Parshat Ki Tavo “Reshit- Beginning”

Parshat Ki Tavo 

“Reshit- Beginning”

Parashat Ki Tavo begins with the mitzvah of bringing first fruits to a centralized place of worship – later known as the Temple in Jerusalem. 

And it shall be when you come into the land which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, and possess it, and live in it. That you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the earth, which you shall bring of your land that the Lord your God gives you, and shall put it in a basket, and shall go to the place which the Lord your God shall choose to place his name there. (26:1,2)

The Taking of the first fruits and dedicating them to God is understood. The beginning of any venture has uniqueness, a special quality. The Torah mandates, that the first fruits be brought to Jerusalem where they will serve as an impetus for religious expression and experience, where thanks to God, may be expressed. The term used for the first fruits is “Reshit”,^[1] the term is similar to the word Bereishit – In the beginning – or genesis. 

Rashi commenting on the first verse in the Torah tells us that the Torah is itself is Reshit as are the people of Israel.^[2] All of these items have uniqueness to them and are therefore linked. There is however, something else that is called “Reshit” and this application is somewhat disturbing. 

And when he looked on Amalek, he took up his discourse, and said, Amalek was the first (Reshit) of the nations, but his latter end shall be that of everlasting perdition. Bamidbar 24:20

How can Amalek the very antithesis of Torah and Israel, deserve the same appellation? While the essence of the connection requires additional analysis, the use of the term “Reshit” for Amalek sheds light on the sequence of teachings and provides the link from the end of last week’s Parsha and the beginning of this week’s Parsha. This observation that Amalek too is called Reshit links two sections of the Torah which seemed thematically independent.

Remember what Amalek did to you by the way, when you came forth out of Egypt. How he met you by the way and struck at your rear, all who were feeble behind you, when you were faint and weary; and he did not fear God. Therefore it shall be, when the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies around, in the land which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance to possess, that you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget it. (25:17-19)

And it shall be when you come into the land which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, and possess it, and live in it. That you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the earth, which you shall bring of your land that the Lord your God gives you, and shall put it in a basket, and shall go to the place which the Lord your God shall choose to place his name there. (26:1,2)

The juxtaposition of teachings leads us to conclude that there must be a deeper relationship between the first fruits and Amalek the “first nation”. Rashi in his comments to last week’s Parsha gives three explanations to the insidiousness of Amalek. The Torah said, “How he met you by the way” “asher korcha”. Rashi explains korcha should be translated as “happened upon you”, indicating coincidence. One characteristic of Amalek is their worldview of existence without God; therefore all of life is coincidence.

When the Jews in the desert questioned God’s involvement in their lives – meaning that they questioned God’s existence they mirrored Amalek’s worldview and therefore became susceptible to the onslaught by Amalek.

And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the people of Israel, and because they tempted the Lord, saying, Is the Lord among us, or not? Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim. (Shmot 17:7,8)

The second explanation of Rashi is from the word “keri” which can also mean a “happening” but in this usage, the indication is a nocturnal emission. Indicating that it is Amalek which pollutes the world, and is the source of unnatural illegitimate pleasure.

The third explanation of Rashi is directly related to the idea of “Reshit”. After the exodus all nations were afraid of Israel, word of the plagues and the splitting of the sea spread and the other nations were in awe. Only Amalek was not afraid. The people of Israel were compared to a boiling cauldron, and Amalek jumped in to cool them off. Therefore according to this explanation, the word “KoRcha “comes from the word “Kar” – or cold. They cooled off the children of Israel by being the first to wage battle. In the words of the Zohar:

R. Yehuda said: ‘It is written, “Amalek is the first of the nations,  but his latter end shall be that he perish forever” (Num. XXIV, 20). Was, then, Amalek the first of the nations? Were there not many tribes, nations, and peoples in the world before Amalek came? But the meaning is that Amalek was the first nation who feared not to proclaim war against Israel, as it says, “and he feared not God” (Deut. 24:18); whilst the other nations were filled with fear and trembling before Israel at the time of the Exodus, as it says: “The peoples heard and were afraid; trembling took hold of the inhabitants of Pelesheth” (Ex. 15:14); in fact, apart from Amalek there was no nation that was not awestruck before the mighty works of the Holy One, blessed be He. Therefore “his latter end shall be that he perish for ever”.’  (Zohar, Shmot 65a)

