Summary of Torah Portion - December 10, 2022 / 16 Kislev 5783 - by ReformJudaism.org
- Jacob prepares to meet Esau. He wrestles with a "man," who changes Jacob's name to Israel. (32:4-33)
- Jacob and Esau meet and part peacefully, each going his separate way. (33:1-17)
- Dinah is raped by Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite, who was chief of the country. Jacob's sons Simeon and Levi take revenge by murdering all the males of Shechem, and Jacob's other sons join them in plundering the city. (34:1-31)
- Rachel dies giving birth to Benjamin and is buried in Ephrah, which is present-day Bethlehem. (35:16-21)
- Isaac dies and is buried in Hebron. Jacob's and Esau's progeny are listed. (35:22-36:43)
Kushiyot? What are are the difficulties of this text? (Grammatical? Theological? Moral? Literary?)
How did this happen to Dinah? What did she do?
And it is written: And went into the house and leaned his hand on the wall, And a serpent bit him. And when Yaacov arrives to his property in Eretz Canaan, the snake bit him. And how is this snake? Shchem Ben Hamor! For the daughter of Yaakov dwelled in tents and would not go outside.
What did Shechem do? He brought (female) drummers outside of her tent and when they drummed, Dina went out to see "the daughters of the land" (these drummers). It was at this moment that Shchem stole her and slept with her...
{...}וספר הכתוב שיצאה דינה בת לאה אשר ילדה ליעקב לא לספר בגנותה שהיתה יצאנית בת יצאנית כדברי רש"י כי הנה לאה צנועה היתה עד שלצניעותה לא הכירה יעקב כשבא אליה. ומה שיצאה ליעקב לאמר אלי תבא וגו' אל פתח ביתה יצאה ולשם שמים נתכונה אבל הכתוב הזה בא לספר שבחה של דינה שלא קרה לה זה להיותה יצאנית בטבעה כי היא היתה בת לאה המלומדת לשבת בית כי רחל היתה רועה את הצאן ולאה לא היתה יוצאת החוצה. גם מפאת אביה שהיתה בת יעקב יושב אוהלים ואם היה אביה צנוע כל שכן בתו וזה מורה שלא יצאה לכוונה רעה חלילה אלא לראות בבנות הארץ לא אמר באנשי העיר וגם לא בבני העיר אלא בבנות העיר ר"ל לראות בבנות העיר במלבושיהן ותכשיטיהן יען לא היה בבית יעקב שום נערה בלתה והיא רצתה ללמוד מנערות העיר כדרך הבתולות והותרה עם מה שפירשתי השאלה הד'. ואין ספק שלא יצאה דינה יחידה לבדה מבלי חברת איש או אשה עם היות שלא זכרו הכתוב להיותו דבר מבואר בעצמו וכמ"ש ויצא משה לקראת חותנו וידוע שלא יצא הוא לבדו אבל אמר הכתוב וירא אותה שכם בן חמור החוי נשיא הארץ להגיד שלהיותו בן נשיא הארץ בחזקה עשה זה ולא חשש למי שבא עם דינה ולא יירא מיעקב ובניו.
{...}The Torah does not bring the phrase "and Dina came out" to criticize Dina as a "self-exposing daughter of a self-exposer; like mother, like daughter" as Rashi z"l has. Leah was a modest woman, to the point that Yaakov did not see anything until the moment he came to her. And the "Leah went out" really means that she went out just to the door of her tent and she went out joyfully and with holy intent to greet her husband Yaakov and from that came the birth of Yissachar, the tribe of modest Torah teachers. Also, one cannot say that she is called "daughter of Leah" as a criticism of her nature being of "self-exposing", since Leah was taught to stay in the tents, and Rachel was the one out with the sheep. And from Yaakov himself was known to be a modest person, hiding in the tents of scholars, and if he was modest like this, all the more his daughter. The intent wasnot for anything bad, as the text says "daughters of the town" and not sons of the town. Dina had no sisters, being the only maiden in the house and so she went out to see how the girls of the town dressed and used jewelry, and this explains our fourth question. And there is no doubt that she did not went out by herself, without the company of a man or a woman, and this is implied, just as the scripture has regarding Moses, that he went out to meet his father-in-law, and obviously he did not go alone. The text describes that Shechem was "the son of Chamor the Hivite, the prince of the land" to make sure that we understand that being the prince of the land he used force, and had no fear of those who were with Dinah or of the sons of Yaakov.
