(Mesh with the
above?)
But of course God is also the source of pain and death [“yotzer ohr ….ra”: I create light and darkness, peace and evil”]; clearly we are meant not to imitate God in this way.
Noah was indeed a righteous man, but in his generation God
viewed all humanity as deserving of death, and it was not necessary that Noah
view them in this way. God grants us the privilege and perhaps the obligation of
differing, as Abraham did in serving as defense attorney for the people of
Tradition teaches us that “Hashem” is the name for God in the divine manifestation to us as Merciful, whereas “elokim” is the equivalent for Justice.
The Torah tells us “tamim tihye im hashem elokecha”: perhaps in the light of the above I may be permitted to translate this as “we should be tamim [tamim = straight, complete, pure, maybe even naïve?] with the Merciful aspect when God is revealed in the aspect of Justice”. Defending Humanity against the Divine Justice is our way of imitating God, of serving God, of actualizing our aspect as beings created in the image of God[25].
Avram was commanded by the God in the Merciful aspect to be Mighty, to defend humanity.
And
when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD (Merciful aspect) appeared to
Abram, and said unto him: 'I am God Almighty; walk before Me, and be thou
wholehearted
19
For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his
household after him, that they may keep the way of the LORD (Merciful aspect) [=
“derech hashem”], to do righteousness and justice; to the end that the LORD
(Merciful aspect) may bring upon Abraham that which He hath spoken of
him.'
|
|
[In a very speculative and allegorical sense we might perhaps say: God relies on the beings He created in His image to set the reality of human destiny, as Man relies on his helpmeet (“etzem mi’atzomai”: “bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh = in my image); this is our challenge.]
· Terach left Ur Kasdim taking Abraham etc
·
They stopped on the way, in
· Terach died.
·
God spoke to Abraham saying “Leave your
birthplace, go to the land I will show you… “ and so Abraham left Harran to go
to
But
So it cannot be that the passages are in their chronological order!
We can therefore see that the Torah is simply telling us the Terach-saga in complete form before moving on to the Abraham saga, and the passages are indeed not in their chronological order.
This then teaches us two important lessons:
1) Abraham was the one who initiated the trip;
2) the Torah’s chronology is subtle.
1) We know that some of the events in
the Terach saga (eg Terach’s death)
happened AFTER the LATER Abraham saga: we can then easily include the
event of Terach’s leaving
The order would then be:
· God spoke to Abram in Ur Kasdim, and as a result Abram and Sara were planning to go to the land of Canaan, so Terach and Lot etc “left with them” (“vayetzu itam”); however since the father takes precedence over the son, when they went together the Torah tells us that Terah took them rather than that Terach went because his son went.
·
Terach stayed in
·
Abraham then continued to
· Terach died.
2) As with the creation and
Abraham asks Sarah to say that she is his sister[30] for if she doesn’t “they will kill me and let you live”. And as her brother “they will be good to me on your behalf” (and indeed they make him a rich man while she is kidnapped in Pharaoh’s house!)
Questions:
Is it not crass to say “so that they will be good to me on your behalf”?
Was Pharaoh justified in saying that Abraham was to blame since he told everyone Sarah was his sister and not his wife?
If Abraham knew that they would take Sarah to Pharaoh’s house forcibly, what did he expect would happen to her? Would he just allow this to happen?
From the wording quoted above it almost sounds as though Abraham had to convince Sarah to tell the Egyptians she was his sister; why would she refuse him if it was to save his life? Was he asking her to sacrifice herself in order to save him?
Answer: Abraham did have to convince her.
Sarah knew she was in danger of being kidnapped by the King. Which status was more dangerous: sister or wife? If it was known that she was married, perhaps it was slightly less likely that she would be kidnapped; saying that she was Abraham’s sister might heighten her chances of being abducted. On the other hand whereas a married woman might be taken by force since there was no option of getting her for the king in any peaceful manner, it might be that an unmarried woman could be convinced to become the king’s consort, and the brother could be convinced to give his permission, and so there would be no need for violence.
At first Abraham may have asked Sarah to say she was his sister for HER sake, to protect her, so that she would not be taken forcefully but rather negotiations over his ‘sister’ would begin, and perhaps they could leave before having to make a decision. But Sarah may have felt that the possible extra margin of safety for herself was not worth the lie, and perhaps in any case they were honorable people and there was no need to lie. Either way, she was willing to die if need be.
But then Abraham clarifies to her that not only was she affected, he said effectively “do it for me”; he knows that she is willing to die to protect her virtue but he tells her that they will not give her a choice nor will they kill her, so it is not about her at all, but about him: he tells her that they will take her no matter what, but if they know he is her husband they will kill him; of course as soon as she hears that his life is at stake this convinces her to say she is his sister.
However, what did Abraham expect to happen? We can see from the story that before Pharaoh was afflicted when trying to sleep with Sarah Abraham was made wealthy, and this must have taken some time. And the process of being reported to Pharaoh took some time. Abraham was aware of the way things were done there, he knew they would take her, and he knew that they would make him wealthy and therefore knew that he was buying time this way rather than being killed outright and Sarah immediately kidnapped. With the time he could perhaps arrange for her to be saved: perhaps via using his new-found wealth, perhaps via prayer (as it turned out, God intervened at the last minute.) So it made sense to arrange for wealth to come his way to buy influence and for a lengthy process to be initiated to buy time, all by having Sarah say she was his sister. And this is the meaning of “they will kill me and let you live; say you are my sister so that they will be good to me on your behalf”
Pharaoh’s complaint seems justified, “why did you tell me she was your sister, why didn’t you tell me she was your wife?” and at first it seems as though we should agree with him, however from the context it is clear that Sarah was taken by force: clearly had she been asked if she wished to be Pharaoh’s consort, and given a real choice, she would have refused; the fact that she was “taken to Pharaohs house” shows that she was taken against her will. Abraham correctly saw that this would be the case. A king who would kidnap a woman and think that by giving presents to her brother all is OK could well also kidnap a married woman and kill the husband. And so, Pharaoh’s complaint rings as hollow as many complaints of the nations against the Jewish People in other contexts.
Abraham’s army wins the day, his
nephew Lot is rescued, and the king of
Question: So why did Abram allow
Pharaoh to make him rich?
Answer: The other King who was
saved by Abraham, Malchitzedek, says after the victory: 'Blessed be Abram to God Most High, Possessor
of heaven and earth. And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies
into your hand.' “ He knows it is all from God, and that if Abraham acquired
wealth through the war it was via God, not as a gift from the kings. The King of
Sodom in contrast is all business: 'Give me the people. You can keep the goods’.
Such a person who did not give any credit to God will take credit for himself
for any wealth accrued to Abraham.
Pharaoh also recognizes that God
is sovereign and in charge of Abraham’s fate: he is afflicted and understands
that it is due to an injustice done to Abraham and realized that Sarah is his
wife. The wealth Abraham acquires is understood by Pharaoh to be gained by the
grace of God, not the will of
VAYERA
Would YOU trust the kashrut in Abraham’s
tent?
Tolerant Hospitality
Guests appear and Abraham serves them butter/cream and meat!
Various
Traditionally-presented Mitigating factors:
· This is prior to the giving of the Torah laws (on the other hand the Sages teach that Abraham kept the Kosher laws);
· The two substances were not cooked together;
· The guests were not Jews (he had special dishes etc for guests);
· Dairy can be eaten before meat, and there may well have been much time between the two since preparing the cow and the meat took a while (even though 18:8 may imply simultaneous serving).
However perhaps there is a lesson here: Abraham’s mission was to teach hospitality, and to teach monotheism, not to convert people to Judaism. He respected the practices of others and did not impose his views on them unnecessarily: there is no Jewish law forbidding non-Jews from eating meat and dairy, and so since this mixture was one he himself did not eat, but he did not feel that his guests must follow his practice in this, Abraham deliberately served them this to show tolerance and respect for the ways of others. Today perhaps one could not because it is after Sinai and this might be considered unseemly. On the other hand in homes where some are observant and others are not (yet) perhaps one can learn tolerance from this act of Abraham.
Abraham tells the guests: “Let there be taken please a small amount of water and wash your feet”.
Various Traditional sources ask:
· Why does he say: “let there be taken” rather than “take”?
· Or better still, why doesn’t he just give it to them, all travelers appreciate a wash.
· And why a small amount of water- why not offer a whole bath? Or whatever amount could be spared in the desert: why insult them by implying they would inconsiderately use too much?
· Why “please” take as though it is a favor to him: surely travelers will appreciate water, it is a favor to THEM!
· Why not simply give it to them, and say: “here’s water to wash your feet”.
The Midrash tells that some people at the time worshiped the sand and Abraham did not want this in his tent, and therefore Abraham requested that his guests wash their feet in order to rid them of sand (and so today Muslims wash their feet prior to prayer). Abraham was teaching them about monotheism, with the opening being a request of them that they respect his religious beliefs not to bring into his tent the sand that perhaps they or others worshipped.
Perhaps one can offer the following explanation: Since he was projecting his own religious beliefs here, to say “take” or to bring it to them would be overbearing and instead he sensitively said: “let it be taken, please”. And not to insult them by having them think that he really said this due to an odor of theirs after traveling, he specified “a bit of water”, just enough to symbolically wash off the dust.
All this is mentioned to teach us a similar combination of thoughtfulness: the way to get across a religious message, helping people with their spiritual needs, is not preaching or chastising but by helping them with their physical needs: to be unabashed in teaching, but to do so sensitively, and via hospitality and other caring help.
As some have said: rather than looking after your own physical needs and the spiritual needs of others, look after the physical needs of others, and your own spiritual needs. To this one may add:
a) look after the physical needs of others as did Abraham, tolerantly, but infuse it with content as did he:
b) looking after the physical needs of others IS the way to look after your own spiritual needs.
Abraham says: “I’ll take some bread for you, and you’ll eat”.
The guests answer: “So you should do, as you have said”. What a strange answer.
Then Abraham runs to Sarah in the tent and tells her to “quickly” prepare food. Is this a polite way to treat his wife?
Then instead of getting bread and doing as he said, Abraham immediately asks Sara to do something else: to prepare cakes!
1) Why does he suddenly do differently than he originally said? And this, ironically, immediately after his guest specifically told him to do as he said!
2) Why does he run to prepare meat? why does he run to prepare meat [the fact of his running is stressed]?
Answer: We are taught that great people say little and do much, and they certainly do that which they say they will do. The opposite is true of people with the opposite characteristics. Traditional commentators point out that from here we can see that Abraham intended to do much more than he said, offering a bit of bread: he intended to offer cake and meat but without telling them, so that they could not refuse.
Perhaps one can add the following: The visitors were intending not to bother him, and being messengers of God knew his intent, and so their strange answer was meant to say “do as you said and not as you intend to do”, that is: “bring only bread rather than the elaborate meal you intend”. However from this wise and perceptive (prophetic?) answer/request, Abraham realized these were special guests, and this is why he raced to prepare the meat.
Perhaps Abraham (having just been in communication with God, and perhaps still in the throes of the experience) realized that they were messengers of God, related to God’s earlier promise of a child, and this prompted him to run to Sarah and excitedly ask her to hurry…. Also for her to be part of the mitzvah: as Yitschak asked Esav to provide him with food in order to receive the blessing: indeed the son whose birth they will foretell is Yitschak! Indeed immediately after the food was placed and eaten the ‘guests’ ask “where is Sarah…”
[Note also the parallel between the two accounts:
· 27:5: Rivka was listening (to Yitschak talk of the blessing). AND
·
· God says: (paraphrase) “Let me go down to see what’s going on in Sdom, is it as bad as it sounds”. Why is God talking to himself?
· Does God not already know what is happening?
·
Right before this we are told that the guests
leave towards Sdom, and as we know they were going there to save
· Abraham starts bargaining with God for the lives of the people of Sdom. How does Abraham know of God’s plan to destroy the city?
Answer (Tradition):
The beginning of the whole story is “And the LORD appeared unto him by the tents of Mamre” and then the guests appeared. And right as they were leaving God asks Abraham why Sarah laughed. Clearly then Abraham was in contact with God all the while, the arrival of the guests being part of this contact. (Maimonides teaches that the whole event was a vision.) So, when God says “Let me go down to see what’s going on in Sdom, is it as bad as it sounds” he is saying it to Abraham! And that is what “going down to see” means.
Also: in the passage “And the LORD said: 'Shall I hide from Abraham that which I am doing” the words “and the Lord said” are in a very unusual passive form (‘veHashem amar’, rather than ‘vayomer Hashem’). God is deciding to tell Abraham, and then does so via the statement “Let me go down to see what’s going on in Sdom, is it as bad as it sounds”. Abraham takes his cue from this and begins his defense speech.
Abraham interrupted his communing with God as soon as he saw the guests, and ran to greet them. This is not disrespectful: on the contrary the way to worship God is via kindness to those created in God’s image. Bringing strangers into one’s tent and ministering to their physical needs (with a touch of a spiritual message) is the way to bring in God’s presence.
Perhaps one can add: As a result of Abraham’s correct decision to take care of the guests rather than put up a sign saying ‘busy communing with God’, the connection to God was maintained throughout the visit and afterwards. Also, in this way Abraham proved himself sufficiently a lover of humanity and spiritually deep to become the defender of Sdom.
Furthermore, he showed understanding of the principle that God wants us to serve those created in the divine image as the way to serve God, and so Abraham was ready to be a defended of humanity even against God – without this deriving from disrespect: quite the opposite: the more respect for God, the more respect for the divine image that is a human being.
12-15: And Sarah laughed within herself … And the LORD said unto Abraham: 'Wherefore did Sarah laugh… Then Sarah denied, saying: 'I laughed not'; for she was afraid. And He said: 'Nay; but thou didst laugh.'
· Sarah laughed when overhearing the guests talking to Abraham. God asks Abraham why Sarah laughed but we are explicitly told that Sarah “laughed within herself” - how was Abraham to know about Sarah’s internal laughter?!
· Why did God chastise Abraham about not believing the message about the birth of his son, asking rhetorically “Is this too difficult for God to do?” After all, the message came from guests, not from God – and why should an approximately 100-year-old couple believe such a strange message?!
· God asks Abraham why Sarah laughs, but Sarah answers: “I didn’t laugh!” How did Sarah know what God said to Abraham?
Perhaps one can answer as follows: The
questions imply the answer: there was a
……………………….
[Having God in our
relationships can help us achieve deeper empathy with each other: couples can
develop an understanding that borders on telepathy.]
12-15: And Sarah laughed within herself … And the LORD said unto Abraham: 'Wherefore did Sarah laugh… Then Sarah denied, saying: 'I laughed not'; for she was afraid. And He said: 'Nay; but thou didst laugh.'
· Sarah laughs, and God challenges Abraham about it: why does God not challenge Sarah?
· Sarah answers instead of Abraham, why does she interrupt God’s question to Abraham?
Answer: Earlier, when God tells Abraham that he will have a son, Abraham laughs. However he is not scolded for this, and the Sages teach that it was laughter of joy, not of skepticism. The second time he hears of a son who will be born, he does not laugh, but Sarah does.
Perhaps this is because it was the first time that Sarah heard of it, in other words Abraham did not tell her of God’s promise! [32]
This is what God is challenging Abraham about, and this is why Sarah wants to deny having laughed. From the question God asks, and the prophetic connection between the three, she understand what has happened: God hears her laugh, and this of course shows that braham didn’t tell her about the promise of a child! So God challenges Abraham – not Sarah – and then to defend Abraham Sarah claimed that it was not a skeptical laugh but a joyful one, that she of course believed it (the implication being that she had heard about it already from Abraham) and so she had actually laughed from joy (as did Abraham when he heard it and believed it)!
The passage says she lied “because she was afraid”, but we
read it as ‘for
she was afraid’
of
what would happen to Abraham as a result of this, not of what would happen to
her!
And
how could she lie to God?! She learned from Abraham that to
save the life of another – as was the case when they entered
Of
course God knew that Abraham in fact had NOT told Sarah, but the whole episode
was designed to test their reaction, and they responded perfectly, in defense of
each other, and so God dropped the subject and did not punish Abraham for not
telling Sarah, nor Sarah for laughing.
Judaism values truth, and the suffering and growth that comes with the responsibility of accepting the truth, but not necessarily blindly in all cases where MY telling the truth will cause SOMEONE ELSE to suffer. Especially to defend someone else’s honor one can perhaps ‘stretch the truth’.
And
now we can understand why the Torah tells us that God said [
·
After
implicitly criticizing Abraham for not revealing God’s plan to Sarah, God now is
‘obliged’ to reveal the divine plan for Sdom.
·
Now
that Abraham and Sarah have shown their preference for kindness over justice,
and willingness to go out on a limb for another, they are on the level to be
defenders of the people of Sdom;
·
Abraham,
Sarah and God are still in a three-way communication: but Sarah is in her role
of “And Sarah was listening”:
·
Now
that they have shown their willingness to stand up to God in order to defend
another human being they are qualified to attempt to defend the people of Sdom
against God’s justice
Why is it important for God to contradict
Sarah and point out that she did indeed laugh?
God
is not being spiteful or infantile. God wishes to show her and Abraham that He
knows what is in a person’s heart and so confronts her with the truth, which she
no longer denies. And this insight about God is important for its own sake, and
also as a prelude to the story of Sdom.
Question:
How is it that as defense attorney for Sdom Abraham doesn’t even question God’s
determination of the guilt of his clients?! All he asks is that God spare the
righteous: but perhaps they are ALL righteous?