We know of two non-Jews who hear of the Exodus Yitro and Amalek, however, the response of these two stand in stark contrast to one another. Yitro too heard of the amazing happenings and of the terrible punishment decreed for Amalek, made his way to Hebrew encampment. While Amalek desired to squelch any holiness in the world, Yitro wished to join the celebration. The Midrash explains the juxtaposition of the end of Bishalach and the beginning of Yitro:

For he said, Because the Lord has sworn that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation. (Shmot17:16) When Yitro, the priest of Midian, Moshe’ father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moshe, and for Israel his people, and that the Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt. (Shmot18:1)

Amalek and Yitro were of the advisers of Pharaoh; but when Yitro beheld that God had wiped out Amalek both from this world and the next, he felt remorse and repented, for first it says, For I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven (Ex. XVII, 14), and then NOW JETHRO... HEARD. Said he: ’The only thing for me to do is to join the God of Israel.’ (Midrash Rabbah - Exodus 27:6)

            

Significantly, the portion of Yitro contains the revelation – the giving of the Torah. The First fruits were brought to Jerusalem on the holiday of Shavuot – the day of the giving of the Torah. While the Torah and Israel represent one type of “Reshit” Amalek represents the antitheses, a completely different type of beginning. The Torah and Israel are a manifestation of God’s will - holiness on earth. Amalek represents the opposite, the rejection of God, a world view of coincidence, a pact with impurity and a desire to attack all that is holy.

Rashi (25:18) cites a tradition taught in the Midrash Tanchuma that when Amalek enjoyed a modicum of success they immediately severed the male sexual organ from their victims and threw them heavenward. The very idea of a covenant with God was foreign to them. The idea of holiness and chastity grated against them and caused this atrocious response. 

The battle against Amalek is both a physical and spiritual struggle. The Bikkurim – the first fruits - have a quality to them which allow the defeat of amalakian philosophy. The individual who sees his produce as the work of God, and gives proper thanks, rejects the worldview of coincidence. 

Immediately following the first fruit declaration the Torah continues:

This day the Lord your God has commanded you to do these statutes and judgments; you shall therefore keep and do them with all your heart, and with all your soul. (26:16)

Rashi explains the significance of the term “This day” in this context.

Every day should be new for you, as if on that day you were commanded [given the Torah]. (Rashi 26:16)

The ability of man to see himself in close proximity to God is the antidote to Amalek. If a person were able to visualize the revelation taking place each and every day, adherence to the word of God would be infinitely easier.^[3]

Amalek despite a well-earned reputation was not the first instigator against God. That distinction belongs to the original serpent in Eden.^[4] The serpent too tried to lead man toward an existence without God. The delusion which he tried to infect man with was the thought that man can be like God, and need not heed the word of God. Rav Nachman of Breslov^[5] added that wanton desire originates with Eve seeing the tree as being desirable. This is the same role which Amalek later fills. The serpent and Amalek are one. Each leads a rebellion against God, and is responsible for the spread of evil and the rejection of God.

It is quite significant that the sin in Eden consisted of eating the “first fruit”, therefore the Mitzvah of Bikkurim may be seen as an antidote of this sin.

In the aftermath of man’s expulsion from the Garden, man will now have to work by the sweat of his brow. Now despite the initial victory by the serpent and the perceived distance from God, man is called upon to find God through his labor.

Later on in history there lived two brothers, one was a man of the field, while the other remained in the tents. The realms seemed separate, the secular, and the Divine. Yaakov remained engaged in spiritual pursuits while his brother Esav was involved in the mundane. However, in this post-Eden world it was decreed that Yaakov become a man of the field as well. His task was to merge the spiritual and the secular. To take the mundane and elevate it into a spiritual context.

The descendent of Esav – Amalek continues his was against the spiritual. While the descendent of Yaakov, Israel attempt to merge the two worlds.

Now we may appreciate the mitzvah of Bikkurim – the first fruits, Israel enters the land, so close to fulfilling their destiny. The most crucial of questions emerge; will they follow the legacy of the serpent- of Amalek. Will they see the fruits of their labor independent of God? Or will they bring the fruits to Jerusalem part and parcel of their religious experience?