Yalkut Shimoni
When one has a pound of meat and he exposes it, that is when the birds snatch it from you. In this way did Dinah the daughter of Leah go out and Shechem saw her.
(ה) וענין ותצא דינה למדך שיצאה מקושטת כשם שיצאה לאה אמה שהזכיר בה הכתוב (בראשית ל) ותצא לאה לקראתו. כלומר יצאנית בת יצאנית. והכתוב מגנה את האשה כשהיא יצאנית, הוא שכתוב (משלי ז) הומיה היא וסוררת בביתה לא ישכנו רגליה, פעם בחוץ פעם ברחובות, אבל כשהיא צנועה ועומדת בביתה הכתוב משבחה שנאמר (תהלים מה) כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה, וכן כתוב בשרה אמנו (בראשית יח) הנה באהל.
(5) The reason the Torah describes Dinah as ”Dinah the daughter of Leah went out,” when we all know she was Leah’s daughter is because she was trying to attract attention to herself; she had bedecked herself (Bereshit Rabbah 80,1). She proved to be a true daughter of her mother who had also attracted attention to herself by leaving her tent as we have been told in 30,16. Scripture is critical of women who leave the security and modest environment of their homes unnecessarily. Solomon wrote in Proverbs 7,11-12 “She is loud and rebellious, her feet would not stay home. Now outside, now in the streets, she lurks at every corner.” David had written about a woman who stays at home. that “the true measure of a princess is found in the fact that she remains indoors.” (Psalms 45,14) When the angels asked Avraham where Sarah was, he answered: “here she is in the tent (Genesis 18,9).”
(א) הפקר. דק"ל דלא נקראת זונה אלא מי שמפקרת עצמה לזנות לכל אדם וא"כ למה כתיב הכזונה יעשה היאך יכול הוא לעשותה זונה כיון שהיא אינה מפקרת עצמה לכך מפרש הפקר ר"ל שעשה כאילו היא הפקר:
(1) Abandoned. Rashi is answering the question: Only a woman who willingly abandons herself to relations with any man is called a harlot. If so, how could Shechem possibly make her a harlot, when she did not willingly abandon herself? Thus Rashi explains [that here it means] “abandoned.” I.e., Shechem acted as if she was [property that has been] abandoned.
(1) ותצא דינה בת לאה, “Dinah, Leah’s daughter went out, etc.” What happened to Dinah was a punishment for Yaakov for several misdemeanours. Firstly, he had said to Lavan (30,33) “let my integrity testify for me in the future.” Secondly, he was punished for denying Esau a glimpse of Dinah, for maybe she could have exercised a beneficial influence on him if he ha d married her. Thirdly, he was arrogant in assuming authority on earth as indicated by the name he gave the altar. According to Bereshit Rabbah, G’d told him: “never praise yourself with something that is in the future.” You have said: “let my integrity testify for me in the future. Tomorrow your daughter will leave her house and she will be raped.” [The implication is that if he had seen to it that she was properly chaperoned this could not have happened. Ed.] (2) Furthermore, the Torah had reported (32,23) “he took his two wives and his maid-servants and his eleven children and presented them to Esau.” Where was Dinah? The report in the Torah alerts us to the fact that Yaakov had hidden Dinah in a box so that Esau would not become aware of her. G’d said to Yaakov: “because you did not make an effort for her to be married to a circumcised male she will become married to an uncircumcised male. Not only that, but she will be raped first.” (3) Another criticism of Yaakov mentioned in the Midrash in the name of G’d is the fact that he had assigned G’d sovereignty in the heavens whereas arrogating to himself something parallel in the terrestrial spheres as we explained in connection with his naming the altar. G’d said to him: “even the reader in the synagogue does not arrogate to himself the right to act on behalf of the congregants. He waits for an invitation by the congregation to act on their behalf. Tomorrow your daughter will be raped.” (4) The reason this punishment followed the misdemeanour so promptly was because Yaakov had spoken to G’d in a somewhat provocative manner. (5) The reason the Torah describes Dinah as ”Dinah the daughter of Leah went out,” when we all know she was Leah’s daughter is because she was trying to attract attention to herself; she had bedecked herself (Bereshit Rabbah 80,1). She proved to be a true daughter of her mother who had also attracted attention to herself by leaving her tent as we have been told in 30,16. Scripture is critical of women who leave the security and modest environment of their homes unnecessarily. Solomon wrote in Proverbs 7,11-12 “She is loud and rebellious, her feet would not stay home. Now outside, now in the streets, she lurks at every corner.” David had written about a woman who stays at home. that “the true measure of a princess is found in the fact that she remains indoors.” (Psalms 45,14) When the angels asked Avraham where Sarah was, he answered: “here she is in the tent (Genesis 18,9).”