Perhaps
one can offer the following answer: After the previous encounter, Abraham knows
now in a very personal way that God is the Judge of the Earth, and
merciful:
·
God
knows what is in each person’s inner heart and therefore a defense attorney
cannot question God’s determination of fact even regarding the most inner
thoughts and intents:
·
God
is merciful and totally overlooks even a direct lie if the intent was to save
another human being from shame or punishment, and so the issue here was not one
of too strict justice;
As
opening line in his argument with God Abraham says about the imminent
destruction of Sdom: “wilt Thou indeed sweep away and not forgive the place”.
Perhaps there is a hidden meaning in this passage. In
Hebrew:
·
The
word translated as “wilt” is “ha’af” which also means the forbearance (ma’arich
af) or anger (charon af) of God;
·
The
word translated as “forgive” is “tisa”, invoke, used in the Ten Commandments for
“do not invoke my name in vain”;
·
The
word “the place” is a known name of God (since all space is in
God).
Thus
the passage can be translated as a mystical reference, and in the third person:
“will the divine attribute of Anger sweep all away and not allow the aspect
“Place” be invoked in its stead?”
The
Destruction of S’dom (Hussein?)
Abraham says: Will not the Judge of all the Earth do justice?”
· There is a Jewish law that a court of many judges is required for capital cases, and so Abraham is challenging any decision reached without a defense attorney or alternate judge, and appoints himself.
· Also, there is a law that if a large court rules unanimously for the death penalty, then there is something wrong, if not one judge dissented, and so Abraham challenges the unanimity of the decision.
This is why it seems as though a decision was already reached by God to destroy Sdom, but then he reopens the case in discussion with Abraham.
· The words translated as “Will not the Judge of all the Earth do justice?” can be interpreted as a statement rather than a question: Abraham challenges God saying that a Judge who condemns the whole land (Sdom) is not doing correct judgment, and indeed God then later saves Lot in ‘remembrance’/recognition of this.
·
Abraham says:
That
be far from Thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked,
that so the righteous should be as the wicked; that be far from Thee; shall not
the judge of all the earth do justly?'.
Perhaps Abraham is not merely trying to save the righteous: he is saying: if one can slay all the righteous because of the wicked, should it not be symmetrical and one can as well save the wicked because of the righteous?!”. This can fit with the Hebrew: the words translated above as “so the righteous should be as the wicked” is actually symmetric: something like: “and it will be as the righteous as the wicked”.
Abraham bargains with God about Sdom, asking God to save the people if there are 50 righteous people, then if there are only 40 etc until “if there are ten”.
· Why did Abraham stop at ten?
·
Why did he not ask God to spare his nephew
·
Why did God spare
·
Why does it say that “God remembered Abraham
and spared
Answer: The surrounding culture generally has a great affect on one’s behavior. Can one be blamed for this effect? Yes, because a person is responsible for choosing where to live, and thereby choosing their local culture.
Noah was a righteous person despite his culture, and in any case all humanity was corrupt and there was nowhere to live that was not corrupt, so he was spared (also, in order to spare humanity, someone had to survive the Flood).
However God wants Abraham to teach his
children not simply Justice, but ‘Righteousness and Justice’: 19: “For
I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household
after him, that they may keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and
justice”:
And
so God saves Lot even though Justice would militate against it, in order to
teach this combination to Abraham - and therefore we are told that God
remembered Abraham and saved
And
this is our inheritance from Abraham: the combination of Righteousness and
Justice, not one without the other.
Abraham
asks: “how can you kill the good with the bad. If there are fifty righteous
people will you save the whole place? How can the Judge of the whole Earth do
this, to kill the good with the bad!?”
Problem:
This is a poor bargaining tactic: Abraham starts with a minimal demand, not to
kill the good with the bad, then has the courage to up his request, to not kill
anyone, neither good not bad if there are fifty righteous people, then goes back
to the weaker demand, to at least save the righteous. Why do
this?
And,
strangely God actually replies to the tougher demand, not to kill at all, rather
than to the opening and ending weaker demand: And the LORD said: 'If I find in
Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will forgive all the place for
their sake.'
Answer:
We see that the city of
As a consummate bargainer, who could argue with God, and knew the value of human life, Abraham could easily have convinced himself that God wished for him to contest the justice of bringing Isaac as a sacrifice. Whereas the test of Abraham regarding Sdom was whether he would rise to the occasion, put his life on the line, and take up cause against God, now God was testing him to see if he could resist the temptation to do the same here, to get out of the sacrifice. And Abraham passed the test of course.
In contrast to a very wordy exchange with God regarding Sdom, lengthy bargaining, here Abraham utters one word only: “Hineni” (“ I am here, [ready to do your bidding]”) and then after hearing the command, he says nothing at all! He just gets up early in the morning and goes to fulfill his mission.
·
Why
does Abraham stop the bargaining at ten?
·
Why
does God simply leave the discussion without ending it for example by saying
“there are not ten people and so I will destroy
Sdom”?
Answer:
Perhaps indeed there were ten, and so Sdom was to have been
saved!
How
many people were initially to be saved?
The
angels ask
12-14:
“And the men said unto
Counting
all these we have:
·
·
The
two unmarried daughters mentioned earlier, who indeed escaped Sdom;
2
·
The
sons-in-law in the plural so this is at least: 2: and their wives (his
daughters); total at least 4;
·
Sons
(or grandchildren); in the plural so this is at least:
2
for
a minimum total of 10![33]
However
only
·
Perhaps
had all ten believed the message the whole city might have been
saved.
·
Or,
perhaps the agreement with Abraham was to have all the righteous die with the
wicked if there were fewer than ten righteous people, but to save all the
righteous people if there were at least ten of them, but not to save the whole
city. Since there were indeed ten, God gave them the chance to escape: however
those that were not sufficiently believing did not utilize this
possibility.
God
told Abraham to send Hagar and Yishmael away as Sarah had commanded: but why did
he not give them more water?!
Answer:
First of all God had promised Abraham that Yishmael would be a great nation,
(and had also promised Hagar the same: [
Furthermore,
from the previous story we know that he was living near ‘Shur’ (20:1), which was
where Hagar found the well the first time she was cast out (16:7). Indeed Hagar
would have found that well this time also, as Abraham expected, except that she
lost her way [21:14] “she strayed in the wilderness of Beer-sheba” ….. and it
was only after praying that: “And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of
water”.
Avimelech,
who earlier kidnapped Sarah and then protested his innocence (Chapter 20) - as
though we are to believe that he could kidnap and rape someone’s sister, but
would not have kidnapped her had he known she was someone’s wife - confronting
Abraham “why didn’t you tell me she was your wife, why did you say she was your
sister” now confronts Abraham again with his slimy
hypocrisy.
He
should have learnt from before: God punished him with a disease as a result of
taking Sarah, and he was not healed even after returning her, and giving gifts
to Abraham; he healed only when Abraham prayed for him; and he has the nerve to
accuse Abraham of wrongdoing!
“[21:23
– 24] Now therefore swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely
with me, nor with my son, nor with my son's son; but according to the kindness
that I have done unto thee, thou shalt do unto me”
And
then Avimelech again denies responsibility for his actions:
[
Why
does Avimelech appear here again, what is he complaining about, and what is all
this about the wells?
Answer:
This story is told right after that of Hagar’s expulsion. Perhaps Avimelech
heard of it and wants to rub it in to Abraham, that he is a man not to be
trusted about his wives: he lied about Sarah and allowed her to be taken away by
another man, and now he kicked out his other wife, and didn’t even give her
sufficient water. He has the nerve to come and ask Abraham to promise he won’t
lie anymore. Abraham counters by telling him that Hagar was lacking water only
because she couldn’t find her water-well due to the fact that Avimelech’s people
had taken it forcibly (as they had taken Sarah). Again Avimelech denies
everything “I didn’t hear it etc….[34]
Some
nations in that part of the world will kidnap and rape, and steal water sources,
hypocritically not only blaming others for their own crimes, but will blame the
victim.
Even
back then the women lamented: Why are there no Good Straight
Men?
Answer:
They thought that there were no straight men left!
There
are many indications of the homosexuality of the Sdom
area:
·
The
men of all ages surrounded the house;
·
They
wanted the male guests brought out ‘to know them’.
·
This
happened ‘before they went to bed’.
·
They
were not willing to accept
·
Seeing
that Sdom and other cities had been destroyed, not knowing the extent of the
destruction and thinking it almost universal, and assuming that any remaining
cities were probably also homosexual Lot’s daughters say:
And
therefore in order to have children they resort to their father (who is old and
soon would not be able to have children.)
[35]
[36]
…….
Technical Matters
Reducing Confusion
The order of events in the passages is a bit confusing:
· Why does Abraham assume that God has already decided the matter of Sdom’s destruction if God merely says: “I will go down and see if things are as bad as they seem”.
· Why does the passage mention twice that the angels leave for Sdom (in 16 and in 22)
Answer:
The angels were on the way to Sdom, Abraham was accompanying them as one would walk with departing guests, but he did not know of their mission: this is passage 16.
Then God says “will I hide this from Abraham”, and then tells him “I will go down to see”.
Then God does this, and decides to destroy Sdom, or the decision was taken before but this is the way God lets Abraham in on the process.
Then in passage 22 the angels leave Abraham to go towards Sdom and by this Abraham understands that God’s decision was now taken. And thus Abraham starts the bargaining.
God blesses Abraham that his children would be like the sand of the sea (shore)[1]. But Abraham lived in a desert area, and surely there is more sand in a desert than at the seashore! It must have been strange to hear that his children would be plentiful but not the sand in the desert, only as the sand at the shore.
Answer: Perhaps this preference of the sand of the shore is
in reference to the request that Abraham made of his guests, to wash their feet.
The Midrash tells that some people at the time worshiped the (all-covering,
virtually indestructible) desert sand and Abraham did not want this in his tent,
and therefore asked them to wash their feet in order to remove the sand.
Therefore the image of the sand of the desert is not used by God to describe the
children of
Chayei
Sarah
Why Is This God Any Different Than Any Other God? Don’t Look a Gift God in the Mouth
Eliezer (Abraham’s assistant/disciple/servant) is sent to bring a wife for Isaac. He ends up at the home of Abraham’s relative Lavan.
“And he (Lavan) said: 'Come in,
thou blessed of the LORD; wherefore standest thou without? for I have cleared
the house, and made room for the camels.”
Why does Lavan say “I have cleared
the house”[39]
a rather strange thing to say to a guest?
The Sages teach that Lavan was aware of Abraham’s views on idolatry and when he saw the gold presents given to his daughter by Abraham’s servant, Lavan became instantly “converted” and removed his idols to make his home “kosher” for his guest.
Questions:
· We know that Lavan later on ran after Yakov to retrieve his idols, so they clearly meant something to him. At this earlier juncture we assume they also meant a lot to him, and so why would he suddenly ‘do teshuva’ and remove his idols?
· Why did he do so after seeing the gold?
Perhaps one can offer an additional explanation to the one provided in Traditional sources.
Years later Isaac’s son Yakov (Jacob) flees there. When he
eventually leaves Lavan’s home we are told [35:4] that Yakov’s
family gave him “all
the foreign gods which were in their hand, and the rings which were in their
ears.”
Seemingly the jewelry was an aspect of some form of idolatry.
We can now see the explanation for the events in the following: When Eliezer comes to Lavan’s home:
“the
man (Eliezer) took a golden ring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for
her hands of ten shekels weight of gold ….And it came to pass, when he (Lavan)
saw the ring, and the bracelets upon his sister's hands… he came unto the man …
And he (Lavan) said: 'Come in, thou blessed of the LORD; wherefore standest thou
without? for I have cleared the house”.
Why
did he clear the house of his idols?
Perhaps Lavan was simply substituting one idol for the other -
after all, Gold is worshipped even today!
{Alternate version: It may be that when Lavan saw the gold - which had been brought to him as a gift/dowery - he (said “My go(l)d!!, and) accepted it as his new idol(atry). Thus he removed the old gods from his home not because he had done teshuva, but simply to bring in the new. (“bring in the gold, throw out the old (god)”)
[These can be titles: “Oh My Go(l)d”, and “out with old, bring in the gold”.]}
………..
One of the major cities in
But the word ‘shova’ means ‘swore’. And in fact the original name of the town was ‘Be’er-shova’! (swearing at the well!?)
One can perhaps venture that Abraham made a very clever pun with this name as we’ll see below, but for a reason which had political and familial significance for the future.
27
And Abraham took sheep and oxen, and gave them unto Abimelech; and they two made
a covenant. 28 And Abraham set seven (sheva) ewe-lambs of the flock by
themselves. 29 And Abimelech said
unto Abraham: 'What mean these seven (sheva) ewe-lambs which thou hast set by
themselves?' 30 And he said:
'Verily, these seven (sheva) ewe-lambs shalt thou take of my hand, that it may
be a witness unto me, that I have digged this well.
31
Wherefore that place was called Beer-sh?va; because …….
AR:
What is the natural assumption to make regarding the name? That it was called
Beer-sheva (well-of-seven) because of the seven lambs; after all Abraham and
Avimelekh make a big deal about there being seven of them, and they are the sign
for their treaty about the well. Instead though the Torah makes a switch and
says:
31 Wherefore that place was called Beer-shova (‘well-swore’); because there they swore both of them. !!!
AR: A very cute last-second unexpected punny switch! Why did Abraham do this?
Isaac would one day re-dig his fathers’ wells, and would give them similar names. He wanted on the one hand to keep the name Beershova to remind everyone of the pact which Avimelekh had violated, but not in so blatant a manner; so with political wisdom he instead called it Beersheva, the name that Abraham ‘prepared’ in advance and that Avimelekh expected at the time – and anyone hearing it would understand the implication!
History Repeats Itself, Again (“it’s déjà
vu all over again!”)
Our forefathers had a history which was a foreshadowing the troubled history of their descendants. But by persisting they created mystical ‘pathways’ which would enable their descendants to prevail in similarlyadverse circumstances:
·
Abraham and Sarah journey to
· They go to areas near the Plishtim[40] and Sarah was kidnapped by Avimelekh (the local king), another kidnapper-rapist who then tries to paint himself as a righteous person.
· Avimelekh’s servants harassed Abraham by stealing his wells[41]; Avimelekh denies all knowledge of this in a very unconvincing speech. So Abraham makes a pact with Avimelekh and a sign, so that posterity will know that he dug the well.
Does all this help? Of course not!
· Abraham and Sarah’s son Isaac and his wife Rebecca go to the same area, and again Avimelekh (probably a generic name for whoever was the king of that area) pesters them: he peeks into their window and learns that they are husband and wife rather than brother and sister – so presumably he peeked into the bedroom window. A voyeur-king, who then tries to present himself as an honorable man.
· Isaac becomes wealthy and the local people begin to get jealous and (see 26:16) eventually make him leave (sound familiar?). They probably figure that this exile, and being far from water sources, will impoverish him.
· He goes to the area where his father Abraham had dug the wells, and where he had made the pact with Avimelekh, and, true to form, all the wells had been filled in! Without water he will have nothing; no sheep, no wealth.
· So he digs a new well, they find water, and the people living nearby claim it as theirs. He digs another, finds water, and again the same thing, they take it from him,.
· Finally he digs one and they leave him alone. He showed enough persistence and willingness to work the land and create resources despite whatever they threw at him, and finally was ‘tolerated’.
· God appears to him and blesses him; he remains wealthy and powerful and seeing that Isaac is still powerful despite all their efforts to exile and impoverish him Avimelekh comes to visit him: Isaac says “you threw me out of your land, what do you want now?!” and Avimelekh says he wants to make a pact of friendship, after all they have always been friends! And so they sign yet another peace treaty.
The forefathers went through these cyclic events so that when their descendants experienced these same trials they would be fortified with the merit of their ancestors; with the spiritual tools inherited from our forefathers we can overcome all obstacles.
AR: Interestingly, we do not find people mentioned in the Torah naming their children after their ancestors: this did not happen until much later in Jewish history. (Perhaps because history was still ‘being made’)
However the practice of using the names used by ancestors does appear in a different sense:
· When Abraham’s son Isaac re-digs his father’s wells in the future, after they were covered up, the Torah tells us that he wishes to give them names similar to the ones given by his father.
· Jacob gives the blessing to Efraim and Menashe that they will be called in his name and the names of his ancestors.
Loaded
Silence
The
Torah seems to present the connection between each Patriarch and God in a manner
which grants them exclusivity: no two Patriarchs are recorded as having
conversation with God in the same period: After the first recorded communication
by God with Isaac there isn’t any with Abraham anymore, and aftr the first
recorded conversation with Yakov there’s none with Isaac.
However
the timing of each of these transitions is interesting. For the case at hand:
the last recorded communicating from Abraham to God is the one word “Hineni”;
immediately following is God’s request to take Isaac as a sacrifice. From that
moment on Abraham, though totally obedient, does not talk to
God.
(The
word hineni and the consequent silence is echoed by the words and silence
between Abraham and Isaac on their three-day journey towars the akedah at
Moriah.)
Countering Revisionist
Historians
Although Abraham and his
grandson Yakov (Jacob) left
Why
could Abraham and Yakov - Isaac’s father and son – leave
We’ll combine two
Traditional ideas:
·
God promised Abraham ‘your
seed’ will inherit the land, and tells him that ‘Isaac will be your seed’.
Presumably therefore it is via Isaac that the Land was to be inherited.
·
According to Jewish Law
unchallenged occupancy of land over some period of time indicates ownership.
That is, abandonment of a piece of land by its owners for that period
constitutes abandonment of the claim to ownership.
