Timeless Torah

The story line is so twisted, it would boggle the imagination of a soap opera writer. Indeed, the convoluted plot lends veracity to the adage, “Truth is stranger than fiction.”

It all begins with a woman named Tommie Granville. Her first marriage had produced three children and one divorce. Soon afterwards Brad Troxel entered her life and they moved in with each other. Two girls, Natalie and Isabelle were born, but it was far from a happy family. Predictably, Tommie and Brad separated. Unpredictably, Brad committed suicide.

The two young girls were often visited by Brad’s parents until Tommie married Kelly Wynn, who had two children of his own from a prior relationship. Kelly legally adopted Natalie and Isabelle but that did not deter the two, Kelly and Tommie, from having another child together.

This motley group is hardly on par with the Cleavers from Leave it to Beaver or even the Brady Bunch. Instead, what we’re faced with is: one mother, three fathers, eight children, ten grandparents, and the fuel heating up this week’s Supreme Court case, Troxel vs. Granville.

When Bad Troxel’s parents were barred from seeing their two granddaughters as often as they wished, they petitioned the courts. Imagine your in-laws suing for visitation rights every weekend. Imagine your daughter-in-law counterclaiming that “it is not in the best interests of the child”. It’s a headache big enough to make King Solomon give up his day job.

More and more, battles are being fought over little children, as if they were pieces of property. Who can escape the media focus on Elian Gonzalez, the young Cuban boy whose fate may be decided by the old playground rule familiar to all of us from our childhood, “Finders keepers, Losers weepers”.

And yet, as the wise Solomon forecast, “There is nothing new under the sun”. Over thirty-three centuries ago this very issue of who owns the children was already being debated in this week’s Torah portion. The stubborn Pharaoh had, on the insistence of his own advisors, requested of Moses clarification as to who exactly would be going to offer sacrifices to Hashem. The Jewish leader responded, “With our youngsters and...”

When the Egyptian monarch heard this outlandish demand, he drove Moses and Aaron out of the palace. “The children”, he claimed, belonged to him. Amazingly enough, the Torah’s outlook stands in stark contrast to the view being currently debated in the Supreme Court. All one hears from the lawyers are whose constitutional rights and interests should be preserved; those of the relatives, the parents, or those of the children. In Judaism, one is not granted rights but obligations. The simple logic behind this fact is that while two wrongs don’t make a right, too many rights definitely make a wrong.

Therefore to sacrifice is not an option, to educate does not depend on your inclination, and to free the Jews from bondage should not be decided by poll numbers. Neither Pharaoh nor the Supreme Court, and even Moms and Dads, should treat our youth as a commodity to be traded or used as pawns in family or political negotiations.

Rather we as parents and government officials should view our roles as stewards honored by the trust shown us and humbled by the responsibility thrust upon us. Only with this attitude can we be assured that our children will follow us the next time we leave Exile.