I read the above quote in a Torah commentary by Rabbi Adam Greenwald of the Ziegler Rabbinical School in California.
I was really struck by this categorization of Bereishit, the Book of Genesis, and of course, I agree. Starting with Cain and Abel, and continuing through Joseph's relationship with his two sons, we indeed see that the Torah depicts love as a finite resource. Each person only has so much love, blessing, favor, and kindness to give, and once it's used up, it is gone. How can that be? What does the Torah mean by describing it this way, and how does Bereishit help shape how you and I view love today?
Our parashah this week, Tol'dot, is a prime example of the zero-sum game. Two parents, two children; each parent picks one kid to love, and Isaac, the father, has but one blessing to give to ONE son. The story is told so compellingly that we are tempted to argue over who is right and who is wrong. We pick sides. We defend.
And yet the saddest thing of all in this story is the heartbreaking premise that love is a shrinking commodity. We somehow accept that Isaac can love EITHER Esau OR Jacob, but clearly not both. Sure, many parents today will admit that they gravitate towards one child over another (or others). Yet surely ALL parents will also insist that when a second child is born, the heart seems to grow and develop new reservoirs of love, seemingly out of nowhere. Our ability to care is limitless; there is no maximum capacity. Furthermore, deepening one relationship can actually BENEFIT another, it does not detract. The incredible writer, Dan Savage, rails against the notion that it's selfish to spend time with a spouse, instead of devoting all time to one's children. Time and again, Savage says in his podcast (and I'm paraphrasing): "It is in your child's best interest to keep the two of you connected!" More love benefits everyone.
While this may sound so obvious, it is nevertheless difficult to implement. Rabbi Greenwald quotes Rabbi Lawrence Kushner, who, in his book Honey from the Rock, reinforces this same idea:
"Is this not the great childhood problem-- and therefore the great human problem: To learn that it is good for you when other people love other people besides you? That I have a stake in their love? That I get more when others give to others?" In my High Holiday sermons earlier this year, I focused on the concept of "Ahavah" - "Love," and how challenging it ACTUALLY is to bring more love into our lives. This is a great human problem. We do not feel that we have a stake in others' relationships, or that it benefits us generally when there is greater compassion, kindness, and care swirling around us. As hard as this is to learn, it behooves us all to make it a greater priority.
Bereishit, and it's emphasis on the zero-sum fallacy, demonstrates how damaging it can be to trivialize love. It has long-term repercussions and can be incredibly traumatizing. Isaac's treatment of his sons leads to Jacob's favoritism of Joseph. Joseph treats his own children the same way, and the cycle perpetuates generation after generation, l'Dor va'Dor. But we CAN change it,
we can alter the way we view love and relationships. But it must happen deliberately; no one is going to accidentally trip over a new style of parenting, or chance upon a new way of thinking about love. It takes hard work, and we're likely to fall back into old patterns, time and again. Nevertheless, this is an essential struggle. We owe it to our children, to our spouses, and to everyone we relate to on a daily basis. Love is decidedly NOT a zero-sum game, and I encourage you to examine ways in which you might still be treating it that way in your own life. And if indeed you are able to discover how you've been viewing it that way, I urge you to push yourself towards change. With Chanukah around the corner, we can borrow the image of candle lighting as a metaphor for love. When more is added, light and warmth are increased, and the original candle is in no way diminished. So too it is with Ahavah.
Photos in this blog post:
1. CC image courtesy of Daniel Case on Wikimedia Commons
2. CC image courtesy of Nevit on Wikimedia Commons
3. CC image courtesy of Kulshrax on Wikimedia Commons
4. CC image courtesy of Slick on Wikimedia Commons
No comments:
Post a Comment