AR: The Jewish People did
not claim the Land via conquest but rather via the covenant which God had made
with Abraham to give the Land to his seed, Isaac. Had Abraham left
Isaac’s claim to the Land
was cemented by a life-time of his residence there. It was therefore possible
for his son Yakov to leave, even for a lengthy stay, and for this to be
considered temporary since it was always the intention to return, and because
the Jews were eventually enslaved and couldn’t return on their own, and returned
as soon as they escaped slavery.
Perhaps never in history since that time has the Jewish
claim to the Land been as challenged by others as it is now: our enemies in the
past destroyed our Temple, but our enemies today deny that it ever existed, and
make attempts to destroy archaeological evidence of its existence, and so living
there now is especially important – it is a reaffirmation of our
covenant.
Whether is it Lavan or
Avimelech or someone else: Our enemies cast their sins on us; we are called
nazis by those who slaughter us, who themselves want to exterminate us.
·
Those who cannot accept how
successful is
·
As they work to destroy the
·
And though they dream of
creating another Holocaust, they deny it ever happened since they cannot
reconcile it with their paranoid fantasy of a worldwide network of all-powerful
Jews.
·
After a generation of
denial, whatever will then be left of the Holocaust will be attributed to the
Jews themselves: they will say: first of all it didn’t happen, secondly the Jews
deserved it because they are nazis, and thirdly the Jews perpetrated it
themselves just as they did with the WTC.
AR:
Abraham was too liberal in his treatment of Yishmael, and it was necessary for
God to inspire Sarah to take matters in hand. Yitschak was too liberal in his
treatment of Esav, and it was necessary for God to instruct Rivka to take
matters in hand. If not for them, the descent of Abraham and Isaac might have
been through Yishmael and Esav.
Continuing in this
tradition, Rachel and Leah encouraged Yakov to leave Lavan, their own father,
who they realized had betrayed them.
The
matriarchs were always the trend-setters, determining who would be the true
descendants of Abraham.[44]
…But Names Will Never Harm
Me
Ya’akov was born holding the
heel of his first-born twin brother Esav as Esav was emerging before him from
the womb they shared; as a result he was given the name Ya’akov (the Torah tells
us that the name is based on the root word ‘akev’ = heel, because he ‘held the
heel of his twin brother’ as he was being born.) It’s odd that the great
Patriarch Yakov would be named for this incident at his birth with its negative
connotation; and the name itself ‘heel’ is surprising, and indeed is used
pejoratively by his brother Esav later on ("ויעקבני זה פעמיים"). What
was Isaac thinking to give such a name to his son?!
All
three Patriarchs had names given by God: Abram was changed by God to Abraham,
Isaac was given the name by God, and Yakov had the name Yisrael (
However, though given by God
the name Isaac = Yitschak = “will laugh”
could almost sound pejorative, coming as it does in relation to Abraham’s
laughter upon hearing from God that he would father a child. However since God
does not chastise him for this laughter we can see the reference to it in his
name as a positive matter.
How
is it that Yitschak, who was aware that names were so potent (after all God had
intervened to change the names of his parents, and had decreed his own name)
gives Yakov a name in such a cavalier manner rather than a carefully thought out
name; and why give him a name with such seemingly pejorative
connotations?
On
the one hand of course this act of holding the heel symbolized the struggle of
Esav and Yakov in the womb that the Torah tells us of, and their subsequent
struggle throughout life, and is therefore very appropriate.
However as Rivka did not
tell Yitschak (Isaac) of the prophecy she received regarding the two sons, Yakov
presumably did not know of this cosmic struggle being enacted through his sons
(at the level of simple text: he certainly did not act in accordance with the
prophecy, to give the blessing to the younger brother, Ya’akov) and so perhaps
Ya’akov could not necessarily see the cosmic significance of the heel-holding.
If
so, why give such a name to his son?
There are however two hints
in the text to a higher-level meaning to the name Ya’akov:
The
seminal moment in Isaac’s life and probably Abraham’s as well is when Abraham
brings Isaac to sacrifice:
1)
The
words: “and (he) cleaved (the wood)” are one word in Hebrew: “vayevaka”, which
are exactly the Hebrew letters forming the one Hebrew word “and Ya’akov”!
[vayevaka à
ve’Ya’akov] "ואת יצחק בנו ויבקע Thus
we can read: “And Abraham took... Isaac his son; and (he) cleaved [the wood]”as:
“And Abraham took (ie was ready to sacrifice)... Isaac his son; and Ya’akov” [“ve’et Yitschak bno,
vayevakaà
“ve’et Yitschak bno ve’Ya’akov”]. Sacrificing Isaac meant sacrificing his entire
line, beginning with Ya’akov.
2.)
Afterwards God tells Abraham (via an angel): “since you did not withhold your
son (Isaac)” you will have many generations etc. Who is the first of this
promised chain? Isaac’s son Yakov. What is the first word of the above key
passage? The word “since”: “ekev”, with the same letters as “heel” from which
Ya’akov’s name was taken.; so the hidden reference means: “you did not withhold
your son (Isaac) and Ya’akov”
"ויקרא מלאך
ה'... ולא חשכת את בנך... ארבה את זרעך... עקב אשר שמעת בקלי".
When Isaac saw his son
emerging holding on the heel of his brother, he knew there was significance to
this; he gives the name Ya’akov refering not simply to the ‘heel’ event at his
birth, but in its hidden symbolism represents the great sacrifice that his
grandfather and father were willing to make, a sacrifice which would have denied
him his promised existence, and so that name carried a very heavy positive
energy for him throughout his life.
Eventually Ya’akiv earned a
new name on his own merit, Israel, the name by which are called the
future generations of Jewish People – the generations promised to Abraham and
willingly sacrificed, and so we are Bnei Yisrael, Children of Israel,
meant to live in the Land of Israel.
Just as he earned his
original name by holding on to his brother, he earns this new powerful name by
holding on to the ‘man’ = angel in his all night struggle (and ends up injured
in the thigh), not letting him go: clearly there is a
connection.
Avimelekh, Lavan, Bila’am
etc seems to be upstanding but the Torah shows more subtly that they were not;
similarly Esav seems upstanding but the Torah hints that he was not: we are told
that Esav’s wives were a source of bitterness to both his parents (26:35
27:46 28:8), a rather radical statement,
and even Isaac who wanted to give him a blessing requested of Esav 27:4 “make me savoury food, such as I love, and
bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die.” :
perhaps we can read this as implying that Isaac couldn’t bring himself to give
Esav a blessing without being in a good mood first!
The
great miracle of the splitting of the Re(e)ed Sea was via a strong wind and so
any sceptic could claim that it was a natural event, and similarly for other
public miracles. So too the Torah allows the hypocrites of the world to see
their fellow hypocrites Avimelech, Lavan and Esav as righteous, while seeing
Avraham and Yakov as wicked. The Torah often employs a double standard, holding
the righteous to a higher scrutiny, usually only hinting at the moral failings
of the wicked, while highlighting those of the righteous: NPR and CNN, wishing
to be similarly divine, do the same.
Rivka’s Main Qualification:
She came from a shady family, but was full of Chesed
Isaac was so liberal that he
wanted to give the blessing to Esav – perhaps because he felt Esav needed it
more. But why was Rivka able to see through her son Esav’s wilyness so clearly,
and do the correct thing even though it was a rather harsh step against her own
son, but Isaac could not?
Because Isaac grew up in the
upstanding home of Abraham whereas his wife Rivka grew up in the home of sly
Lavan: she recognized hypocrisy and evil, and was also familiar with the slyness
necessary to fight it. At the same time
she developed the characteristics of chesed, combining them successfully
(gvurah).
Fighting evil does not make
one evil – just the opposite; not fighting evil does not keep one pure – just
the opposite.
How
were Rivka and Yakov allowed to trick Yitschak? How could Rivka say to her son
Yakov “Do it, the curse will be on me”. Can a person do an evil deed at the
behest of another if the person agrees to take the responsibility, blame or
consequences?!
AR:
Again the Torah makes it possible for those who wish to read it negatively to do
so: but it is clear on a contextual reading that God had given Rivka a prophecy,
and had not shared it with Yitschak. Obviously this was all for a reason, and
Rivka was meant - when the time was right
- to act on the knowledge revealed. If God had meant for Isaac to give
the blessing willingly to Ya’akov, God would have given the message to Isaac,
not to Rivka. Instead Rivka was following God’s plan as revealed to her, and so
she could reassure Yakov that “it’s on me”.
…………
Note:
It’s interesting that:
when
feeling the struggle inside her of Eav and Yakov Rivka
says:
25:22: “if so, why am I “ = “Lama-zeh anochi”
When
selling the birthright Esav says:
25:32: I will die “why do I need the birthright” =
“lama zeh li bchora”.
…………..
The
Torah tells us that Yitschak was blinded. According to Tradition it was caused
by the smoke of the incense offered by Esav’s wives to their deities; these
daughters-in-law were “a bitterness of spirit” to Yitschak and Rivka.
AR:
Support for this attribution of Isaac’s blindness to Esav’s wives can be found
perhaps in the parallel of the words “vati
h’yena”/“vatich-h’yena”:
26:35 “and they were (a
bitterness of spirit)”: and they (feminine plural) were = “vati
h’yena”
27:1 “and (his eyes) were
blinded”: and were blinded = “vatich-h’yena”.
Kissing Cousins?!
In a somewhat seemingly risqué encounter, Yaakov sees Rachel at the well, comes over, and kisses her. There are many explanation for this (see eg http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v35/mj_v35i80.html#CABM and thread) and generally it is seen as a crucial encounter in the spiritual relam. [Also, tears, water, wells etc, carry much deep meaning and symbolism.]
On the one hand the chumash has extremely interesting/insightful sometimes non-PC stories: I do not think that one should assume that Yakov did not kiss her, however the Torah also contains many plays on words and here the juxtaposition of words enables an interesting reading:
“Vayashk es tzon Lovon” = Yakov waterd Lovon’s sheep,
“vayishak (exactly the same letters)... rochel.”
so one can read the pasuk as:
“Yakov watered the sheep from the well and "watered" rochel with his tears”.
[Note also that rochel means lamb!]
Yakov wants to marry the
younger sister Rachel and not the older sister Leah. We are told that Yakov
wakes up in the morning and finds that it was Leah rather than Rachel.
“Righteous” Lavan says:
29:
26
'It is not so done in our place, to give the younger before the
first-born.
AR:
Lavan seems upstanding when he explains that the custom is to marry off the
older daughter before the younger. One can say “well, he has a point” and see
Lavan as the righteous one, but this again is simply the style of the Torah: if
one reads the text honestly one will see that Lavan is actually quite a
scoundrel: after all, why didn’t he tell Yakov seven years earlier right when
the deal was struck that he would hold him to this custom!! Some righteous
individual letting his son-in-law work for seven years under false pretences!
And
what a hypocrite: to think that this sanctimonious invocation of custom is
convincing when everyone realizes that he should have spoken his mind seven
years back when the agreement was struck. And furthermore, if he wishes to
pretend that his was a justified claim, why didn’t he at least make it clear and
agreed upon at the wedding rather than the next day when it was too
late?!
And
furthermore, to paraphrase Lavan himself: is it done in that place, to give a
woman to a man without him knowing who it is, to switch brides that way?! Surely
such is not the custom, so why should Yakov uphold Lavan’s suddenly-sacred
‘custom’ if Lavan is himself so blatantly violating what is likely an even
greater taboo!
After
the seven years Lavan says : 'It is not so done in our place, to give the
younger before the first-born’:
AR:
Could it be
that Yakov didn’t know - or didn’t heed - the custom after being there so many
years, and being engaged to a local girl? And how could he expect that Rachel
would go along with it, especially regarding insult to her sister, and to the
society as a whole?
AR:
Answer: Perhaps the very reason Yakov suggested the seven years was to give time
to Leah to find a husband, and the deal was that if despite her knowing that her
younger sister Rachel was to be married in seven years she did not herself get
married during those many years, she forfeited her right to first marriage.
AR:
If the deal was that after seven years Yakov could marry the younger daughter
despite local custom, then what was Lavan’s claim?
AR:
Lavan the rascal tells him after the seven years that the custom was not simply
regarding the order of getting married but also regarding WHOM one could marry.
Lavan is claiming that if he wanted to marry into the family local custom would
have required him to marry Leah and NOT Rachel, and ONLY Leah, but that the deal
had been that after seven years he would not have to marry Leah and forfeit
Rachel - instead he could marry Leah first and then afterwards get Rachel
too.
Perhaps had Yakov and Rachel
worked to find an appropriate shidduch for Leah during the seven years of their
engagement this demeaning event and its grave consequences of rivalry and
jealousy would not have happened.
Was
Yakov insensitive in not seeing Leah’s misery in not being betrothed through
seven long years? No: the Torah tells us that to him the seven years passed like
days. 29: 20
“And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few
days, for the love he had to her.”
Self-Lovon: Sanctimonious
Self-Serving Hypocrisy: Where there’s a Will There’s a
Relative:
When Yakov arrives:
14
“And
Laban said to him: 'Surely thou art my bone and my flesh.' And he abode with him
the space of a month. 15 And Laban said unto Jacob: 'Because thou art my
brother, shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought? tell me, what shall thy
wages be?'”
Note that though Yakov is
Lavan’s “flesh and blood”, his “brother”, he was already put to work - and
without pay - within the first month.
AR:
So why did Lavan suddenly offer him a salary?
AR:
Yakov’s answer says it all: he wants to marry Rachel. 18
And Jacob loved Rachel; and he said: 'I will serve thee seven years for Rachel
thy younger daughter.' The Torah tells us that he
loved her. Surely at some point it became clear to Lavan that Yakov had fallen
in love with his daughter. So about a month down the road when wily Lovon sees
that Yakov is in love with Rachel, and will be asking for her hand in marriage,
he decides to maximize his profit.
If
Yakov is his flesh and blood, and a penniless refugee to boot, he cannot be
asked for a large dowry payment. And it was a special custom for a man to marry
his niece or cousin, and if Yakov were of his household then he had special
claim to Rachel. So Lavan decides that his relationship with Yakov should be on
an employee-boss basis and says that they should discusses salary[45]!
Thus Yakov has to offer a
large dowry, and offers seven years of labor for Rachel.
Lavan
accepts the offer because it is the best one he could get, but makes it sound as
though he actually prefers yakov: 19
And Laban said: 'It is better that I give her to thee, than that I should give
her to another man; abide with me.' Yes, better Yakov than anyone else because
Yakov’s offer is so good.[46]
…………….
The
blessings of Isaac were to got o the eldest – how could they go through trickery
to the younger? Would they not be invalid?
Esav
says “Ya’akov ‘heeled’ me twice, he took my birthright and he took my
blessings”. He is essentially admitting that Yakov had the right to the
blessings since Esav had sold him the birthright, which was the ticket to the
blessings.
Note
also that the words for “birthright” and “blessing” in Hebrew - “birchosi, and
“bchorosi” - are composed of exactly the
same (Hebrew) letters, symbolizing that when Ya’kov bought the birthright - the bchora - he was purchasing the right to the purpose of
the birthright, namely the blessing – the brocho.
·
Moses
was the most humble person who ever lived: God even told him to write this in
the Torah.
Moshe
knew he was very righteous and brilliant and also the most humble BUT THIS DID
NOT IMPACT HIS HUMILITY since his humility did not derive from a poor
self-image. His humility meant that no matter how great he was, he never felt
that he deserved more than anyone else or was ‘better’ than them; he never felt
himself to be too great to serve the people. Conversely, after his initial
encounter with God at the burning bush where he learned what true humility was
and was not, this humility did not prevent him from asserting himself when it
was necessary for him to lead (if it had, this would have implied that his
asserting himself was for self-glory).
·
Yakov
was a simple man 25:27 . (In Hebrew ‘Tam’, the same word we use on Passover to
denote the simple child of the four sons, the one who can ask questions, but not
sophisticated ones.) He was not cunning or a hunter like Esav. But his
simplicity derived from a truly spiritual nature, not from feeble-mindedness or
lack of sophistication – rather, he followed God without sophisticated
questioning. But when called to it, he could
·
AR:
Just as Moses was truly humble, and knew it, and could take leadership positions
and assert himself as a matter of humble dedication to the mission God and his
abilities and qualities imposed on him rather than to express ego, so too Yakov
could be cunning when required, as a matter of courageous and even controversial
but correct action rather than due to flawed character or weak personality.
AR:
Every action has an effect: had Yakov and Rivka managed things differently
perhaps Esav need not have become an enemy. The same regarding Avraham, Sarah
and Yishmael. When things came to the point they did, there was no other option
but to follow the course they took, but it would have perhaps been better to
have tried not to get to that point.
Although
he acted as he should have at that moment, Yakov eventually paid for his
trickery:
1)
with
Esav: by exploiting Esav’s plea:
“give me please (hal’iteni na) of this
porridge for I am very hungry/tired (ki ayef anochi)” As a result he was
affected by events leading to his request to God:
“save me please (hatzileni na) from Esav for I
am very afraid (ki yarey anochi)”
2)
with
Lavan:
a) Lavan exchanges one sibling for the other, presenting Yakov with Leah instead of Rachel just as Yakov presented himself to Isaac to get the blessings instead of Esav.
b) Isaac says: your brother came in deception. Yakov the ‘deceiver’ here later asks Lavan “Why did you deceive me” using the same word, indicating that the deception by Lavan was a direct or metaphysical result of Yakov’s own previous deception..
c) Yakov tells Lavan “I finished my seven years of work, give me my wife” and doesn’t use her name, and Lavan gives him “a wife”, giving him the wrong one since he didn’t specify her name, playing with the words as Yakov said “I am your son Esav” when he was not, justifying it (according to some) by splitting the words “I am your son” without specifying which one, and then adding the word Esav.
d)
Lavan tells him “In our place we don’t give
the younger before the older” whereas Ya’akov the younger sibling had usurped
the rights of the older. And if indeed Yakov bought the birthright and was thus
the elder now, he should marry the elder of Lavan’s daughters, not the
younger.