Understanding of this issue will shed light on another issue articulated in the Parasha. Later on the Parasha tells of the terrible calamities which will befall the people should they deviate from the word of God. The specific explanation offered by the Torah is:

Because you served not the Lord your God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things (28:47)

The terms for “abundance” and “all” are Rov and Kol respectively. These same terms are found in a fascinating discussion between Yaakov, and Esav. After becoming a man of the field Yaakov returns to Israel. He meets up with his estranged brother. Yaakov offers gifts to Esav – who declines saying that he has “Rov” an abundance. Yaakov for his part insists that he has everything “Kol”. 

And Esau said, I have enough, my brother; keep what you have to yourself. And Jacob said, No, I beg you, if now I have found grace in your sight, then receive my present from my hand; for therefore I have seen your face, as though I had seen the face of God, and you were pleased with me. Take, I beg you, my blessing that is brought to you; because God has dealt graciously with me, and because I have everything. And he urged him, and he took it. (Bereishit 33:9-11)

Rashi points out the difference in speech while Yaakov says that he has everything that he can imagine. Esav says merely that he has enough – indicating that he is well aware that there is more and he would like to possess it one day.

The Torah is telling us that when we fail to appreciate the gifts which God gives us, and instead we become fixated on acquiring more and more, we become like Esav. Ya’akov focuses on what he has and is satisfied. Esav focuses on what he does not have and is never satisfied. This is how Esav produces Amalek who represents misanthropy. When Israel becomes like Amalek then the stay in Israel will come to an end. 

Now we understand the significance of being satisfied with the Bikkurim the sanctification of the first fruits. Even though this is still the beginning of the season and hopefully more produce will follow. Even the first fruits should produce joy in the heart of the Jew. Realizing that all the bounty which we have comes from G-d. 

As we saw this took place on the holiday of Shavuot the day of the giving of the Torah. For our parts we need to view each day as if the Torah is new, fresh, given that day. This type of consciousness is the opposite of the worldview of the serpent and Amalek.

This was the trait of our forefathers. The Talmud connects the trait of “kol” with the taste of another world:

Our Rabbis taught: There were three to whom the Holy One, blessed be He, gave a foretaste of the future world while they were still in this world, to wit, Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. Avraham [we know] because it is written of him, [The Lord blessed Avraham] in all, Avraham, because it is written, [And I ate] of all; Yaakov, because it is written, [For I have] all. Three there were over whom the evil inclination had no dominion, to wit Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, [as we know] because it is written in connection with them, in all, of all, all. (Bava Batra 17a)

Because Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov saw themselves as privileged, as possessing all good, they had defeated the evil inclination, that wicked serpent had no power over them. They were able to taste the future world.

As the children of Israel prepare for their entrance to Land of Israel, they are given a strategy which will allow the stay to be enduring and meaningful. God provided the tools needed to create a society with a God consciousness. A society which will have tents of study and fields of labor. But no schism will exist between the two. God will be found in the fields marketplaces and study-halls. Every day revelation would be experienced. Holiness will permeate the streets and fields. This is what eradication of Amalek is all about. This is the goal of the Mitzva of the first fruits.

© 1999 Rabbi Ari Kahn, All Rights Reserved

---

[1] This term was used in the same context previously in Sh’mot 23:19.

[2] Midrash Rabbah Bereishit 1:1- IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED (I,1), BEGINNING (Reshit) referring to the Torah, as in the verse, The Lord made me as the beginning of His way (Prov. VIII, 22)

[3] See Sfat Emet Ki Tavo 1879

[4] Rav Zadok in Rissisay Layala section 31 says that Amalek is the source for all evil manifested in this world.