(2) According to Midrash Tanchuma Vayeshev 6, the above words are an illustration of why Solomon warned in Kohelet 7,26: “and I have discovered that a woman whose heart is snares and nets is worse than death.” Rabbi Yehudah son of Shalom added: “there is no worse cause of sin than woman; whereas we find that three thousand Jewish males were slain for having worshipped the golden calf, (Exodus 32,28), twenty-four thousand Jewish males were killed due to the seduction by the Mobaite and Midianite women reported in Numbers 28,9”. What is the meaning of the words אסורים ידיה “her hands are tied?” If G’d had not tied woman’s hands she would accost man in the marketplace demanding that he have carnal relations with her. Kohelet continues by saying that “he who is pleasing to G’d will escape the machinations of such a woman whereas the sinner will be trapped by her.” The “man pleasing to G’d” is a reference to Joseph who escaped the wife of Potiphar, where the “sinner” is a reference to Zimri, prince of the tribe of Shimon, who slept with Cosbi the Midianite during the encounter described in Numbers.
When G’d created Chavah, (first woman) He had said to Himself: “which part of Adam shall I use to make into woman? If I use the head she will be of haughty spirit. If I use Adam’s eyes as raw material she will possess insatiable curiosity. If I create her from part of Adam’s mouth she will babble interminably. If I construct her out of part of Adam’s ear, she will turn out to be extremely inquisitive. If I create her out of Adam’s hands, she may turn out to be a thief, whereas if I construct her from part of Adam’s legs, she will constantly roam outside her house. What did G’d do? He formed Chavah from the rib, a place well hidden from Adam’s exterior so that she would be chaste and remain primarily indoors. In spite of the fact that G’d took care not to construct Chavah from one of the organs which would made her prone to the afore-mentioned character weaknesses, we find that she possessed these weaknesses after all. She is described as haughty in Isaiah 3 16, “because the daughters of Zion are so vain and walk with their heads thrown back, with roving eyes, and with mincing gait, etc.” Although G’d did not use part of Adam’s eyes as raw material from which to form Chavah we still find that she was insatiably curious as the prophet records her as possessing “roving eyes.” We also find that the Torah writes (Genesis 3,6) “the woman saw that the tree was good to eat and alluring for the eyes.” Even though G’d did not utilise any of Adam’s hands to create woman she still became a thief as the Torah writes (Genesis 30,15) “Rachel stole the teraphim.” Even though G’d did not use any part of Adam’s ears in order to make Chavah, she became unduly curious as we know from Sarah who is reported as listening to the conversation between Avraham and the angels “at the entrance to the tent” in Genesis 18,10. Even though G’d also did not use any part of Adam’s legs or feet to make Chavah, she still developed the tendency to roam outside her home as we know from Dinah, the daughter of Yaakov and Leah of whom the Torah reports that “she went out to look around amongst the girls of the country”’ (Genesis 34,1). Dinah’s mother Leah has also been described as leaving her home needlessly when the Torah writes (Genesis 30,15) “Leah went out, etc.” We know that Leah was babbling when the Torah describes her as accusing her sister Rachel of taking her husband away from her (Genesis 30,15), an accusation which was quite unwarranted. All this happened although G’d had not made Chavah from any part of Adam’s mouth.
How did Dinah feel?