Yakov
runs away from Esav, on the way he stops to go to sleep, putting some stones
under his head. He has an awe-inspiring dream, wakes up, and makes the stone
into a monument. Basically he says “if the dream promises come true this will be
a holy place and this stone will be a monument”.
·
Why
the stress on the stone which was his pillow?
·
Why
the conditional “If”? Why shouldn’t he make a
monument?
The
relevant passage implies (depends on the translation/interpretation[47])
that he took several stones to put under his head, but it says clearly later on
that only one was under his head when he awoke. According to Tradition, God made
a miracle and had all the stones join into one.
AR:
Yakov could not be sure that the dream was accurate and from God, but the
unified stone was a sign that something special had occurred, that it was indeed
holy ground, and therefore Yakov gave credence to the dream (appropriately it
was the stone under his head while he dreamed which became
unified.)
In
a similar manner: some people living at the time of the events we commemorate at
Hannuka were not sure that the military victory was indeed a divine miracle:
then as today, incredible military victories by the Jewish State could be laid
at the door of naturalistic causes. We are taught that this was one of the
reasons that God made the miracle of the oil: to indicate that the rededication
of the
even
though the war was in itself a ‘greater’ miracle.
AR:
Similarly: Yakov understands that the miracle of the stone is not in itself
consequential but rather was meant to indicate that the dream was a divine
event: he therefore stipulates that IF the events foretold in the dream come
true, so that it was indeed a message from God, then since the stone – like the
oil -indicated that this indeed had been a divine event, it would then become
the focus of the commemoration of the ‘greater’ miracle of the
dream.
………………..
For
my article on the life of Ya’akov
and its relation to the ladder-dream and Yakov’s reaction to it see: Jewish
Bible Quarterly (Dor LeDor) “Dynamics of the Divine/Human Interaction” VOL XVI
51
See reference at:
http://www.jewishbible.org/cgi-bin/title2.pl?Key=Rabinowitz&SearchTyp=1
…….
Vayetze
*
Advanced readers can skip directly to material marked by an
asterisk.
…………………………………………………………………..
(Introductory) Kabbalistic/Inner Meanings of the stories in the Torah
The actions of our
forefathers and mothers were archetypical, and set up spiritual channels for
their descendants for all generations. Our own history is therefore a reflection
of theirs, and so the events in the stories are of direct relevance to our
lives. The Torah does not tell us of every event in their lives, but rather
recounts those events which have this special
significance.
·
It’s
important when reading the Torah to pay attention to connections made between
the stories: they are indications of deep undercurrents and of repeating
patterns in the history of our ancestors and therefore in our own collective
history and private lives.
·
The
connections between stories are often made via the usage in two stories of the
same unusual word.
·
Undercurrents are highlighted by repeated
usage of a particular word or phrase in a story;
·
Since
the meanings or messages of these patterns are sometimes obscure, but the
existence of the pattern is significant in of itself, I will point out
connections I have noticed even if I do not offer an explanation or
interpretation for them. It may be that these
connections are made and explicated elsewhere.
…………………………………………………………………………
The events - and the words used to describe them - related at the very beginning of the portion (ie from 28:10) and very end are almost identical, and almost in reverse order.
Seeing the parallels may help the reader of the portion to more clearly arrange the events retold in it in their mind.
Note the protagonists of the stories: Yakov, Esav and Lavan, archetypes of those making history throughout the ages; note the keywords and the archetypical actions and situations the stories refer to: running away from in fear and going towards for reconciliation; nightfall and daybreak; sleeping, waking, dreams; angels, being afraid, vows, treaties, invoking the names of ancestors and naming places.
· Yakov runs away from Esav: then: (First 15 or so passages of the portion): Yakov leaves, and “meets” a place[48]. He spends the night, goes to sleep, then sees angels in a dream, God mentions his father and grandfather Abraham and Isaac, he is afraid/overawed, (goes back to sleep) wakes early, erects a stone monument, names the place, (28:17) calling it “the house of God”, makes a vow and a treaty or ‘deal’, mentions his father.
And then almost in reverse order virtually the same events and words:
· (Last 15 or so passages of the portion: starting from 31:42): Yakov mentions his father and grandfather Abraham and Isaac, erects a monument, names it, makes a vow and treaty/deal, speaks of “the fear/awe” of his father, goes to sleep, (Lavan) gets up early in the morning, Yakov leaves (32:3), meets[49] angels, names the place (“hamakom”), referring to it as “the camp of God”. Then the next portion: Yakov goes to meet Esav.
In between these two stories appears the following similar one:
· 31:10 Yakov recounts a dream he had; the word ‘olim’ appears in reference to the angels in the first dream and in reference to the sheep in the second; reference is made by God to the monument and vow of the first story; he is told to leave, he gets up; mention is made of his father. Then Lavan has a dream, and God appears to him. Then Lavan goes to meet Yakov.
After the above three stories are told:
· 32:4: Yakov send angels, they are sent to go to Esav, (they return with a report and) Yakov is afraid, he creates ‘camps’, he mentions his father and grandfather Abraham and Isaac, he goes to sleep, he gets up, he spends the night, makes a ‘deal’(with the man/angel), he names the place (“hamakom”),
These are all deep stories with hidden meanings. I don’t know whether the parallels between these four sections (and perhaps various others which may also be similar) are drawn elsewhere, but certainly the events in these sections are dealt with in depth by many commentaries and by the Kabbalah.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
(Introductory) Summary: Family Politics
Yakov loves Rachel, but
not Leah. Leah wishes to have children to compensate and to make Yakov love her
too. Eventually she has four sons and is somewhat comforted. Then she stops
giving birth (30:9). Once she realizes that she can’t have more children, she
gives Yakov her handmaid as an additional wife who then bears him more sons; as
was customary Leah considers the sons to her credit and as a result feels more
secure in the affection that Yakov will have for her.
Leah’s oldest son, gives
her special flowers, and Rachel sees them and wants some. Leah says “you took my
husband and now you want to take my flowers!?”. ). Presumably Yakov stopped
spending as much time with her once she stopped giving birth, and spends time
with Rachel even though SHE doesn’t give birth at all. Rachel says “You can have
Yakov tonight”. Leah tells Yakov “Come to me, for I have given the payment for
you.” As a result of that night, Leah conceives and gives birth to a boy.
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
* Unexpected Reward
As a result of the night
with Yakov whose access was purchased by the flowers, Leah conceives and gives
birth to a boy. She says: “God gave my pay/reward because I gave
….”
AR: What would we initially expect the missing words to be? What did Leah give that earned her this son? The flowers of course! That is how she obtained Yakov for that night. And so we expect her to say: “God gave my pay/reward because I gave my sister Rachel the flowers she wanted”.
But instead Leah specifies something unexpected as the reason for her reward: not “because I gave the flowers to Rachel” but “because I gave my handmaid to Yakov”!
The unselfishness of giving the handmaid to Yakov to bear him more children after she had stopped having children was what gave her the spiritual merit of having more children herself: the flowers were merely the means whereby she was able to exercise that right on that given night.
AR: The Torah perhaps makes use of this wording, the surprise ending, to bring out this point. (This is similar to the technique of the Torah in recounting the naming of Be’ersheva, as discussed in a previous parsha.)
AR: Similarly, Yakov was the one who deserved the blessings and not Esav, as God made clear in his message to Rivka when she was pregnant with the two of them. And so Yakov’s obtaining the birthright via pottage (and the actual blessings via bringing food while in disguise) was simply the means whereby he secured the blessings which were his right.
After the mystical dream Yakov says: [28:20-21] “If God will be with me, and watch me on the way and will give me bread and clothing and I will return in peace to my father’s house, then God will be my God and this monument will be the house of God.”
Ramban’s commentary: The wording may not necessarily imply conditionality: the word translated as “If” is “im”, and it is used in a different sense (28:15) in the very dream which Yakov is responding to! So, it is reasonable to assume that Yakov means it in the same sense.
· AR: However we can see that Yakov is haunted throughout his life by echoes of the words in his vow: his life tragedy is the disappearance and presumed death of his son Joseph.
· “If God will be with me”: As a result of his sorrow at the loss of Joseph he is not capable of receiving the divine presence – effectively God leaves him.
· “and watch me on the way”: Joseph (and then Benjamin) disappears “on the way”.
·
“will give me bread”: The brothers eat bread
after selling him; also, there is a famine and he is convinced to send his
children to
· “will give me bread and clothing”: The brothers smear Joseph’s clothing with blood to make it look as though he was killed by an animal, and bring this ‘evidence’ to Yakov.
· “and I will return in peace to my father’s house”: Eventually it is Joseph who must be “returned in peace to his father’s house”.
Yakov is also haunted throughout his life by echoes of his deception of his father, even though it was justified. In a previous parsha we saw how the deception by Lavan regarding the switch of Leah for Rachel was an echo.
AR: The same is true regarding the switching of Leah for Rachel via the flowers.
The theme is identical:
· 25:29: Yakov purchases, from his sibling rival, a birthright;
· 30:16 Leah purchases, from her sibling rival, a right (to Yakov) leading to a birth.
(Clearly Leah and Esav are connected.)
the timing is the same:
· Yakov is approached by Leah when he returns from the field:
· Esav is approached by Yakov when he returns from the field.
even the means is similar!
· Yakov uses (cooked) vegetation as payment.
· Leah uses (aesthetic) vegetation as payment.
Firstborns are involved:
·
Leah’s oldest son
Reuven, the firstborn, gives her special flowers, with which she purchases the
right to a child.
· Yakov gives Esav the firstborn a porridge, with which he purchases the birthright.
In fact, even the words are the same:
· 30:15 Leah says to her sibling rival: “you took my husband and now you want to take my flowers!?”
· 27:36 Esav says about his sibling rival: “he took my birthright and now he took my blessing!”
AR: In any given situation there is an optimal mode of conduct, but it is our responsibility not only to do what is right given the situation, but also to make the given situation the best possible. If as a result of non-perfect behavior the situation is far from optimal, then even correct deeds may have negative ramifications.
The relationship between Yakov, Rivka, Yakov and Esav was clearly not optimal. The same for the situation between Yakov, Rachel and Leah. It may or may not be that Yakov could have done more – not that WE could have in the same situation, but perhaps he was so great that more was expected of him. Even if he could not possible have done more, events were divinely arranged to constantly remind him not to feel too comfortable with his previous actions, however justified.
If harsh action is necessary and justified, we must do it, and not be deterred by the harsh necessities; but we must execute our responsibilities not with smug self-satisfaction, but rather with sensitivity even to the enemy we must hurt. And we must also always be willing to question whether somehow perhaps additional sensitivity could also change the situation, and thereby also change the necessary actions.
· Rachel steals her father’s idols. Yakov, not knowing that it was she (just as he didn’t know it was NOT her at the wedding), and thinking that Lavan is totally unjustified in his thorough search of their belongings says [31:32] in anger: “let the thief die”. And so Rachel dies early, in childbirth.
· This is also of course a terrible tragedy for Yakov who loved her, and whose words kill her. And, with this, Yakov’s statement “Am I God that I prevented you from having children” takes on ironical overtones, since it turns out that he in this sense had the power of life and death over her.
· Rachel says to Yakov re her lack of children: [30:1] “Give me children (plural), because if not I am dead/will die!” and Yakov gets angry with her saying “Am I (in place of) God, that I prevented you from having children!?”.
· Rachel is not satisfied by the blessing of finally giving birth to a child: she says “Let God add to me another son”, and therefore names her son Joseph/“Yosef” = ‘let Him add’! This dissatisfaction has grave consequences.
* The Ramifications of the Naming of Yosef
· AR: The irony is that as soon as Rachel has children (plural) as she requested, that is, as soon as her second child is born, she indeed dies – and ironically she dies in childbirth!
· AR: The word ‘yosef’ in this context initially appears in the Torah after Eve gave birth to Cain: we are told: “and she additionally (“vatosef”) gave birth to Abel”. The parallel is clear: Cain was intensely jealous of Abel, and killed him, and the brothers were intensely jealous of Yosef, and wanted to kill him.
· AR: Rachel asks for a child “in addition” to the first-born, and gets one, Benjamin. Later however Joseph disappears and Yakov must console himself with Benjamin INSTEAD of Joseph, not in addition to him!
AR: Words uttered in anger: “Am I (in place of) God, that I prevented you from having children!?” and “let the thief die” bring tragedy; this is all triggered by Rachel’s dissatisfaction and Yakov’s incomplete sensitivity to her, and by Rachel’s theft, based on her decision to forcefully change her father’s religious practices.
AR: These were great people, and we in their place would have fared less well, but we can learn from these stories: however great the individual, however much one feels one’s actions and words are correct and for the sake of Heaven, one’s decision might be incorrect, and the ramifications of unethical actions or not-totally sensitive words can be immense. The Torah in this way teaches us that no one, even the greatest among us, can consider themselves beyond possible reproach. How much more so for us, whose intentions are less pure and whose spiritual understanding is of a lesser degree. Anger destroys, and words kill!
This event re-occurs later on, when Joseph in
This is of course an echo of what happened with Rachel, the mother of both protagonists, Joseph and Benjamin, and knowing what we do from that story we realize that this utterance can harm Benjamin. Just as his father Yakov’s words caused his mother Rachel to die while giving birth to him, Benjamin himself can perhaps die due to the words of his brothers.
AR: Knowing this, Joseph corrects them and makes the decree softer! Instead of accepting the death penalty decree of the brothers he says “let him on whom it is found be a slave to me and the rest of you will be free”. This leniency must have astounded the brothers.
Joseph will not let their words be accepted: even though he has no intention of killing anyone, and even though Benjamin is not actually guilty as his mother Rachel was, Joseph understands the power of the words and corrects them.
AR: It is interesting that he does so by saying “yes, let it be as you have said, let him on whom it is found be a slave to me and the rest of you will be free”, even though he changes the meaning completely. Had he instead said “NO, not as you have said, but rather it will be like the following ……” this would have creates two versions, perhaps each having its own power. Instead he robs the words as uttered by the brothers of their power by subverting them, usurping them to his version, so that there is no version of the decree consigning Benjamin to death.
AR: Just as the concern by the brothers for Benjamin metaphysically “redeems” their prior hostility to Joseph, this action by Joseph (with the full forgiveness of his bothers that it implies) brings full circle and redeems the deadly words uttered by his father Yakov.
· Yakov and Rachel were fated to be married and have Joseph, and for him to be the first born. Joseph was meant to have great spiritual potential as a result of this; this would also have forestalled all power struggles. Instead Yakov was with Leah first and Yosef was not the first-born, and his spiritual energy was weakened.
· It was crucial that the thoughts of both Yakov and Leah be attuned at the moment of conception. Yakov thought he was with Rachel but he was with Leah instead and so the child that resulted, Reuven, was spiritually impaired, and this caused his actions to be less than perfect.
· Though as it turned out Reuven was first-born, it was still Joseph who was preordained to be the leader, and this was the root of the struggles between the brothers. (Their struggle was like those of the previous generations: between the first-born Yishmael and his younger brother Yitschak [first-born of Sarah], and between the first-born Esav and his younger twin brother Yakov.)
The tricking of Yakov had great
ramifications for the future history of the children of
As we are told later on in the story, Yakov is cheated repeatedly by Lavan (31:7, 15, 38-42). When Lavan asks what payment he wants (30:28) Yakov responds that he want only certain colored sheep (read the story, it’s very strange). He then uses a magic stick colored with his chosen color, and places it near the sheep when they conceive, and the sheep come out this color! So Lavan switches his chosen color, and again Yakov succeeds by changing the color of the stick!
What is this strange story about the sheep! Why did Yakov do this!? (see below)
…………
Yakov is cheated repeatedly
by Lavan. Yakov places a magic stick near the sheep when they conceive, and the
sheep come out this color! Intentions Have Effect. I heard the following from my grandfather:
Lavan told Yakov that since he was given Rachel in the end, the deception had no
negative long-term effect. Yakov countered that the negative effect was in the
mystical mismatch of intention that he had when with Leah, thinking it was
Rachel, and this affected Reuven and Joseph negatively. Lavan countered that
such things could have no effect. So Yakov showed him that even what the sheep
think of when conceiving has a physical effect (!) how much more crucial are
human thoughts.
……………
I heard the following from my grandfather: Lavan told Yakov that since he was given Rachel in the end, the deception had no negative long-term effect. Yakov countered that the negative effect was in the mystical mismatch of intention that he had when with Leah, thinking it was Rachel, and this affected Reuven and Joseph negatively. Lavan countered that such things could have no effect. So Yakov showed him that even what the sheep think of when conceiving has a physical effect!
……………………….
* Yakov’s special connection with stones: AR:
· The group of stones around his head formed into one during his dream; the stones were to protect his head from animals, as though they are more powerful than his head, but the immaterial-seeming dreams in his head proved more powerful and shaped all the stones into one;
· The huge stone that he was able to remove from the well; wells and water symbolize blessing, and Yakov could get blessing even when it was seemingly going to be given instead to the powerful and very material Esav, and even when it was blocked by a powerful and very material stone; (his mother Rivka earned the right to bear him via her kindness with the water of the well);
· The stones he made into a pile as witness in the treaty with Lavan; Lavan gave it a name in Aramaic, and Yakov did not accept the name as given and instead named it himself in the Holy Tongue (and he swore in the name of “the Fear of his father Yitschak”: the fear at the Akeda while Yitschak was on the (stone) altar (anenu ki-she’anita le Yitschak ke’she’ne’ekad al gabey hamizbe’ach’)?