[5] Likutie Maharan tannina 8:1

ליקוטי מוהר"ן מהדורא תנינא סימן ח אות א 

וְזֶה בְּחִינַת: וַיִּשְׁמַע יִתְרוֹ – מַה שְּׁמוּעָה שָׁמַע וּבָא, קְרִיעַת יַם־סוּף וּמִלְחֶמֶת עֲמָלֵק (זבחים קטז). כִּי עֲמָלֵק טִמֵּא אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּפְגַם תַּאֲוַת נִאוּף, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב (דברים כה): אֲשֶׁר קָרְךָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ, בְּחִינַת מִקְרֵה־לַיְלָה, חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, שֶׁבָּא עַל־יְדֵי בְּחִינַת עֲמָלֵק. כִּי עֲמָלֵק יוֹנֵק מִבְּחִינַת הַדַּעַת, בִּבְחִינַת (במדבר כד): רֵאשִׁית גּוֹיִם עֲמָלֵק, שֶׁזֶּה בְּחִינַת: וְהַנָּחָשׁ הָיָה עָרוּם כַּנַּ"ל, שֶׁעַל־יְדֵי־זֶה בָּא, חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, טֻמְאַת הַתַּאֲוָה הַזֹּאת כַּנַּ"ל, וְזֶה בְּחִינַת מִלְחֶמֶת עֲמָלֵק. וְהַתִּקּוּן לָזֶה הוּא בְּחִינַת קְרִיעַת יַם־סוּף, בְּחִינַת: אַתָּה פוֹרַרְתָּ בְעָזְּךָ יָם, שִׁבַּרְתָּ רָאשֵׁי תַנִּינִים עַל הַמָּיִם. הַיְנוּ בְּחִינַת מַטֵּה עֹז הַנַּ"ל, שֶׁעַל־יְדֵי־זֶה מוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ מֵימֵי הַדַּעַת, שֶׁבָּלַע מִן הַקְּדֻשָּׁה כַּנַּ"ל. וְעַל־יְדֵי־זֶה: וַיִּשְׁמַע יִתְרוֹ, הַיְנוּ בְּחִינַת גֵּרִים, כִּי עַל־יְדֵי מַטֵּה עֹז הַנַּ"ל, שֶׁהוּא בְּחִינַת קְרִיעַת יַם־סוּף, בְּחִינַת אַתָּה פוֹרַרְתָּ בְעָזְּךָ יָם וְכוּ', שֶׁהוּא מְתַקֵּן וּמַכְנִיעַ מִלְחֶמֶת עֲמָלֵק כַּנַּ"ל, עַל־יְדֵי־זֶה נַעֲשִׂין גֵּרִים, בְּחִינַת וַיִּשְׁמַע יִתְרוֹ. כִּי מוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ גַּם עַצְמוּת חִיּוּתוֹ שֶׁהוּא בְּחִינַת גֵּרִים כַּנַּ"ל:

Parshat Ki Teitze - Dysfunctional Relationships

Dysfunctional Relationships

Parashat Ki Teitze starts with war and ends with war. It begins with a man in the heat of battle who spies an attractive woman from the opposing side, and ends with instructions regarding the ultimate battle with Amalek. In between, the portion is packed with commandments; in fact, more commandments are found in this parasha than any other.

Although tradition may discourage us from seeking out the reasons or rationale for mitzvot, here in Deuteronomy, we may glean insights into certain mitzvot from their context.¹ Thus, the Sages discerned a cause-and-effect relationship among the first three topics in the parasha: a beautiful wife, taken in battle, will lead to a situation in which a man has one favored wife and one whom he rejects, which in turn leads to the "rebellious son." ²

As the Sages see it, the rebellious child does not develop in a vacuum; he is the result of a dysfunctional home. This child's mother was wrested from her family and homeland. Her value system would surely be at odds with that of her Jewish husband. The dissonance felt by this child would most likely be the cause of his own antipathy to Jewish mores and tradition. Additionally, this child seems genetically challenged, as it were: The father practiced poor self-control and sought immediate gratification. Is it any wonder that this child cannot exercise self-restraint? ³

Interestingly enough, the Rabbis felt that there never was and never would be a "real" rebellious child.⁴ This is not to say that such a child never existed.⁵ Rather, the courts could never successfully prosecute and adjudicate such a case, due to the myriad conditions required for a conviction:⁶ One of the conditions for establishing guilt is that the rebellious son does not listen "to his father and to his mother":

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not listen to them. (Deuteronomy 21:18)

The Talmud explains that the rebellious child will only be guilty if both parents speak with one united voice:

MISHNAH. If his father desires [to have him punished], but not his mother, or the reverse, he is not treated as a 'stubborn and rebellious son', unless they both desire it. R. Yehudah said: 'If his mother is not fit for his father, he does not become a 'stubborn and rebellious son'.

