belief in G-d. As Avraham was thrown into the fire, Nimrod askedHaranif he agreed with his brother. After witnessing Avraham’s success in his disputation with Nimrod – capped by his brother’s miraculous salvation from the fire – he decided to answer in the affirmative, and was promptly tossed into the fire. But G-d did not make a miracle forHaran. Why not?
G-d was not willing to make a miracle because Judaism is not based on successfully defending ourselves in a debate or successfully exposing the fallacies of other religions. Judaism is about realizing – through the Book of Torah and the Book of Nature – that there is a Creator who wants us to serve Him and perform His Mitzvot. Judaism is about being an Ivri – one from the “other side.” The whole world may disagree with us, and stand on the other side of the “river,” yet the authentic Jew, like our great Patriarch Avraham, will stand alone with his belief even if it looks like no one bought into his side of the debate.Haran was not willing to be that “lonely man” of faith. This essentially meant thatHaran was not willing to be Jewish. And this is a lesson for all of us about Judaism: We should develop our faith in G-d and His Torah to the point where we live as Jews even if everyone around us is telling us to worship the idols of money, pleasure, or anything else. .
DEFINING CHINUCH
A unique feature of Lashon haKodesh (the Hebrew language) is that the deepest essence of each word is found in the first usage of that word in the Torah.
Let us take the words ‘gadol’ (large) and ‘katan’ (small) as examples. The first encounter we have with these words in the Torah is in reference to the sun as being “haMaor haGadol” while the moon is described as “haMaor haKatan” (Bereishit 1:16). The words ‘big’ and ‘small’ do not refer to size alone. In addition, gadol means mashpia (one that influences) as well. The sun is the source of light while the moon is a recipient of this light and affected by it. It is this ability to be a giver/an influencer, as opposed to being katan, a taker or a receiver, which categorizes the sun as ‘gadol’ and the moon as ‘katan’. The classification, ‘Gadol haDor’, is not bestowed upon every generation’s outstanding Torah scholars only on account of the prodigious amount of Torah one knows or based upon the number of one’s followers. Rather the qualification of a Gadol is one’s being a mashpia, a spiritual source of wisdom, guidance, advice, and new hope. Ironically, a person can be gadol, old in years, yet remain a katan by lacking what it takes to be mashpia upon others – one’s community, one’s place of learning or working, or even upon one’s family.
Having explored a paradigm of the depth of Lashon haKodesh, let us examine a word that describes a most ubiquitous topic in Jewish discussions: Chinuch. Commonly interpreted as education or childrearing, this word also encompasses a deeper, more precise translation. The first time we encounter the word, ‘chinuch’, in the Torah is in our parasha, regarding the relationship between Avraham, the patriarch of our nation, and his servant, Eliezer: “וירק את חניכיו”, “and he hurried his apprentice (Eliezer) who he trained ” (Bereishit 14:14). Rashi explains that the word, chinuch, “is training a person or item to be able to achieve its maximum performance in the future.” Avraham had trained Eliezer to do mitzvoth and chessed in a way that he will be self-motivated and knowledgeable exactly how to behave. Interestingly, R’ Meir Shapiro from Lublin draws from these words of Rashi the following inference: If the training does not achieve a long-term effect, then it is not proper chinuch/training.
Chinuch does not mean to raise children. It means to raise adults. This sounds like common sense but many parents somehow live with this misconception. Instead of bringing up, nurturing and cultivating a family, they try to maintain one. The efforts that go into that maintenance undermine the latent, deeply-rooted necessity to train our family members for future conduct. .
The ripple effect of this miscomprehension is that parents perceive their offspring as children sitting in the back seat of a car: in whichever direction we choose to go, they are to follow. R’ Yisrael Salanter writes, “… as the carpenter steps on scraps of wood, and the glassblower on broken shards of glass, the mentor (or parent) similarly steps on the souls of those he mentors…” Naturally, a craftsman looks down on the unfinished, raw material of his trade. Likewise, a parent may relate to his/her child in the childrearing mode, and not as a separate independent being.
However, the Torah refers to chinuch as training. Training to do mitzvoth. Training to live a Torah life. The concept of child-rearing conveys dealing with children in the most efficient manner possible for the duration that the child remains in the parental household, with minimum amount of involvement on the part of the parent. Training, unlike childrearing, connotes the act of constant guidance, modeling and mentoring.
This one difference has so many ramifications. Childrearing methods or institutionalized education can have some effect upon a child even when s/he is not engaged fully. Just throw him or her in the back seat and buckle up. Training, on the other hand, can never be accomplished when there is reluctance on the part of the recipient. Although a child manipulated by his/her parent through reward for good behavior or punishment for bad conduct can show successful short-term improvement, it works rarely in achieving positive, long-term results. .
Besides creating an environment of love and warmth, proper chinuch/training can only be done where there is perceived trust – trust that the child feels important in the eyes of the parent (and mentor). Sincere listening to, validating of and empathizing with a child’s feelings may be the most powerful tool to achieve this. One can just imagine how much damage in the training relationship can be caused by not listening with full attention to a child when s/he would like to share something with the parent. A parent can, at least, say, “Now is not a good time but I would like to hear you out in a short while.” Listening, preferably ten minutes a day, strengthens the relationship of trust, resulting in a much better chance that the child will want to be trained by someone he now trusts.
The prerequisite to this first step in the actual training process is a parent’s self-improvement. Often, my rabbi would be confronted by parents who came for counseling about dealing with adolescents. Always, he would advise, at the outset, that the parents try strengthening themselves in that particular issue or area of life or Judaism with which they discern their offspring struggling.
Although parents, sometimes, must direct the child with commands, usually borne out of sheer frustration, the ideal approach is to enable and guide a child to think for themselves and to decide correctly what is his/her best course of action in any situation. I have heard many parents ask, “Am I a good parent?” A more constructive question to pose, one that will cause better results is, “How can I train my child to do a certain mitzvah or behave in accordance with certain values?” Of course, there will be areas where the child will pick up your intent passively. However, in harder areas for the child, the parent needs to ask him/herself not how to get the child to perform the desired act but how should I train the child to want to do the act.
After all, the way adults act and behave today is an outcome of how we were trained yesterday..
Yosef Farhi
IN LOVING MEMORY OF REUVEN BEN SARA AND CHANA BAT HENYA
To promote this article, receive it by email or regarding questions please contact us.
SHABBAT SHALOM rabbiyoseffarhi@gmail.com 0527161854