Sachar (Introductory)
The Hebrew root “sachar”= pay, salary, reward[51] appears in various forms at several junctures in the saga of Yakov, Lavan, Rachel and Leah.
· (29:15): Lavan asks Yakov “What’s your salary?” = mah maskurtech = your “sachar”. (see also 30:28 and 31:41)
· Leah tells Yakov “Come to me, for I have given the payment for you (sachor scharticha)”.
· As a result of that night, Leah conceives and gives birth to a boy; she says: “God gave my pay/reward (my “sachar”)….. And she called his name “YiSachar””
…………………………….
*
· AR: Yisachar was born as a result of this “payment” and then Zevulun after him. This may be the root of the special connection between the two: that the Torah of one could be ‘puchased’ by the other as a result of financial support.
…………………………………
25:22 Rivka re the turmoil in her womb: “Im keyn lamah zeh anochi”
30:1: Rachel re her lack of children:“Ve’im ayin mesah anochi”
Vayishlach
Vayishlach
……………..
Introductory: Summary of
parsha:
·
Yakov:
1.
fears
the encounter with Esav
2.
sends
Esav gifts
3.
wrestles
all night with the ‘man’ (angel) and receives the name
4.
meets
Esav.
·
Dina
is kidnapped
·
the
people of Schechem are killed and Dinah is rescued.
·
Rachel
dies.
·
Yakov
returns to Isaac.
·
Isaac
dies and is buried by Yakov and Esav.
……………………………………………………………………………………
Surprisingly – even
shockingly - the Torah employs the same words for very different levels of
beings:
·
Interchanging Man and Angel
(“mal’ach”): Yakov’s human emissaries are called ‘mal’achim’ which generally
means angels – indeed the word is used in that context immediately beforehand.
On the other hand the being with whom Yakov ‘wrestled’ is clearly an angel yet
is referred to as ‘ish’, ‘a man’ [and the same for Abraham’s
visitors].
·
Man and Animal: Ish VeIshto: “man and wife”:
is used for animals in the story of Noach!
·
Man and God: “Elohim”
(generally meaning “God”) is used for humans in two contexts: “bnei elohim”
literally “the sons of Elohim” but meaning “important people” or etc; Also God
says to Moses that he will be to Ahron “like God” (‘ata tihyeh lo laylohim’) or
“like a leader” in that he will tell
Ahron what to say.
·
[God and Angel: Mal’ach
hashem: “angel of God”: the mal’ach starts talking and God
continues.]
Off-Handed
Compliment
When Yakov hear sthat Esav
is coming towards him with many men, he is terrified, and makes all sorts of
preparations, and also sends a gift to Esav. And the composition of this
important gift? [32:14] “he took that
which was at hand” “Vayikach min haba biyado”. For a man so terrified of an
encounter, sending a gift to the one he fears, and considering how much care he
took in general preparation for the meeting, Yakov’s off-handedness is
exceedingly strange: why would he be so careless;and why does the Torah use this
paticular expression?
Ans: The defining moment in the
naming of Yakov was “VeYado ochezet be’akev achiv” “and his hand was holding the
heel of Esav”. So we can see that “That
which his hand held” was Esav! Therefore to metaphysically prepare for the
encounter with Esav he took “that which
was at hand”! (Perhaps this is also
similar to a lottery, where one allows ‘the hand of God’ to
choose.)
………
INTRODUCTORY:
“Yakov was
‘left alone’ and a ‘man’ wrestled with him all night”: After sending the
gift to Esav Yakov (went to sleep and then woke up and) crossed his family over
the river: this seems to the commentaries to be an indication that he intended
to flee, and not encounter Esav. That he was ‘left alone’ implies that he was
not on the same side of the river as they were, which implies that he went back
across the river. But it says clearly that he took his belongings, so why did he
return? The Talmud tells us “he forgot small containers”. There is much
speculation as to what these were. Then Yakov ‘wrestles’ with a ‘man’ all night.
The ‘man’ is obviously an angel, as evidenced by the story: he gives Yakov a new
name, and afterwards (32:31) Yakov says “I saw God face to
face”.
………………
Why
did Yakov cross his family over the river? And then why return alone!? [52]
AR:
Perhaps one can offer a very different explanation: The implication of
[32:22-23] is that Yakov first slept, and then he woke up in the middle of the
night and it was only then that he crossed his family and his effects over the
Yabok river, and then returned to the original side. Like Yakov’s first dream
encounter where he wakes up in realization of the vision, here too while Yakov
slept he had a vision from God, woke and understood that he had to encounter the
man/angel in a unique fateful and dangerous struggle. Just as we are told
earlier that he wished to protect some of his possessions from Esav by splitting
them, and later he protected his family by splitting them, Yakov wished to
distane his family during the upcoming struggle whose outcome was
uncertain. Thus he awoke and crossed his
family over the river and then returned IN ORDER TO ENCOUNTER THE MAN/ANGEL!
Shchem kidnaps Dinah the
daughter of Yakov and takes her. (Just like Avimelech and Pharaoh wanted to do
to Dina’s mother Rivka and her grandmother Sarah.) Later, Schchem offers much to
Dina’s brothers in return for her hand in marriage; they react by killing the
whole town. And they do it via treachery/trickery. Again, as with the incidents
between the Patriarchs and Lavan, Avimelech and Pharaoh, a casual reading of the
story makes it seem that the Patriarchs and their family are in the wrong. After all, Shchem’s offer of very high dowry
and fraternity among the two peoples sounds quite sincere and generous, and
peace-loving.
Actually though, we can see
easily from the text that the brothers were not in the wrong. The Torah unequivocally states that Schem
kidnapped and raped Dinah. Though he eventually fell in love with her and
perhaps made her love him, Shchem at no point offered to return Dinah! And
Chamor, the father, the leader, did not apologize or offer to free Dinah. And
this is the essential point.
When the brothers present
their plan to Schem they say “and if not we’ll take Dinah and leave” but of
course this is just face-saving bargaining talk, it was clear that had they been
able to they would already have taken her back. It’s clear that Schem had no
intention of taking no for an answer.
As with many other accounts
in the Torah, one must read it with careful eyes and throughout the narrative
remember we are dealing with a kidnapper/rapist and never in all the
negotiations does Shchem mention the possibility of returning Dinah to her
family. When a man violent enough to kidnap and rape, and so brazen as not to
even apologize does not offer to return the victim, a violent rescue is
necessary.
There was no way to rescue
Dinah from the clutches of Shchem other than by force. And, being that it was a
family against a city, they were heavily outnumbered, and so they had to use a
stratagem in order to succeed. Cruel but necessary.
Forced
Assimilation?
Since Schem fell in love
with Dinah he perhaps wished for her to want to remain with him, not only as a
captive, and wanted her to feel that she had her family’s blessing; he therefore
didn’t prefer the option of killing them and alienating her. So he offered to
give a large dowry and arrange intermarriages, trading his men for the Jewish
women.
The offer by the people of
Schchem to the children of
It’s interesting that the
Torah uses the same phrase regarding Shchem’s attachment to Dinah as it does for
the intended attachment of man and woman in the Garden of Eden account:
“therefore shall man cleave unto his wife”[54];
here we are told “and Shchem’s psyche (life-force) cleaved unto Dinah”. Nowhere
else in the Torah is a man said to be connected
to a woman in this way. And given the circumstances this is quite ironic
and provocative.
……………
THIS SECTION HAS A
DUPLICATED VERSION FOLLOWING IT: CHECK WHICH IS BETTER:
·
This
sounds unethical, but the Torah may be hinting at justification of
their action: the word for ‘they answered’ =
“vaya’anu” is parallel to
“vaya’aneha” = “and (Shchem) tormented her
(Dinah)”.
·
The word ‘mirmah’ (deceit)
haunts Yakov: as his father Isaac said to his brother Esav regarding his taking
of the blessings: “Your brother came in deceit”
·
Yakov was angered at the
actions of his children who “answered in deceit”: he was afraid of the possible
revenge by neighboring peoples for the actions of his children against Shchem,
justified though it may have been, just as he feared Esav’s revenge for his own
act of deceit, justified though it was. Both were unfortunate extreme actions,
necessary and therefore justified, but it would have been better had the whole
situation been somehow preventable.
Yakov’s sons tricked the males of Shchem into circumcising
themselves - according to the simple reading it was not just Shimon and Levi -
and then Shimon and Levi killed them all while they were in pain from the
operation.
·
Was it morally proper to
kill them all?
·
Was it morally proper to use
circumcision as a tactic in this way?
·
Why did the sons of Yakov
involve all the males and not just Shchem?
Answer: The children of Yakov,
seeing that they would not be able to obtain Dinah’s release, pretended to make
a deal for their assimilation into the Shchem culture – their condition was
circumcision. And it would not be enough that Shchem himself circucize, but that
he must be from a people who are circumcised, so that all his people must follow
suit. So, Shchem made an announcement in front of all his people, ‘welcoming’
the Jews into their midst, but made it clear that he was offering all the Jewish
women to his men. In return the Jewish men would have access to the local women.
Chamor was a crafty leader:
in order that his people not be jealous of him, he was telling the men in his
city that just as he took a Jewish woman, he would make available to them all
the other Jewish women. And they weren’t circumcising themselves for him to be
able to have Dinah, but in order for them to be able to have access to the new
women in their midst. All they had to do was circumcise themselves. In a culture
led by a kidnapping rapist the men wouldn’t eagerly undertake a painful
operation just to welcome some strangers into their midst or to allow the leader
to mary someone, but only if they themselves had intention to take a Jewish
women. And even if there was social pressure to circumcise themselves, if they
did not intend to marry a Jewish woman no one would ever know whether or not
they were circumcised, so why bother doing it. Most likely it was not the
agreement per se but the promise of the resulting availability of these
newly-arrived women which motivated them, and moreso, it motivated only those
intending to take Jewish women for themselves. And it was precisely these men
that Dina’s brothers needed to identify and neutralize.
Shchem knew that he needed
his people’s help to defend him in case Dinah’s family would try to rescue her.
By promising the Jewish women to the men, he bought their allegiance and their
support in case of attack: now it was not anymore simply a matter of the men
rallying to defend their leader from the ramifications of his escapade, but
rather now there was to be a prize for all of them.
The brothers, planning their
rescue, wanted to immobilize the men who were most likely to resist, and it was
clearly those men who were planning to avail themselves of the Jewish women who
would be most likely to resist the rescue, or to pursue the Jews when they fled
to safety with Dinah in their hands, and so they came up with this stratagem,
knowing that only those men who intended to take Jewish women were likely to go
to the length of circumcising themselves.
There might have been
differences in strategy by the brothers who were full brothers (having not only
the same father but also the same mother as Dinah) and those who were only half
brothers. The intent of the half brothers may have been merely to incapacitate
them so that they wouldn’t interfere with the rescue, however Shimon and Levi
went further.
As has been pointed out by
commentators, the passage “the city which polluted their sister” [34:27] can
have the implication that the city as a whole was guilty of the pollution of
Dinah, in other words that there was more than one man involved in the rape.
And, in fact the relevant passage also implies that all the men of Shchem
circumcised themselves.
Dinah’s full-brothers
decided that the males who had circumcised themselves were likely the culprits
and deserved death, and in any case they were the ones who were indicating by
their actions that they would want the Jewish women, and so were more dangerous.
And so they decided to take
no chances and kill all those who had circumcised
themselves.
Further Indication that they
were justified
[34:30]Yakov chides the two
brothers, worrying that the nations will retaliate. But he does not claim that
their deed was unjustified. And when the brothers reply “will Dinah be treated
as a whore” [34:31] Yakov has no reply. Presumably, they are saying that there
was no other way to actually rescue their sister. And indeed God provides
protection for them from the nations [ 35:5], which seems to imply divine
acceptance of their deed.
…………………
DUPLICATION:
CHECK WHICH VERSION IS BETTER
Shchem kidnaps Dinah the daughter of Yakov and takes her. Just like Avimelech and Pharaoh wanted to do to the matriarchs, Dina’s mother Rivka and her grandmother Sarah. It happens every generation.
Later, Schchem offers much to Dina’s brothers in return for her hand in marriage; they react by killing the whole town. And they do it via treachery/trickery. Again, as with the incidents between the Patriarchs and Lavan, Avimelech and Pharaoh, a casual reading of the story makes it seem that the Patriarchs and their family are in the wrong. After all, Shchem’s offer of very high dowry and fraternity among the two peoples sounds quite sincere and generous, and peace-loving.
Actually though, we can see easily from the text that not only is he a kidnapper and a rapist, Shchem at no point offered to return Dinah! He only offered to give large dowry and arrange intermarriages, trading his men for the Jewish women.
Dinah was a captive the whole time without the option of release, being forced to be with her captor. She was taken by force, and there was no way to rescue her from the clutches of Shchem other than by force. As with many other accounts in the Torah, one must read it with careful eyes: never in all the negotiations does Shchem mention the possibility of returning Dinah to her family. And, being that it was a family against a city, they were heavily outnumbered, and so they had to use a stratagem in order to succeed.
Cruel but necessary.
The offer by the people of Schchem to
the children of
· This sounds unethical, but the Torah may be hinting at justification of their action: the word for ‘they answered’ = “vaya’anu” is parallel to “vaya’aneha” = “and (Shchem) tormented her (Dinah)”.
· The word ‘mirmah’ (deceit) haunts Yakov: as his father Isaac said to his brother Esav regarding his taking of the blessings: “Your brother came in deceit”
· Yakov was angered at the actions of his children who “answered in deceit”: he was afraid of the possible revenge by neighboring peoples for the actions of his children against Shchem, justified though it may have been, just as he feared Esav’s revenge for his own act of deceit, justified though it was. Both were unfortunate extreme actions, necessary and therefore justified, but it would have been better had the whole situation been somehow preventable.
Yakov’s sons [56] tricked the males of Shchem into circumcising themselves, and then Shimon and Levi killed them all while they were in pain from the operation.
· Was it morally proper to kill them all?
· Was it morally proper to use circumcision as a tactic in this way?
· Why did the sons of Yakov involve all the males and not just Shchem?
Answer:
The crucial points are:
· After Shchem son of Chamor - the ruler of Shchem - kidnapped and raped Dinah he did not offer to return her to her family although this was clearly what the family wanted. He ‘asked for her hand in marriage’ after he raped her, and without any intention of taking no for an answer. When a man violent enough to kidnap and rape does not offer to return the victim, a violent rescue is necessary.
· Chamor, the father, did not apologize or offer to free Dinah, he only offered money and then offered a ‘deal’: assimilation of the family of Yakov into their people. This was an even more dangerous proposal.
The children of Yakov, seeing that they would not be able to obtain Dinah’s release, pretended to make a deal for their assimilation into the Shchem culture – their condition was circumcision. So, Shchem made an announcement in front of all his people, ‘welcoming’ the Jews into their midst, but made it clear that he was offering all the Jewish women to his men. In return the Jewish men would have access to the local women.
Chamor was a crafty leader: in order that his people not be jealous of him, he was telling the men in his city that just as he took a Jewish woman, he would make available to them all the other Jewish women. All they had to do was circumcise themselves. However, why would a man do this to himself? In a culture led by a kidnapping rapist would the men eagerly undertake a painful operation just to welcome some strangers into their midst? Not very likely. And even if there was social pressure to circumcise themselves, if they did not intend to marry a Jewish woman no one would ever know whether or not they were circumcised, so why bother doing it. Most likely it was the promise of the resulting availability of these newly-arrived women which motivated them, and motivated only those intending to take Jewish women for themselves. And that is exactly what the sons of Yakov figured.
Shchem knew that he needed his people’s help to defend him in case Dinah’s family would try to rescue her. By promising the Jewish women to the men, he bought their allegiance and their support in case of attack: now it was not anymore simply a matter of the men rallying to defend their leader from the ramifications of his escapade, but rather now there was to be a prize for all of them.
The brothers, planning their rescue, wanted to immobilize the men who were most likely to resist, and it was clearly those men who were planning to avail themselves of the Jewish women who would be most likely to resist the rescue, or to pursue the Jews when they fled to safety with Dinah in their hands, and so they came up with this stratagem, knowing that only those men who intended to take Jewish women were likely to go to the length of circumcising themselves.
The intent of the brothers may have been merely to incapacitate them so that they wouldn’t interfere with the rescue, however Shimon and Levi went further.
As has been pointed out by commentators, the passage “the city which polluted their sister” [34:27] can have the implication that the city as a whole was guilty of the pollution of Dinah, in other words that there was more than one man involved in the rape. And, in fact the relevant passage also implies that all the men of Shchem circumcised themselves.
Dinah’s full-brothers (having not only the same father but also the same mother as Dinah) decided that the males who had circumcised themselves were likely the culprits and deserved death, and in any case they were the ones who were indicating by their actions that they would want the Jewish women, and so were more dangerous.
And so they decided to take no chances and kill all those who had circumcised themselves.
………………
Elements in this Parsha which are Preludes to the Next
Parsha
Joseph (sic!) and the
Preparation for meeting Esav
Yakov’s
initial division of his camp (32:9) in preparation for the dreaded meeting with
Esav was meant to protect those in the rear. Later, after the wrestling match,
he placed the two handmaids and their children in front, then Leah and her
children, then Rachel and Joseph
(33:2).
It
seems as though Yakov was NOT afraid of
Esav after wrestling incident, but if nevertheless the placement of Joseph at
the rear was to protect him, then Josef would be hated for this especially by
those all the way in the front. And to make matters worse in the next parsha we
are told that Joseph told tales about them to Yakov.