{...} (ב) אומר אני שבשבח הנערה הכתוב מדבר שלא היתה בלבה מחשבה פוסלת ביציאה זו ושלא יצאת ממחיצת אביה ואמה נבקש דבר רע אלא שנתכוונה לדבר אחד ונזדמנה לה זאת התלאה. והעד מוכיח באומרו ויקח אותה וישכב אותה ויענה. (ב) לומר שלא היה לרצון לא בתחלה ולא בסוף כמו שיקרה בקצת האנוסות שתחלתן באונס וסופן ברצון. ואמרו בגמ' (כתובות נ"א:) מ"ט יצר אלבשה: וירא אותה שכם בן חמור החוי נשיא הארץ לכבודו של יעקב אבינו ייחס אותו כן: ויקח אותה וישכב אותה ויענה. (ב) הגיד הכתוב שלש פעולות אלו למה שהם שלשה גנאים מתחלפים הנופלים בדבר זה. האחד הוא הקלון המגיע אל אביה ואל אחיה ולכל משפחתה בהלקח מאתם נערה זו בלא רשותם ואפילו לשם נישואים. והשני הפגם שמגיע אל הנערה עצמה במה שנפגמה מהיות עוד עליה חן הבתולות. והשלישי הצער המגיע לה במה שהוכרחה שלא כרצונה. ומטעם הראשון חייבה תורה האונס בדמי הבושת. מטעם השני בדמי פגם. ומטעם השלישי חייבה תורה בצער (שם ל"ט.) ועל הראשון אמר (ב) ויקח אותה כי הלקיחה לבדה בלא רשות והסכמת אביה וקרוביה היא אשמה רבה וקלון אליהם. ועל השני אמר וישכב אותה. שכיון ששכבה תשאר פגומה ושנואה. ועל השלישי אמר ויענה והוא מבואר: ותדבק נפשו בדינה בת יעקב וכו'. (ב) הגיד הכתוב כי לא נפגמה הנערה הזאת בעיניו בשום אחד מאלו הענינים. ועל פגם משפחתה אמר שנדבקה נפשו בדינה בת יעקב כי כבוד בית אביה ותפארת משפחתה הנה עמד בעיניו. ועל פגם גופה אמר ויאהב את הנערה כי היתה חשובה אליו כבתחלה ולא קרה לה כמקרה אמנן (ש"ב י"ג). ועל צערה דבר על לבה דברים טובים כשישלם לה שכר גדול וייטיב עמה ועם אביה ואחיה טובות גדולות תחת אשר ענה.
{...}(2) A The reference to Dinah being a daughter of Leah is undoubtedly complimentary. The Torah, by referring to her ancestry, emphasizes that she had nothing but the best of intentions, that her excursion did not indicate a departure from traditional Jewish conduct. The repetition of the three expressions "He took her, he lay with her, he forced her" indicate that she remained uncooperative during all three phases of what is being described; she did not weaken in her resistance in any way. B The reason three actions are mentioned is because Jacob's family suffered three indignities: A) The shame suffered by the whole family; B) The damage done to the girl's innocence and the loss of her virginity; C) The physical pain caused Dinah when she had to submit to violence. The punishment for the first of these indignities prescribed by the Torah is boshet, compensation in financial terms. The second indignity which reduced Dinah's value as a prospective bride in the compensation for the victim. It is noteworthy that Dinah did not lose her appeal for Shechem on account of any of the indignities he had heaped upon her. "He cleaved to the daughter of Jacob" (34,3). The family of Jacob had not become sullied in his eyes; he loved her just as before (not like Amnon who lost all his desire for Tamar once he had raped her). Shechem tried to talk softly to Dinah's heart to help her recover from her pain.
(1) וישכב אותה ויענה, “he slept with her and subsequently abused her.” According to Rashi the word וישכב describes normal intercourse, whereas the word ויענהdescribes a more perverted method of sexual intercourse. Ibn Ezra understands the word ויענה as describing the pain involved in her having intercourse as she had been a virgin. Nachmanides writes that there is no need for all these explanations, seeing that any intercourse in which the woman is being raped is described in the Bible as עינוי, i.e. that is the meaning of the word ויעניה. In this instance, intercourse by mutual consent appears to have preceded the rape. The opposite was the case in the rape of Tamar by her half-brother Amnon. (Samuel II 13). There the rape is mentioned before the sexual intercourse. Some commentators suggest that Dinah had first been seduced, whereas Amnon never bothered to seduce Tamar.
Where are we now with this troubling text?