GEMARA. What is meant by 'NOT FIT'? Shall we say that she is forbidden to him under penalty of extinction or capital punishment at the hand of Beth din; but after all, his father is his father, and his mother is his mother? - But he means not physically like his father. It has been taught likewise: R. Yehudah said: If his mother is not like his father in voice, appearance and stature, he does not become a rebellious son. Why so? - The Torah says, 'he will not obey our voice', and since they must be alike in voice, they must be also in appearance and stature. With whom does the following Baraitha agree: There never has been a stubborn and rebellious son, and never will be. Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 71a

The Talmud understood that the conditions for convicting a person as a 'rebellious child' are many, including, quite literally, that both parents have the same voice. The Mishna understood this stipulation more figuratively, in a manner surprisingly similar to our current ideas of effective parenting: The parents must be of one voice, not in pitch and cadence, but in content. The Mishna effectively turns the focus of scrutiny away from the rebellious child, and focuses on the parents and the messages this child received from them over the years. As a result, the child who is most likely to be rebellious due to the fractured home life, would be the very child whom the law exonerates of responsibility - not because he doesn't warrant punishment,⁷ but because he is not seen as necessarily responsible for his actions. In the Talmudic formulation, the child gets off on a technicality: his parents' lack of physical similarity. In the Mishnaic formulation, the child is spared because of the gap between the parents' worldviews, religious and otherwise, and their failure to effectively parent their offspring.

The theme of relationships - how to build them, how to keep them intact, and how to heal them in the event that they are damaged - can be seen as the overriding theme of the parsha. This parsha treats such diverse but related topics as marriage, divorce, rape, prostitution, and even cross-dressing. Drawing a line of thought between the particulars may help us gain insight into the larger theme.

In one particular case, a very strict limitation is placed upon interpersonal relationships. In a departure from what we have come to expect in this parsha, we need not exert ourselves in an examination of the context in order to discern some reason for the prohibition; the Torah explains the prohibition in a clear statement of rationale:

An Ammonite or Moavite shall not enter into the Congregation of God; to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the Congregation of God forever; Because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came out of Egypt; and because they hired against you Bil'am the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you. Nevertheless the Almighty, your God, would not listen to Bil'am; but the Almighty, your God, turned the curse into a blessing to you, because the Almighty your God loved you. You shall not seek their peace nor their prosperity all your days forever. (Deuteronomy 23:4-7)

Amon and Moav were raised in a strange family unit: they were both the products of incest. Their mothers were sisters who got their father drunk, and seduced him in his stupor.

And Lot went up out of Zoar, and lived in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to live in Zoar; and he lived in a cave, he and his two daughters. And the firstborn said to the younger, 'Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth; Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve the seed of our father.' And they made their father drink wine that night; and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the next day, that the firstborn said to the younger, 'Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine this night also; and you go in, and lie with him, that we may preserve the seed of our father.' And they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. And the firstborn bore a son, and called his name Moav; he is the father of the Moavites to this day. And the younger, she also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites to this day. (Bereishit 19:30-38)

Lot, the ne'er-do-well nephew of the illustrious Avraham, saw his world crumble around him. His first tragic mistake was taking leave of Avraham: His status as the heir apparent of Avraham's fortune should have placated him, and smoothed over any ill will that had developed between the shepherds of his flocks and Avraham's shepherds. Avraham, known for his delight in taking in strangers, realized that there was only one solution for the conflict, and suggested a parting of the ways:

And there was strife between the herdsmen of Avram's cattle and the herdsmen of Lot's cattle; and the Canaanite and the Perizzite lived then in the land. And Avram said to Lot, 'Let there be no strife, I beg you, between me and you, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen; for we are brothers. Is not the whole land before you? Separate yourself, I beg you, from me; if you will take the left, then I will go to the right; or if you depart to the right, then I will go to the left. (Bereishit 13:7-9)

Avraham speaks of "left and right," normally understood as north and south, yet Lot travels eastward, to a place that reminds him of Egypt, which in itself was not known for its morality: He travels to Sodom.

And Lot lifted up his eyes, and saw the valley of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere, before God destroyed Sodom and Amorrah, like the garden of God, like the land of Egypt, as you come to Zoar. Then Lot chose for himself the valley of the Jordan; and Lot journeyed east, and they separated themselves, one from the other. Avram lived in the land of Canaan, and Lot lived in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent toward Sodom. But the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinners before God. (Genesis 13:10-13)

There is something terribly wrong with a person who would leave the tent of Avraham and choose a place like Sodom. Sodom looked to him like an oasis; surely, Lot was motivated by aspirations of wealth and power. But soon Sodom was destroyed, his home gone, and even his wife was lost. He escaped with only the clothes on his back and his two daughters, products of the Sodomite educational system. These daughters each present Lot with sons, Moav and Amon, each of whom are progenitors of great nations.