Esav
and Yakov were rivals; all Breishis follows a theme of brotherly jealousy: it
was part of the challenge by God to the chosen son to deal with the other son.
In preparing to meet his brother Esav, Yakov tries to ease the jealousy through
gifts, but in also brings about a jealousy among his own
children.
Rivals and Jealousy: the
Jews and the Brotherhood of Nations
Joseph
was hated because of especial favor by his father, but it was his challenge to
deal with this in the appropriate way.Abel was hated by Cain because of special
favor by God, but he failed in the challenge of how to deal with it. And our
Father favors us the Jews. God knew what would happen with Cain/Abel, and with
Ishmael and Isaac, and Esav and Yakov, and also with the Jews and others by
favoring one over the other. We are ‘chosen’ (but also ‘firstborn’: “bni bchori
Yisroel’) and therefore all nations are jealous of us. Indeed, the non-Jews are
the ones more likely to harp on the “chosenness” of the Jews than the Jews do
themselves! But we have to deal with it, and hopefully in a manner which sheds
light on others: it is part of the challenge God places before
us.
…………………………………………
Miscellaneous
Flower
Beds
The
literal interpretation of 35:22
is that Reuven sleeps with Bilha, Rachel’s handmaid and his father’s concubine!
However according to the traditional commentators, it means that Reuven moved
her bed so that his mother Leah’s bed would have
preference.
Perhaps
this incident is related to the fact that the flowers he picked for his mother
Leah were used by her to buy access to Yakov from Rachel. In a sense since these
were Reuven’s flowers, he was purchasing access thereby to Yakov’s concubine, or
access for his mother, just as the flowers were used.[57]
Who Wants More Than One
Mother-in-Law?!
The
Patriarchs didn’t willingly marry more than one woman. And polygamy always led
to strife.
·
Abraham had two wives, but
Hagar was not his choice, she was given to him by his wife Sarah to fulfil
Sarah’s need for surrogate children; and the result was tragic conflict between
the children of the two wives.
·
Isaac’s shiddach was via his
parents and an intermediary, and he succeeded in having only one wife, the right
one.
·
Yakov had four: Leah was not
his choice, Lavan (with the help of Rachel and Leah) tricked Yakov into marrying
her; and, a sa result of this situation there was tragic rivalry between Rachel
and Leah, and especially between their children. Furthermore it was only when
Rachel and Leah ceased to give birth that they gave Yakov their handmaidens as
wives. Even that was perhaps only due to the rivalry between them, and there
were indeed complications with the handmaids Bilha and Zilpah and rivalry
between the various sets of children.
·
Later in the Bible we read
of the rivalry of Pnina and Chana: a loved but childless wive and a wife who
bore children. It’s clear from the story that the husband deeply loved the
childless wife, and told her she was worth more than many children. So why would
he have married the other wife?
AR: The implication is that
the childless wife who was loved was the chosen spouse, the other was married
simply for children, and perhaps at the behest of the childless wife, as with
Sarah, Rochel and Leah.
AR: Although polygamy is permitted according to
Torah Law, we can speculate that the Torah does not approve of it, and that it
is destructive.
[Not everything that is permitted by the Torah is
recommended by the Torah. A famous case relates to the Torah law permitting a
man to marry a woman prisoner-of-war because of her beauty: the Rabbis teach
that the passages following this present the laws regarding a ‘rebellious son’
because the Torah wants to teach us that this will be the inevitable result of
such a marriage.] AR: As far as I know: The Talmud, with
its vast amount of recoreded events and stories does not contain references to
polygamous marriages among the rabbis.
Do You Know Anyone Whose
Grandparents Died Childless?
Prior to the 20th
century, people who couldn’t have children due to genetic causes were unlikely
to pass those genes on to offspring! So perhaps it’s not so likely for there to
be a gene for sterility in the extended Terach family. But the Mothers had
fertility problems: Sarah was barren - until God intervened (when she was 90!).
And her daughter-in-law Rivka didn’t have children until she and Yitschak prayed
for them. Similarly Rivka’s daughter-in-law Rachel didn’t have children for a
long time (her sister Leah had children with Yakov during that time so it wasn’t
as a result of Yakov’s medical problem); but eventually Leah stopped giving
birth too, and only resumed after giving her handmaid to Yakov to have more
children.
Sarah displayed great
self-sacrifice by giving Hagar to Abram when she couldn’t have children herself;
Rachel displayed great self-sacrifice as well in acquiescing to Leah’s competing
marriage to Yakov.
We can see that the chain
leading to the emergence of the Jewish People could not be left to chance,
genetics and self-centeredness, and involved divine intervention and
self-sacrifice at virtually each step; but it also involved jealousy and
strife.
…………
questions[58]
Note: After Rachel’s death:
Vayet Oholo may’hol’oh – spelled with the letters of ‘Leah’.
…………………
Lavan cheated Yakov and Yakov planned to leave; God appeared to him and told him to go. He tells his wives Rachel and Leah what happened, starting with a recounting of all the cheating tricks their father Lavan pulled on him. His two wives say (31:16): “Whatever God told you, that is what you should do”.
ARCould it be that Yakov intended not to follow God’s command to leave?! Why would hi words imply that? If God told him to leave did he first need anyone’s permission or advice?
Answer: AR:
Rachel and Leah are echoing to Yakov
God’s words to his grandfather: when Abraham was questioning whether to follow
Sarah’s request to exile Hagar and Yishmael, God said to Abraham: (
So they now tell Yakov: “Whatever God told you, that is what you should do”.
Abraham did not want to cause strife in the family by exiling them, but God intervened to tell him to follow his wife’s decision and have them leave, basically affirming that it is a tough decision, but justified; here Yakov did not want to cause strife in the family by leaving Lavan, and doing so against the wishes of his wives, Lavan’s daughters, and so he apprised them of what had transpired. They were then intervening to strengthen Yakov in following God’s decision that they leave, affirming that it was a tough but just move, speaking to Yakov in words which echoed those spoken to his grandfather Abraham.
The Torah employs the same words for very different levels of beings:
· “mal’ach”: Yakov’s (human) emissaries are called ‘mal’achim’ which generally means angels – indeed the word is used in that context immediately beforehand. On the other hand the being with whom Yakov ‘wrestled’ is clearly an angel yet is referred to as ‘ish’, ‘a man’.
· Ish VeIshto: “man and wife”: used for animals in Noach.
· “Anoshim”, “ish”: “people””man”: used for angels re visiting Avraham, and wrestling ith Yakov
· Mal’ach hashem: “angel of God”: used for God.(in the sotry re Yakov (?) mal’ach starts talking and Hashem continues….)
· “Elohim” (generally meaning “God”) is used for humans in two contexts: “bnei elohim”literally “the sons of God” but meaning “important people” or etc; ata tihyeh lo laylohim : God says to Moshe Rabbenu that he will be to Ahron “like God” in that he will telll Ahron what to say.
[32:23 Yakov slept; then he got up and crossed his family over the Yabok river, and took his things. Then Yakov was ‘left alone’ and a ‘man’ wrestled with him all night.]
The ‘man’ is obviously an angel, as evidenced by the story: he gives Yakov a new name, and afterwards (32:31) Takov says “I saw God face to face”. etc.
That Yakov woke up and crossed his family over the river seems to the commentaries to be an indication that he intended to flee, and not encounter Esav. That he was ‘left alone’ implies that he was not on the same side of the river as they were, which implies that he went back across the river. But it says clearly that he took his belongings, so why did he return? The Talmud tells us “he forgot small containers”. There is much speculation as to what these were.
AP: Perhaps one can offer a very different explanation: All along we’ve been told of encounters Yakov had with God in dreams at night, and then right after he crosses his family over the river he has an encounter with an angel. Perhaps while Yakov slept he had a vision, and understood that he had to encounter the angel in a unique struggle; he wanted to do so without endangering his family and so he awoke and crossed his family over the river and then returned IN ORDER TO ENCOUNTER THE ANGEL!
………………………..
“Vayivoser Yakov levado ve’avek ish imo”. “Yakov was left alone, and a man wrestled with im”: This is a self-contradiction: if there was a man wrestling with him, he was not alone!
This perhaps indicates that it was indeed a vision, as Rambam states.
……………………………………….. ……………………
32:14 Vayikach min haba biyado: he took that which was at hand. It’s a strange expression; it’s also strange that Yakov would do this; and strange that the Torah bothers to tell us this detail.
Ans: The defining moment in the naming of Yakov was “VeYado ochezet be’akev achiv” “and his hand was holding the heel of Esav”. So we can see that “That which his hand held” was Esav! Thereofre to metaphysically prepare for the nencounter he took” that which was at hand”?!
(Can one use this idiomatic expression literally in this sense!?)
………………………….
Yakov
It doesn’t say “he took all his things”, rather “he took that which was his”! Referring to ‘taking’ the brocho, which was NOT his…?
………………………………………………………………,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Duda’im: Reuven went
Bilha story: Reuven went.
After Rachel’s death: Vayet Oholo may’hol’oh – spelled with the letters of ‘Leah’.
……………………………………………..
It’s absurd to think that
these great men said one to the other: “Let’s kill our brother because our
father loves him the most”. Really! Even the most base of people would never say
such things. What they might say is “let’s kill our brother because he’s a
traitor to the cause” or “We’d better kill him before he kills us” or some such
thing. That’s more believable. But because of a nice coat, or a few arrogant
dreams? For ten grown men to connive together and agree on such action without
fear that one of them would reveal the plan to their father? It’s barely
credible.
I
believe instead that the brothers were convinced of the justice of their
actions, however the Torah reveals the inner depths of their true motivations.
God REVEALS to us that they acted out of jealousy and hatred,NOT that this
was their conscious openly-stated reason for killing
Joseph.
The
uniqueness of the Torah is that it is written from the perspective of God. Even
those of our motives of which we are unaware are apparent to God, and when a
story is recounted in the Torah it is from the perspective of the One who knows
what we are truly thinking and feeling.
The
brothers would have totally dismissed the notion that they were acting from any
but the purest motivations, and perhaps had I been there I would have been
convinced of the need to expel Joseph as Yishmael and Esav had been cut off.
However the message that the
Torah is giving us here is that even grown men, leaders, sophisticated people,
idealists acting seemingly from the purest of motives, can be actually motivated
deep down by jealousy and hate. No one is too great to be above scrutiny,
especially not self-scrutiny. And when human lives are involved, we must dig
deep to expose any possible ulterior motives.
The brothers’ uncharitable
interpretation of Joseph’s dreams were self-fulfilling.
Joseph’s first dream [37:7]
clearly did not necessarily mean what the brothers read into
it,
that they would eventually come to bow before him [37:8]; the dream included
Joseph and his brothers and in the dream none of them bowed to him. Instead
it was only the brothers’ sheaves which bowed, not the brothers
themselves; furthermore their sheaves bowed to his sheaves, not to him.
Had
the dream not included Joseph and his brothers, just their sheaves, one could
claim that their sheaves were symbolic of them, and that the bowing of the
brothers’ sheaves to Joseph’s sheaf symbolized their bowing to Joseph, but if
they themselves were in the dream and did not bow, why give this
interpretation!?
Just as translators actually
are engaging in interpretation, and any reading of the Torah’s often ambiguous
passages involves interpretation as well, the events in our lives, and their
meanings are open to ‘interpretation’, with the interpretation we choose
eventually affecting the actuality
Had the brothers been more
open and less hateful, they would have understood the dream more charitably, and
would not have eventually sold him. He would have arrived in
Beyond Astrology:
The Correct Interpretation of the Dreams
From later events it is
clear that the dream meant that Joseph would one day be providing them with
food, that their food supply, their sheaves, would be dependent on his supply,
his sheaves, as indeed later happened.
After the first dream was
interpreted as it was, the reality was set to some degree, and the second dream
already reflected some of this new reality: now we see entities bowing to Joseph
himself.
And, it was the sun and moon
and stars, potent symbols, which were doing so. This seemed to them even more
arrogant.
However we see later what
the correct interpretation was: that the seasons, symbolized by the sun
and moon, were to some degree put under Joseph’s control, in that he was
able to rise above them and profitably manage the series of years of plenty and
famine; and furthermore the dream symbolized Joseph’s ability to know the
future, symbolized by the stars.
When the brothers later
decided to kill him they said : “now we will see what will be of his dreams”:
but Joseph was given the power to rise above plain destiny, whether his brothers
tried to kill him or have him be a slave in a strange land for the rest of his
life, or whether he would be framed and sent to prison, in every situation his
destiny would be above that fated in any reading of the stars.
Since the stars
symbolize also fate, their bowing to Joseph symbolized his ability not only to
predict the future but also to use this knowledge of the future to overcome fate
and change destiny.
The
dreams of Pharaoh’s ministers later on in the story did not help them in any
way, since there was no way for them to know whether the interpretation was
accurate until the events themselves unfolded, and in any case even if they
believed the interpretation, how could they beneficially use this knowledge? In
any event we’re not told that they benefited from the knowledge. But the purpose
of their dreams was not for their benefit but rather to prove to the surviving
minister that Joseph was capable of interpreting dreams, so that he would
mention this to Pharaoh at the appropriate time.
Joseph’s reception of
prophetic dreams had a purpose: the brothers were to have helped Joseph fulfill
these dreams rather than attempt to foil them. The dreams were meant to test
both Joseph and those around him: to see whether Joseph was sufficiently
sensitive to the feelings of others to relate the dreams in a way that would not
seem arrogant, and to test the reactions of the brothers.
The purpose of the second
Dream
After the reaction of the
brothers to the first dream, the second dream may have been a warning to them,
it being influenced by their inappropriate interpretation of the first
dream.
Life’s Ambiguous
Challenges:
A
psychology experiment testing people’s ability to cooperate will obtain the most
accurate results when the subjects are not aware of what is really being tested
– it may involve people who believe they are part of an experiment testing
something else entirely. The same with divine challenges: it is not always
easy to know what the test is, what the real event is, what is the
challenge.
When God asked Abraham to
sacrifice Isaac, was the challenge that God was posing perhaps for Abraham to
come up with a telling argument against child sacrifice, as he had tried to
argue against the destruction of Sodom – perhaps God saw that he was a good
defense attorney and wanted to see if Abraham would know how to refuse an
immoral command. Or was the challenge to show that he believed fully in God’s
promises regarding Isaac as the father of generations that he would not
sacrifice Isaac – bringing him to sacrifice might indicate that he didn’t really
believe in the promise. Abraham it seems correctly interpreted the challenge as
being doing exactly what was requested without argument, but this would not
necessarily have been clear to all (and maybe it WAS multiple choice, with
several correct answers.)
The brothers and Joseph however did not respond correctly. The content of
the dream referred to the future, and the brothers and Joseph related to it as
though that was the essential element, but in actuality the entire purpose of
sending the dreams may have been to test the reactions of the brothers and
Joseph in the present.
Dreamland
Causation
For
the past two portions Yakov was dreaming everywhere, various intriguing
encounters with God, and with him Lavan. Now it is Joseph’s turn to dream. And
with him, the two ministers in jail, and then Pharaoh.
Joseph’s dreams land him in
…………….
THIS SECTION
IS DUPLICATED BELOW:
CHECK WHICH
VERSION IS BETTER
I believe it is likely that
the brothers felt themselves justified in killing Joseph; they suspected him of
idolatry due to the content of his dreams (people and vegetation,
even celestial entities, were bowing to him). Moreso, they felt that his dreams
indicated an attempt on his part to seduce them to idol
worship.
In
their interpretation of Joseph’s dreams they themselves were
bowing to him, and seducing others to idolatry is an act that according to
halacha is punishable by death without the usual legalistic
proceedings.
(Of
course it is a common failing of people to accuse others of actions that they
themselves did not do, or opinions they did not espouse, simply because the
accusers have a particular interpretation of events or meanings.)
There are many parallels
between the passages in the Torah warning against solicitation to idolatry and
the passages in the Joseph story, and there are references to idolatry all
throughout the story of Yakov and his children, such as the idol of Lavan stolen
by Joseph’s mother Rachel; the luz and the place Luz; the idolatrous artifacts
and clothing the brothers divested themselves of shortly before the Joseph story
[35:2]; according to commentators this clothing had pictures of the sun and
moon, and perhaps the dreams of sun and moon and stars led the brothers to
suspect that the coat of many colors had some connection to the idolatrous
clothing. [see my article on this subject]
How
is it that the brothers decided on such a momentous course of action as to sell
Joseph without consulting their oldest brother Reuven – who would indeed have
been against it?
Perhaps the willingness to
kill their brother, and to cause untold anguish to their father, broke down the
family power structure; after this, taking action without consulting the eldest
was not taboo. And, as all throughout Genesis, tragedy arises as the younger
sibling usurps authority from the eldest.
Answer: They knew that their
granduncle Yishamel had been ejected from the family in favor of their
grandfather Yitschak, over the protests of his father, the highly spiritual
Abraham, who loved him, and that in the next generation their uncle Esav was
actually unfitting despite his father’s love.
They may therefore have
believed that Joseph was the unfitting one of his generation despite his
father’s love.
Family tradition of forced
Exile
In
the matter of exiling or disenfranchising a member of the household against the
wishes of its head there was a long family tradition! It was Sarah not Abraham
the head of the household who wanted Yishmael exiled, and God intervened on her
side, over Abraham’s protestations. And it was Rivka, and not Yitschak (Isaac)
the head of household, who intervened to have Yakov obtain the blessings, going
so far as to deceive her husband and disenfranchising her eldest son, and
causing intense jealousy and hatred thereby.