It’s not hard to see why most Jewish educators aren’t clamoring to teach this bloody, morally complicated episode, one with no clear-cut good guy or bad guy. Dinah’s brothers, the heroic avengers, give up their moral high ground, not only through the mass homicide, but also by taking the newly widowed wives as captives afterwards. Shechem, originally a criminal, is by the end of the story, a lovelorn, empathetic victim. Jacob is spineless and silent. And unlike most Torah stories, where God tells us directly what is right or wrong, in this one, God never speaks up.
There are a number of interpretations of this vexing story. In classic victim blaming style, early rabbinic sources condemned Dinah for going to see the Canaanite women in the first place. Later commenters, like Diamant, ignore the rape itself, reading it as a story of star-crossed lovers instead of one of abuse and vengeance. Many focus on the brothers’ crimes instead of Shechem’s.
In my view, God’s silence is the biggest question here, as well as the answer. God, normally the Almighty Judge, the Smiter of Sinners, has nothing to say on the rape, the massacre, or the fact that the brothers’ plan hinged on twisting one of Judaism’s most sacred mitzvot, the brit milah, to serve their own diabolical ends. In that silence I read tacit approval.
Despite God’s reticence, the Torah’s narration clearly condemns rape, describing it as a “vile deed” and “defilement,” even though it never provides similar commentary on the circumcision-through-deception or mass murder. Although the general consensus is that vile deed notwithstanding, Jacob’s sons did a terrible thing, I would like to posit another theory: by wreaking havoc on the Canaanites, Jacob’s sons were condemning rape culture that allowed their own sister’s assault. And, God is fine with this.
Though we no longer condone murdering an entire town for the acts of one, we do still believe that “it takes a village,” and hold entire towns responsible for the failures of a few. The Torah, it appears to me, agrees with this stance...
Just as God’s silence allowed for rabbinical victim blaming and misplaced empathy for the story’s wrongdoers, the lack of leadership on changing rape culture allows some to claim there’s no no real systemic problem at all. And sadly, victims’ voices, like Dinah’s, all too often get washed away in the ensuing aftermath and uproar.
But that’s why, despite its flaws, complexities and misguided interpretations, we need to read this story as both the Torah’s condemnation of rape, as well as its willingness to hold responsible the people who allow a culture to evolve where rape is acceptable. God may not wield the gavel here but as the translation of Dinah’s name suggests, judgment was still rendered.
Deena Shanker - the Forward
...Dinah is barely present in this narrative. She never speaks and acts only once when she goes out, in 34:1. Thereafter, she is referred to only as an object. After the brothers appear, she is only mentioned by name one time between verses 6 and 25. Beyond Genesis 34, she is something less than a character. She is reported as the last of the children born to Leah, but no other information is given beyond her name. In contrast, the naming of her brothers includes explanations of the meanings of their names. From the beginning, she seems to be an afterthought. After chapter 34, she is only mentioned again in the genealogy in Genesis 46:15.
At first glance, the story appears to be one in which the brothers avenge the honor of their sister, especially because their father’s response is tepid at best. The men in the story—Jacob, her brothers, Shechem, and Hamor—move around her, and act for and against Dinah, rendering her more of a prop than a character. But what is she propping up? The brothers’ actions, using the sign of the covenant as an excuse and a weapon (the command of circumcision given to Abraham not 20 chapters ago) to massacre the men of the entire town, are extreme. But they had an alternative. They could have conceded to Shechem’s request and married their sister to him, supported by the ancient social convention that allowed for a restoration of a virgin’s honor (see Deut. 22:28–29). The rejection of Shechem demonstrates that the brothers were not concerned with their sister and her honor, but rather with the implications of the marriage alliance. Hamor suggests (and his men agree) that they intermarry, become as one people, share their land, property, and livestock. In doing so, he offers to erase any differences between the two peoples, even physical ones (i.e., circumcision). In the brothers’ minds, the offense is his suggestion of intermarriage, rather than Shechem’s sex with Dinah. The brothers reject the alliance and see the threat to their uniqueness as a people as a declaration of war or worse, as trying to turn them toward idol worship.[3] Dinah and what happens to her are a narrative excuse to make this point.