These sons enter the world with a stigma: Their father/grandfather has made countless bad decisions, and their mothers instigated incest with their own father. It is not hard to surmise how such children would have felt: hurt, angry, disenfranchised, full of resentment. Yet the Torah teaches a remarkable lesson: These nations are forbidden to the Jewish people; descendents of Amon and Moav are not to be accepted as converts to Judaism. But why? Not because they are genetically inferior, or racially tainted, but "because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came out of Egypt; and because they hired against you Bil'am the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you."

The second half of the verse is understandable: They conspired to curse the Jews, reason enough for maintaining a healthy distance. Moreover, the "Plan B" tactic employed by Amon and Moav in their quest to destroy Israel was even more telling: The daughters of Moav were sent to seduce the men of Israel.⁸ Given the history and origins of these nations, we begin to understand that their basic character has not changed. This, too, could have been a valid reason for excluding them from the Congregation for all time. But this deeply disturbing incident is not cited in our parsha. Rather, it is their failure to greet us in the desert with food and drink that illustrates their unsavory character.

Why would we expect Moav to live up to this highly elevated moral standard? We can only assume that the answer lies in their forefather Lot's background: Lot grew up in Avraham's tent. Despite Lot's possible feelings of abandonment, despite Moav and Amon's feelings of rejection, despite the dysfunctional family that produced Moav and Amon, they should have known better, and behaved as any relative of Avraham knew was the proper way to deal with others - certainly with relatives. They are expected to behave as Avraham would have, to greet travelers with food and drink. In this instance, the Torah is unforgiving. We are not meant to summon up "understanding" or "empathy" for those who are products of a dysfunctional home, children born of twisted relationships, the products of incest who may have suffered ridicule, who could have blamed their parents for all their problems. The Torah rules that a positive educational message should have filtered through, and not only the negative feelings of resentment and anger. Despite their origins and upbringing, the descendents of Lot should have performed kindness.

The lesson for all of us is unavoidable: Human beings - children and adults -are often tempted to blame others for their own shortcomings, but the Torah does not allow us to place the blame with our upbringing, our parents or ancestors, or other situations beyond our control. Every human being has Free Will; this means that, along with any negative experiences, there are positive lessons that each of us may have learned from the challenges in our past. The responsible individual must choose to reject the negative and distill positive lessons from any given experience. Cycles of abuse and pain can and must be broken, as the case of Amon and Moav illustrates: Even many generations down the line, we have the right to expect moral behavior on the part of Lot's descendents. Despite Lot's many failings, despite the challenging background and difficult life-experiences of his descendents, God has expectations of those raised in the Tent of Avraham. Amon and Moav, as descendents of Lot, had so many positive lessons to learn. They were punished for choosing to focus on their own feelings of disenfranchisement, their experiences of cruelty and selfishness, their own anger and sense of fatalistic doom. For their choices, and not for their history, they are forever banned from the Congregation of God.

The case of the rebellious son teaches us that even though the trajectory of this human tragedy can be anticipated, and the law will exculpate the child, it is ultimately his own choices, his own use of Free Will, that will either uplift him or cause him to crash.

Each and every one of us, emotional scars and personal failures notwithstanding, is called upon by the laws of the Torah to make a similar choice. We are reminded, through the unlikely example of Amon and Moav, that we are all descendants of someone who grew up in the tents of Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivka, Ya'akov, Rachel and Leah. There is greatness within our collective memory, and therefore within our abilities and our selves. Focusing on anger and failure can easily develop into self-fulfilling, negative prophesies, leading down the path to the "rebellious son", to fractured homes and decimated communities. Alternatively, we can each make the conscious choice to learn positive lessons from our negative experiences, and raise ourselves as individuals and families to the higher moral ground prepared for us by our ancestors.

NOTES

1. See Talmud Bavli Yevamot 4a.

2. See the comments of Rashi 21:11.

3. See comments of the Ibn Ezra Devarim 21:18.

4. Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin: There never has been a stubborn and rebellious son, and never will be. Why then was the law written? That you may study it and receive reward.

5. The Talmud op. cit. relates that the grave of such a child was seen by Rav Yochanan: "R. Jonathan said: I saw him and sat on his grave."

6. See Toldot Yitzchak Devarim 21:18.

7. This child himself is not punished for what he has done, rather it is anticipated how this child will continue to degenerate morally if he continues upon the same trajectory. Mishnah: A stubborn and rebellious son is tried on account of his ultimate destiny: let him die innocent and let him not die guilty.

8. Bamidbar 25:1.