And
the irony (midah kneged midah)is that it was Yakov himself who in that incident
had set a precedent in acting against his father, and so they presumed to act to
him as he had acted to his own father.
Although they were second
cousins which is technically three generations removed from the common ancestor,
since they all lived very long, the generations were long, and enough years had
passed since Yishmael was expelled from the family for many sub-generations to
have grown up in the meantime. Thus, they did not necessarily recognize who they
were dealing with.
On
the other hand, populations then were not large and there were not so many
people living in that area and one would have imagined that such a large family
with 12 brothers (ten of them selling the eleventh) would be recognizable to
second cousins. But even if not, Joseph had enough time on the way to
Perhaps they did not
consider second cousins to be so close a relationship, but this is unlikely in
desert clans. However, there was clearly good reason for the Yishmael side of
the family to resent the Yakov side for being Yitschak’ s descendants, and not
desire to help.
There was clearly good
reason for the Yishmael side of the family not to be in close personal contact
with the Yakov side of the family.
Also, they presumably heard
that the very same Yitschak who was their grandfather’s rival had two sons,
Yakov and Esav who were intense rivals as well, and so they may not have been
surprised to see the phenomenon repeated in a third generation, that of the
children of Yakov!
Furthermore: Perhaps they
were happy at this turn of events, in revenge for their grandfather’s
humiliation.
Perhaps this irony of exile
of Joseph at the hands of the descendants of the exiled Yishmael was a karmic
effect of the necessary and divinely-sanctioned, but nevertheless problematic,
exile of Yishmael.
At
the very least it was a sign.
Clearly they made the wrong
choice.
It
is likely that Yosef told the minister that he was a slave only as the result of
having been kidnapped by his brothers and sold as a slave, then being framed
etc: it was certainly pertinent to mention that his brothers had been jealous of
him etc and had acted unjustly.
In
order for Joseph to accomplish his plan of tricking his brothers into a
situation where they had the opportunity to do teshuva it was necessary that
they not know his identity, and thus it was important that the minister not
remember him and his request because this would end up revealing all the
identifying biographical information so that it became common knowledge in
Egypt. And so the minister’s “not
remembering” was an act of God, but one which was to Joseph’s ultimate benefit,
and of importance for the future of the whole Jewish people and the existence of
the 12 tribes, and not a punishment for asking the minister to intervene on his
behalf.
Why
however did it turn out this way? Why could God not make the minister forget
only the biographical information but not forget to intervene on Joseph’s
behalf?
Answer: One of the reasons
Joseph initially earned the enmity of his brothers was that he “brought bad
tales of their doings to his father” [37:2], loshon hara. In jail, Joseph told
loshon hara regarding his brothers, that he was kidnapped and sold; even if this
was true, and even if he did not go into specifics about the identity of his
kidnappers, there was perhaps no need to mention this, especially as it would
have been impossible for Pharaoh to ever establish the truth of the matter, and
in any case in ancient societies slaves were often obtained in this way. We can
speculate that as a leader Joseph would need to be held to a higher standard,
and so as long as Joseph was still in the habit of mentioning the bad deeds of
his brothers, no matter how true or justified or even necessary for his
well-being, he was not ready for his destiny as a leader to unfold .
Later though, he corrects
this imperfection and reaches his potential, acting with complete forgiveness
towards his brothers, and does not even tell his father what they had done to
him.
So:
The Importance of Timing:
why the minister forgot him
40:23.
Had
the minister mentioned Joseph to Pharaoh right away as Joseph requested, he
might have mentioned Joseph’s interpretation of his own dream, but ironically
this might have been very detrimental to Joseph. What arrogance it would have
seemed to Pharaoh for this prisoner slave to claim to know what Pharaoh himself
was going to decide about the minister’s fate!
However after Pharaoh later
had his own dreams and sought an interpreter, it was exactly the appropriate
time to be told about Joseph: not merely that he knew how to interpret dreams,
but more so, that he was able to know what Pharaoh himself was going to do, and
probably know it even before Pharaoh himself did! What more appropriate person
could there be to interpret correctly Pharaoh’s own
dreams.
…………..
TZVI
COMMENT:
NOT Machshava: put inside other vort as subsidary rather than on its
own.
“the minister did not remember him and
forgot him” 40:23
·
“zechira” = action: when we
are told that the minister “did not remember” perhaps the meaning is that he did
not act on Joseph’s request.
·
“remember me to so-and-so” :
remember me = mention me: so “he forgot” = he deliberately didn’t mention Joseph
to Pharaoh, not as a result of forgetting.
[The minister didn’t really owe Joseph anything at all, since the release
from jail had nothing to do with Joseph, therefore he had no reason to risk his
freedom by reminding Pharaoh of his stay in jail.]
·
when the minister eventually
does indeed act, he says to Pharaoh “I remind you of my misdeeds, We can
therefore interpret “the minister did not remember him” not as forgetting
Joseph, but rather that he did not remind Pharoah
……………
Joseph asked the minister to
mention him to Pharaoh, but in order to do so the minister would have to remind
Pharaoh that he was once thrown by him into jail! Why would he want to do this,
and why would Joseph even think that he had the right to ask the minister to
mention this self-incriminating reminder to Pharaoh?
Furthermore, had the
minister brought it up to Pharaoh as Joseph had requested, there would have been
no real reason for Pharaoh to do anything about the matter. Virtually everyone
in every jail everywhere feels that they were put there
unjustly!
In any case, the minister
didn’t really owe Joseph anything at all, since the release from jail had
nothing to do with Joseph. The only thing Joseph had
done was give him peace of mind for three days, and even that was not likely
since there was no way that the minister could have known it was a correct
interpretation of his dream until he was actually pardoned. So what did he
actually gain from Joseph?! Nothing! And therefore the minister had no
reason to risk his freedom by reminding Pharaoh of his stay in
jail.
[See my article on the
subject.]
I believe it is likely that the brothers felt themselves justified in killing Joseph; they suspected him of idolatry due to the content of his dreams (people and vegetation, and even celestial entities were bowing to him). Moreso, they felt that his dreams indicated an attempt on his part to seduce them to idol worship.
There are many parallels between the passages in the Torah warning against solicitation to idolatry and the passages in the Joseph story, and there are references to idolatry all throughout, such as the idol of Lavan stolen by Joseph’s mother Rachel; the luz and the place Luz; the idolatrous artifacts and clothing the brothers divested themselves of shortly before the Joseph story [35:2]; according to commentators this clothing had pictures of the sun and moon, and perhaps the dreams of sun and moon and stars led the brothers to suspect that the coat of many colors had some connection to the idolatrous clothing. [see my article on this subject]
It is likely that Yosef told the minister that he was a slave only as the result of having been kidnapped by his brothers and sold as a slave, then being framed etc: it was certainly pertinent to mention that his brothers had been jealous of him etc and had acted unjustly.
In order for Joseph to accomplish his plan of tricking his brothers into a situation where they had the opportunity to do teshuva it was necessary that they not know his identity, and thus it was important that the minister not remember him and his request because this would end up revealing all the identifying biographical information. And so the minister’s “not remembering” was an act of God, but one which was to Joseph’s ultimate benefit, and of importance for the future of the whole Jewish people and the existence of the 12 tribes, and not a punishment for asking the minister to intervene on his behalf.
Why however did it turn out this way? Why could God not make the minister forget only the biographical information but not forget to intervene on Joseph’s behalf?
Answer: One of the reasons Joseph initially earned the enmity of his brothers was that he “brought bad tales of their doings to his father” [37:2], loshon hara. In jail, Joseph told loshon hara regarding his brothers, that he was kidnapped and sold; even if this was true, and even if he did not go into specifics about the identity of his kidnappers, there was perhaps no need to mention this, especially as it would have been impossible for Pharaoh to ever establish the truth of the matter, and in any case in ancient societies slaves were often obtained in this way. We can speculate that as a leader Joseph would need to be held to a higher standard, and so as long as Joseph was still in the habit of mentioning the bad deeds of his brothers, no matter how true or justified or even necessary for his well-being, he was not ready for his destiny as a leader to unfold .
Later though, he corrects this imperfection and reaches his potential, acting with complete forgiveness towards his brothers, and does not even tell his father what they had done to him.
So:
The Importance of Timing: “the minister did not remember him and forgot him” 40:23.
Had the minister mentioned Joseph to Pharaoh, he might have mentioned Joseph’s interpretation of his dream, but ironically this might have been very detrimental to Joseph.
What arrogance it would have seemed to Pharaoh for this prisoner slave to claim to know what Pharaoh himself was going to decide!
When Pharaoh later had his own dreams and sought an interpreter, it was exactly the appropriate time to be told about Joseph: not merely that he knew how to interpret dreams, but more so, that he was able to know what Pharaoh himself was going to do, and probably know it even before Pharaoh himself did! What more appropriate person could there be to interpret correctly Pharaoh’s own dreams.
“the minister did not remember him and forgot him” 40:23
There are very extensive and interesting parallels between the event and the wording in:
Megillat Esther à Joseph à Yehuda/Tamar à Tzitzit
[See my article on the subject.]
Yishma’el was his grandfather’s brother; they were thus his second cousins. There was clearly good reason for the Yishmael side of the family not to be in close personal contact with the Yakov side of the family to notify them of this, nor to help Yosef free himself. Also, they presumably heard that their grandfather’s rival Yitschak and his brother Esav were intense rivals as well, and so they may not have been surprised to see the phenomenon repeated in a third generation! Perhaps they were happy at this turn of events, in revenge for their grandfather’s humiliation.
Perhaps this irony of exile of Joseph at the hands of the descendants of the exiled Yishmael was a karmic effect of the necessary and divinely-sanctioned, but nevertheless problematic, exile of Yishmael.
At least it was a sign.
Having caught this irony and understanding it as a sign, the brothers had two choices in interpreting it: that they were in error, that if it was Yishmael’s descendants who would be carrying out the exile then clearly they were wrong in doing this; or the reverse: that this was an indication that Yosef belonged with the exiled side of the family such as the Yishmaelites.
If so, they took the wrong choice.
…………….
Dreamland: These
parshot are full of dreams: Yakov, Lavan, Yosef, the Sarim,
Pharaoh
God REVEALS that the brothers acted out of jealousy and hatred, NOT that this was their conscious openly-stated reason for killing Joseph.
The brothers’ uncharitable interpretation of Joseph’s dreams were self-fulfilling.
Joseph’s first dream [37:7] clearly did not necessarily mean
what the brothers read into it, it was only the brothers’ sheaves which bowed,
not the brothers themselves; furthermore their sheaves bowed to his sheaves, not
to him. Had the brothers been more open and less hateful, they would have
understood the dream more charitably, and would not have eventually sold him. He
would have arrived in
After the first dream was interpreted as it was, the
reality was set to some degree, and the second dream already reflected some of
this new reality: now we see entities bowing to Joseph
himself.
The seasons, symbolized by the sun and moon, were to some degree put under Joseph’s control; since the stars symbolize also fate, their bowing to Joseph symbolized his ability not only to predict the future but also to use this knowledge of the future to overcome fate and change destiny.
The dreams of Pharaoh’s ministers later on in the story did not help them in any way, since there was no way for them to know whether the interpretation was accurate until the events themselves unfolded; we’re not told that they benefited from the knowledge. But the purpose of their dreams was not for their benefit but rather to prove to the surviving minister that Joseph was capable of interpreting dreams, so that he would mention this to Pharaoh at the appropriate time.
Of what benefit were Joseph’s dreams?
Perhaps these dreams were also not meant for his benefit but rather to test the reactions of those around him to his dreams. And perhaps to see whether Joseph was sufficiently sensitive to the feelings of others to relate the dreams in a way that would not seem arrogant.
If Abraham was an Ivri then the descendants of Yishmael would be Ivrim and certainly the descendants of Esav. Thus there were likely many people known as Ivrim by the time Joseph was sold.
Being an Ivri slave in
Incorrect Predictions are the Sign of Great
Prophecy.
Jonah (of Jonah and the whale) was the most successful prophet because his message of catastrophe served to prevent the actualization of that very ‘prediction’. The dreams of Joseph, the ministers and Pharaoh had varying degrees of passive prediction and catalystic prevention[61].
A first glance at the interpretation which Joseph’s family gives to his dreams is that Joseph’s brothers and parents will bow to him/will be ruled by him [37:8-10]. Indeed later his brothers bow to him, but his father Yakov does not. Why not?
Yakov actually didn’t interpret the dreams the same way that his sons did. Instead he says to Joseph rhetorically “will your mother and I come to bow before you?!”. Since by then Rachel, Joseph’s mother, was dead already Yakov’s comment is meant to point up the absurdity of such an interpretation – he was in this way subtly negating the antagonistic interpretation offered by the brothers.
Much later, Joseph learns from the ministers’ eventual fate that indeed his interpretation of their dreams was correct; later yet, after the seven years of plenty ended and the famine began, he saw that his interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream had been correct. As a result when Joseph’s brothers arrived he felt that that his original dreams were to unfold, but he believed they would have to unfold according to their interpretation - that they would bow before him - and so he accommodated this reality.
However Yakov due to his interpretation of the dreams was not meant to bow before his son Joseph, and Joseph ensured that indeed this would not happen. [62]
Two Dreams or One Dream Twice Dreamt?
Joseph tells Pharaoh “the dream was repeated (twice) because it is an urgent message about events soon to unfold”. In other words he sees it all as one dream repeated, not two dreams.
The dreams of course were not identical. Nevertheless the way in which they were the same, and in which they differed, offered clues to their interpretation: the essential elements are those which repeat:
seven fat/ seven lean/the lean swallowing the fat;
while the elements which appear in one dream and not the other represent examples:
cows from the Nile/wheat in a field
Having two dreams varying in the details therefore helped in their interpretation.
Joseph however does not mention this method as the guide he employed in his interpretation. He attributes his ability to interpret the dreams to God, and does not claim to employ analytic methods to derive the interpretation and therefore he considers the two as one dream. Also, because he understood so clearly what was the essential and what was merely a particular example, to him the dreams were exactly the same – were one dream - even though they differed in the details.
Generally the fact that someone dreams two dreams so similar to each other in one night would likely be understood as a sign that it is no ordinary dream, and so one could imagine Joseph as giving this as the reason for why there were two dreams. Again, though, Joseph is so clear that this is a prophetic dream that he implies that he did not need for there to be two dreams to tell him this; thus to him the fact that there were two dreams, or one dream twice, meant something else, namely “that the events are soon to unfold”.
When Pharaoh recounts the dreams he tells Joseph that when the fat cows were swallowed by the thin ones “it was not noticeable that they were swallowed”[41:21]: in terms of the interpretation, this would mean that the years of famine would be so bad that there would be no way to tell that there had been years of plenty.
However the Torah does not tell us that “it was not noticeable that the fat ones were swallowed and the appearance of the thin ones was as bad as it was beforehand” when it recounts the dream itself [41:5-7] – it would therefore seem that this element was simply Pharaoh’s perception, related to Joseph in recounting the dream, but was not part of the dream itself, nor perhaps even part of Pharaoh’s perception at the time of dreaming.
Although dream interpretations set the reality of the dream, and here Pharaoh is providing some element of interpretation, nevertheless it was Joseph who was being asked to do the interpreting, and so the reality-setting power was up to him.
As such, this element was something that was partly changeable: while Joseph was not able to prevent the seven lean years from arriving or swallowing the fat years, nor was he able now after Pharaoh’s interpretation to prevent the famine years from removing the actual plenty, he WAS able to prevent the lack of food to be so bad that there would be no way to tell that there had been years of plenty beforehand, for the years of famine to be as bad as if there had been no years of plenty. Joseph’s interpretation reflects this subtle difference (41:31 as compared to 41:21) – indeed the vast stores of wheat and other produce which he arranged during the years of plenty were tribute later on to the fact that the years of plenty had occurred, and the years of famine were not as bad as if the years of plenty had never been.
In this sense Joseph’s suggestion of how to deal with the famine was part of the interpretation of the dream; the dream was thus interpreted by Joseph not as a prediction of catastrophe but rather as a message meant to help people avoid catastrophe, and so the dream-realization took this path.
Joseph makes a great point all along of the fact that it is God who gives him the power to interpret – and this is very important to Pharaoh[63]. Pharaoh believed that he was getting a divine message, and when Joseph says that his interpretation is from God, he is assuring Pharaoh that the same power which sent the message in the dream – God - is helping Joseph interpret it, and even moreso, to ‘manage’ it; this gives Pharaoh confidence in the interpretation, and it is why Pharaoh explicitly says of Joseph “the spirit of God is in him” (it is obviously very important to Pharaoh that this is so).
Early on the brothers viewed Joseph as an upstart and a threat, an arrogant tyrant-in-the-making who would have them all bow to him. This says more about them at that point than it does about Joseph. But Pharaoh in contrast was able to see the greatness, integrity and selflessness in this foreign slave who seemingly arrogantly predicted what Pharaoh himself was going to do to his ministers, and tells Pharaoh to his face that God speak through him, and deigns to tell Pharaoh how to manage his country. And so Pharaoh, correctly attributing all this to the straight-talking honesty of a man to whom the correct path is so clear rather than to the arrogance of the power-hungry, is not fearful of giving Joseph so much of his own power.
Considering that
Joseph seats his brothers at table in the order of their age, and the brothers are astonished that he could do this [43:33].
Why are they astonished? Because the brothers were from four mothers and therefore not necessarily similar-looking, and also as a result some were the same age, as opposed to children of the same two parents, who are at least a year apart. And so for a stranger to know that they are really brothers, and to see who is older than whom, is remarkable.
Why does he bother to do this trick?