I’m not sure that I can answer the question of why this story is included among the Genesis narratives. Nevertheless, I offer the following proposal for how we might read it productively. We should not hold up the brothers as heroes, despite the readings offered by some Second Temple literature, which grant Simeon and Levi divine and eternal rewards (Testament of Levi, Jubilees 30), while indicting Jacob for not protecting his family and willingness to exchange his daughter for financial gain. This is the accusation of the text in the brothers’ closing words, “Should our sister be treated like a whore?” (Gen. 34:31). We should not devalue the story by saying “that’s the way it was back then” (by then I mean the context depicted in the narrative and the historical context of composition), accepting that the story of Dinah was set in a historical context in which women were regarded frequently as objects and did not have their own sexual autonomy. “That’s the way it was back then” does not need to be apologetic but instead can be empowering. We can highlight where we can identify patriarchy in the text—in a narrative that does not care about the feelings and trauma of its daughter, who is silenced by the men around her and the text itself. Reading this story publicly each year, even if it challenges us to wonder why it is included, reminds us that the worlds described in the Torah are not necessarily the worlds that we want to inhabit. Instead, we should strive to inhabit a world in which we listen to the voices of victims, in which we deal honestly, and in which we use our identity with pride and do not wield it as a weapon of destruction.
- Dr. Alison Joseph
By being denied the opportunity to share her experiences with her family and community, by being faced only with social disgrace, devaluation, and shame, Dinah suffers perpetually the fate of the silenced rape victim, isolated, stigmatised, and deprived of a supportive audience.
Caroline Blyth
Why is Jacob silent?
In traumatic events, and particularly rape, there can also be secondary victims. Researchers note that, following a sexual assault, family and friends may experience emotional distress, including shock, helplessness, and rage, which can parallel the response of the victim. They too may feel violated, guilty, devalued, and may engage in self-blame. As Herman chillingly formulates, "witnesses as well as victims are subject to the dialectic of trauma…it is even more difficult to find a language that conveys fully and persuasively what one has seen. Those who attempt to describe the atrocities that they have witnessed also risk their own credibility. To speak publicly about one’s knowledge of atrocities is to invite the stigma that attaches to victims."
Jacob has no power, no ability to act, and few options... In many ways, Jacob mirrors Dinah; his silence is also her silence. As his sons negotiate on Dinah’s behalf, they are also negotiating for Jacob. Perhaps like Dinah, Jacob is shocked into silence by the violence committed against his daughter.
The story in Gen. 34 ends with Dinah’s silence, and with Jacob’s. A silence which too often accompanies the victims of violent crimes and their families.
Ari Silberman
What became of Dinah after the events of Genesis 34 - As in so many instances, what the Torah did not see fit to relate, the rabbis later imagined and expanded and elucidated through the process of midrash. According to one tradition, related in Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer and further elaborated on by later commentators, Dinah became pregnant by Shekhem, and gave birth to a daughter. The child, however, was to Dinah's brothers a constant, shameful reminder of the events that had
led to her birth (and their role in the events which followed), and they thus sought to kill her. Jacob saved her by placing a protective amulet around her neck, and she was transported by the angel Michael to Egypt. There she was adopted by a childless Egyptian priest - that is, she is one and the same as "Asenat daughter of Potiphera, priest of On" (Genesis
41:45) - eventually becoming the wife of her uncle Joseph (the rabbis actually heartily approved of such inter-family matches) who recognized her as his kin because of her amulet. Asenat is the mother of Efraim and Menasheh. And according to this midrashic version of events, then, Dinah is their grandmother, and like her brothers stands among the progenitors of the tribes of Israel - indeed, is restored to our sacred ancestry twice over, since her grandsons generate not one but two of the
eventual tribes of Israel. "So Dinah is doubly blessed" (Frankel, 71).
To which I would add: If we accept this midrash into our sacred narrative, we can also see Dinah as achieving a much needed
reconciliation within the Israelite family. This family is one that is regularly described in Genesis as divided, wife against husband, wife against wife, sibling against sibling. Jacob, whose parents (and grandparents) played favorites among their children continues the pattern himself, favoring Rachel over Leah (and both over Bilhah and Zilpah; see 33:2), and (as a consequence) the children of one over the children of the other(s). But when we restore Dinah as the (grand)mother of two of our tribes, Leah (as Asenat's grandmother) reunites with Rachel (as Joseph's mother) and together, through Dinah,
the sisters produce Efraim and Menashah - the two siblings in Genesis who are not ever depicted as being in conflict with each other.
May we strive towards a sacred narrative in which all have a voice, and in doing so, may we find a measure of justice and reconciliation for all who need it in our broken world.
Rabbi Laurie Rice