Joseph had asked the brothers to bring their youngest brother: from the perspective of the brothers how did he know they had complied? Perhaps they had brought a stand-in, paid to play the role. So he shows them that he knows exactly who is older than whom, and therefore that he knows very well that the one they brought is indeed the youngest.
Also, Joseph seemingly suspects them of being spies but they counter that they are all children of one man rather than a military group, and now Joseph indicates to them that he indeed knows that they are a family and not a group of spies.
Joseph tells his brothers that they must bring their younger brother to him and only then will they all be free and live. What could it mean to the brothers that the viceroy was asking them to bring their youngest brother – what logic was there in this request?
Answer: The Torah tells us (42:21-23) that after hearing this request, Joseph’s brothers say amongst themselves: “This is all happening to us because we didn’t listen to our brother when he pleaded with us”. Given that they realized that this was all happening as a punishment for selling Joseph, obviously they understood that it was God and not the viceroy who was punishing them. So, clearly:
God was directing the actions of the viceroy, and therefore the reasons he had for doing what he did were not even relevant.
This was reflected later in Joseph’s absolving the brothers of their heinous deed by telling them that:
God was directing their actions, and therefore the reasons they had for doing what they had done were not even relevant.
· The brothers’ statement [42:21] that “This is all happening to us because we didn’t listen to our brother when he pleaded with us” reveals an interesting and poignant element of the story of the sale of Joseph which we were not told before; it becomes easy now to imagine the scene of Joseph being stripped of his coat, being cast into the pit and then sold, with Joseph pleading for mercy. But more importantly their words show that they were still convinced that they had been justified in selling him into slavery, just that perhaps despite the justness of their decision they should have had mercy!
· The Torah implies the possibility that the brothers did not want Joseph to hear them speak amongst themselves about this matter: why would they be concerned? What interest would the viceroy have in their family feud?
Answer: From
their perspective, the viceroy was a fellow Ivri who had been a slave, and who
reached his position of prominence because he was a great dream interpreter: if
he would find out that they had sold their brother Joseph, an Ivri , as a slave
to
· Joseph cries [42:24] on hearing this interchange: Of course it is moving to learn that Reuven wished to save him, but perhaps ha cries because he realizes that they still really felt that they had been justified in selling him, and that they felt they were not being punished for selling him but rather for not showing mercy. Nevertheless, however sad it makes Joseph that they still have not come to the realization of their error, their statement helps him overcome any desire for revenge since it’s clear that they really felt they were doing the right thing when they sold him.
Joseph tells the ministers in jail that God provides the
dream interpretations, and he tells the same thing to Pharaoh. Joseph says to
his brothers: “Don’t worry, it was not you who sold me to
Indeed there are very very many parallels between the two stories:
· a time of trouble [Vashti’s rebellion/famine];
· a consultation by a king with his advisors [Achashverosh and Pharaoh consult their ministers;
·
a Jew who saves the king/kingdom (Mordechai
saves A from the plotters/Joseph saves
· a Jew becomes second-in-command (Esther/Joseph) and saves the day;
· parading in special clothing as a sign of honor (Mordechai/Joseph)
· the beginning of a period of exile (Egypt/Persia);
and many other parallels, even in the wording.
Joseph tells the ministers
in jail that God provides the dream interpretations, and he tells the same thing
to Pharaoh. Joseph says to his brothers: “Don’t worry, it was not you who sold
me to
· Joseph’s dreams are clearly divine messages (but no one else knows this);
· His having the dreams at that point served only to get him sold, which led to the fulfillment of the dream;
· Joseph was looking for his brothers, couldn’t find them, and then “a man found him, wandering lost” and directed him to his brothers: if not for this anonymous ‘man’, the sale of Joseph would likely not have occurred.
· After Joseph is thrown in the pit, Reuven leaves for a while, intending to return later and rescue Joseph when the brothers have left; however during his absence the brothers sell Joseph, something that should not have occurred.
· The caravan of Yishma’elim arrived seemingly from nowhere and Joseph was sold to them before Reuven had a chance to return;
· God gave Joseph a special charisma which enabled him to survive and thrive even as a slave;
· The ministers in jail have prophetic dreams;
Even when people tried to harm Joseph, he rose above it.
Joseph hints to the brothers that he used his special cup to divine their ages, implying that it has magical properties [44:5].
This is reminiscent of the story with his mother Rachel who stole her father’s magic item. Her father Lavan runs after Yakov and his family to retrieve it, and Yakov said “Let the one who stole it die” [and later Rachel died though she remained undiscovered at the time]. In direct parallel Joseph’s men run after Yakov’s sons to retrieve the allegedly stolen magical item, and the the brothers say about the magic cup of Rachel’s son Joseph: “Let the one who stole it die” and it turns out that the “thief” is Benjamin, the other son of Rachel[64].
·
Joseph’s dreams are clearly
divine messages (but no one else knows this);
·
His having the dreams at
that point served only to get him sold, which led to the fulfillment of the
dream;
·
Joseph was looking for his
brothers, couldn’t find them, and then “a man found him, wandering lost” and
directed him to his brothers: if not for this anonymous ‘man’, the sale of
Joseph would likely not have occurred.
·
After Joseph is thrown in
the pit, Reuven leaves for a while, intending to return later and rescue Joseph
when the brothers have left; however during his absence the brothers sell
Joseph, something that should not have occurred.
·
The caravan of Yishma’elim
arrived seemingly from nowhere and Joseph was sold to them before Reuven had a
chance to return;
·
God gave Joseph a special
charisma which enabled him to survive and thrive even as a
slave;
·
The ministers in jail have
prophetic dreams;
Even when people tried to
harm Joseph, he rose above it.
The minister described him as “a lad, a Hebrew, a slave” as though to denigrate him. However this turned into Joseph’s favor, since Pharaoh did not fear to place him in a high position where he could eventually usurp the throne: given that everyone knew his lowly status and foreign origins non-one would ever accept him as actual Pharaoh, and so there was no danger in appointing him viceroy.
………………………..
1. The brothers knew that on the previous occasion their coins were mysteriously reinserted in their bags, and this caused them great anxiety all the time they were home so why did they not check their bags before leaving to ensure that something like this didn’t happen again?
Answer: All the brothers had their money returned, so perhaps they assumed that if something similar would occur it would involve all of them, and so one checked for all, but since it was not Benjamin who checked they didn’t find anything suspicious and so they all assumed everything was ok, for everyone.
2. When Joseph’s servants arrived to search them for the ‘missing’ cup, they protested to the searchers that they could not possibly have taken the cup, after all, they said, “when we found money in our bags we returned it later, and anyways how could we have had the chutzpah to steal the viceroy’s cup while at dinner with him!?” So after the cup was found in Benjamin’s bag why did they not similarly try to proclaim their innocence?!
Answer: From their words when they are being asked to bring Benjamin we see that the brothers realize that they are being punished for what they did to Joseph – this is an amazing thing, for there was certainly no open connection to him in the story. But given that they did realize this, they saw no purpose in trying to avoid their fate, their punishment. This is similar to the famous High-Holyday liturgical compilation regarding the Roman execution of ten leading Rabbis (the “asarah harugei malchut” piyut on Yamim No’ra’im)[65]: they accept that they are being punished by God and don’t argue[66].
3. Did the brothers actually suspect Benjamin of having taken the cup?
The brothers accept that they are being punished for having sold Joseph and don’t even address the question of who actually took it, whether or not Benjamin is guilty, and if not, who placed it in his bag and why. [67]
Joseph tells his brothers not to worry, he bears them no
grudge, for it was God who sent him to
However in truth it his remarks are very insightful and show
great compassion. He was telling them to return home and tell his father that he
was alive, and that they should all come to
So Joseph provides them with an alibi, he tells them that it was God who arranged the whole thing, and this is presumably the message they gave their father, and it indeed saved them.
Why did the brothers not search for Joseph during the years his father mourned for him?
Reuven says [42:22] “I told you at the time not to sin against the lad, and now his blood is being demanded of us”.
This sounds as if they had killed Joseph!
Perhaps the believed he was dead, and that is why they didn’t search for him.
Or perhaps they did search for him and couldn’t find him and so presumed him dead.
Why could they not find him?
When Joseph was sent by Yacov to go to his brothers, the Torah makes a point of telling us that he got lost and only found them, (and so was then sold by them) because some unidentified “man” came and told him where they were [37:15]. Clearly the Torah is implying that this was divine intervention, indicating to us that it was God’s will that Joseph encounter his brothers that time. Similarly one can speculate that God made sure that the brothers would not find him when the tables were turned and it was they who were looking for him.
Yakov hears that Joseph is alive, and we are told that “his heart was weakened because he didn’t believe them”: This almost sounds as though he heard BAD news rather than good news! Why?
Answer: When we are told that he didn’t believe them, it does not mean that he didn’t believe them that Yosef was alive, but rather now that he knew that Yosef was alive he realized that the coat with blood on it was a plant; and so what he didn’t believe was their story that they had found the coat with blood on it!
Clearly as a false clue it implicated the brothers, who had brought it to him.
And so he suddenly realized that his sons had sold Joseph to
That’s why when they told him Joseph was alive “his heart weakened because he didn’t believe them”.
1) Why is this worth mentioning at all?
2) We are told that Joseph died at the age of 110 – is it not likely that at that age he should have great-grandchildren!? (Many people today who are 80 or even less already have great-grandchildren.)
Answer:
Abraham’s son Yishmael was exiled, his grandson Yakov ran away to escape his brother Esav’s wrath, and his great grandson Yosef was kidnapped and missing for many years. Yitschak saw his son Yakov run to exile to escape Esav, and his grandson Joseph went missing. Yakov mourned his son for many years. Even Yehuda lost his sons. It wasn’t until Joseph that the main family member peacefully had – and saw - grandchildren and even great-grandchildren.
Among the founders of the Jewish people, the father-to-son blessing is not automatic, and does not simply always go to the firstborn son simply by virtue of his being older – he has to deserve it. Yakov blesses Yosef’s sons Efrayim and Menasheh: he deliberately crosses his arms in order to place his right hand on the head of the younger son (48:14)!
This is hinted at in the word “Bracha” meaning blessing: it has the same letters as “firstbornship”, “bchorah”, just with two letters switched!
In fact, the one giving the blessing, Yakov, was himself given a blessing via a switching: Yitschak thought he was blessing Esav, not Yakov: and it is in the context of that blessing that the two words brocho and bechorah are used.
………………………………
Yakov was given a blessing
via a switching: Yitschak thought he was blessing Esav, not Yakov: in that
context the two words brocho (blessing) and bechorah (“firstbornship”) are used:
they have the same letters but with two letters switched! Here Yakov
himself gives a physical expression to this by using a physical switch of the
hands to place the younger over the elder.
………….
[Note] Yitschak was involved in two seminal moments: in both cases he did not know what was actually occurring: when his father was bringing him for sacrifice (without telling him, and actually hinting that there was an animal that was being brought), and his giving the blessings to Yakov (when he was misled to believe that it was Esav).
(which version is better?)
Given the depth of their father’s grief, did the brothers search for Joseph during the years his father mourned for him? If yes, why didn’t they find him? If not, why not?
Perhaps they did search for
him and couldn’t find him and so presumed him dead. But if so, why could they not find him?
When Joseph was sent by
Yakov to go to his brothers, the Torah makes a point of telling us that he got
lost and only found them (and so was then sold by them) because some
unidentified “man” came and told him where they were [37:15]. Clearly the Torah
is implying that this was divine intervention, indicating to us that it was
God’s will that Joseph encounter his brothers that time. Similarly one can
speculate that God made sure that the brothers would not find him when the
tables were turned and it was they who were looking for
him.
But
more likely, they didn’t even try to find him, either rout of fear of the
consequences of their father’s knowledge of what had happened, or perhaps for
the follwing reason: While standing in front of Joseph, unaware that it is him,
Reuven says to his brothers [42:22] “I told you at the time not to sin against
the lad, and now his blood is being demanded of us”. This sounds as if they believed Joseph to be
dead!
It
isn’t clear why they would assume this, perhaps because slaves in
As
viceroy of
Answer: Joseph didn’t know
whether or not his father had been in on the plot against him. It is only from
his brother’s remarks about Yosef’s disappearance and the effect on Yakov that
enlightens Yosef to the fact that Yakov was not in on the plot against him, and
is in fact still mourning him. This information was not given to him on the
brothers’ first trip and subsequent interrogation, when they merely said that
“one (of our brothers) is gone”. And only then does Yosef reveal himself (this
is not MY chidush)
Yosef perhaps felt that there was some likelihood that this father was not involved, but even so there were good reasons not to try to contact him:
The
brothers wanted to disenfranchise Joseph from the lineage of the family and its
destiny by selling him as a slave to
However Joseph, for all his
self-involvement and what seemed to his brothers to be arrogance, was intensely
emotional and merciful, and also concerned himself only with the larger picture.
As he tells them later in his typically merciful but arrogant-seeming statement,
he saw God’s hands in all that they did (as though they were
puppets).
Furthermore, he wanted to
have the matter conclude in the best possible way for his brothers and for his
father: Joseph didn’t want to cause his father the anguish of
knowing what his sons had done, nor to cause the banishment of the guilty:
instead he wanted to cover for his brothers and also give them the opportunity
of doing teshuva.
According to the Talmud,
dreams are fulfilled according to their interpretation.
A
first glance at the interpretation which Joseph’s family gives to his dreams is
that Joseph’s brothers and parents will bow to him/will be ruled by him
[37:8-10]. Indeed later his brothers bow to him, but his father Yakov does not.
Why not?
Yakov actually didn’t
interpret the dreams the same way that his sons did. Instead he says to Joseph
rhetorically “will your mother and I come to bow before you?!”. Since by then
Rachel, Joseph’s mother, was dead already Yakov’s comment is meant to point up
the absurdity of such an interpretation – he was in this way subtly negating the
antagonistic interpretation offered by the brothers.
Much later, Joseph learns
from the ministers’ eventual fate that indeed his interpretation of their dreams
was correct; later yet, after the seven years of plenty ended and the famine
began, he saw that his interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream had been correct. As a
result when Joseph’s brothers arrived he felt that that his original dreams were
to unfold, but he believed they would have to unfold according to their
interpretation - that they would bow before him - and so he accommodated this
reality.
However Yakov due to his
interpretation of the dreams was not meant to bow before his son Joseph, and
Joseph ensured that indeed this would not happen.
In
fact, the intended interpretation of the dream of the sun and moon and stars was
that fate, and nature – which these represent – would bow before the power of
Joseph, who would overcome that which “was written in the stars” and prevent the
fated famine.
…………
DUPLICATION: WHICH IS
BETTER?
Joseph tells his brothers
not to worry, he bears them no grudge for having been sold as a slave to Egypt,
since it was all part of God’s plan to have Yosef save the people of Egypt from
famine, and to save his own family as well - it was God who sent him to Egypt,
not them.
On the one hand this is very merciful. However
it could also be interpreted as also being very arrogant since he is implying
that their actions were as those of puppets acting out the divine will.
Furthermore he says that he was sent to
However in truth it his
remarks are very insightful and show great compassion. Not only is this meant to
make them feel at ease, but it is also a prelude to the next thing he says: a
message to his father Yakov: the brothers are terribly apprehensive not only as
to what Yosef will do to them, but also what Yakov will do when he learns that
Joseph was alive rather than eaten by a wild animal as had been suspected, their
father would perhaps realize that the brothers had sold him as a slave to Egypt!
What would their father do to them?!
Yosef alays their anxiety in
this as well, provides them with an alibi. He instructed them to return home and
tell his father that he was alive, and that they should all come to
Yosef’s telling them what to
say to protect them from their father’s wrath is the direct opposite of Yosef
actions as the boy who was the tattle-tale to his father about the misdeeds of
his brothers. In this way he was doing his own teshuva.
Why
Did Yosef Cry?
The brothers’ statement
[Miketz: 42:21-22] that “This is all happening to us because we didn’t listen to
our brother when he pleaded with us” reveals that they were still convinced that
they had been justified in selling
him into slavery, just that perhaps despite the justness of their decision they
should have had mercy!
Joseph cries [42:24] on
hearing this interchange: Of course it is moving to learn that Reuven wished to
save him, but perhaps he cries because he realizes that they still really felt
that they had been justified in selling him, and that they felt they were not
being punished for selling him but rather for not showing mercy. Nevertheless, however sad it makes Joseph
that they still have not come to the realization of their error, their statement
helps him overcome any desire for revenge since it’s clear that they really felt
they were doing the right thing when they sold him.
Yakov hears that Joseph is
alive, and we are told that “his heart was weakened because he didn’t believe
them”. Why didn’t he believe them? And why was his heart weakened?! This almost
sounds as though he heard BAD news rather than good news!
Answer: When we are told
that he didn’t believe them, it does not mean that he didn’t believe them that
Yosef was alive: he DID believe that, but now that he knew that Yosef was alive
he realized that the coat with blood on it was a false piece of planted
evidence; and so what he didn’t believe was their story that they had found the
coat with blood on it!
One
or other had to be false. Clearly as a false clue it implicated the brothers -
who had brought it to him – in Joseph’s disappearance. And they not only perpetrated that act, but
kept it from him all those years that they watched him
suffer!
…………
I Told You
So
Why
was it so important for Yosef to tell his brothers that God had sent him to
Yosef is telling them that
they consistently misunderstood the nature of events:
·
they did not understand that
the dreams were prophecies and that they were to interpret them in accordance;
·
they thought they were being
punished by God for the treatment of Yosef, and though they were correct in
drawing the connection, and in concluding that God’s hand was involved, they
erred in thinking that God was causing this Egyptian ruler to punish them, it
was not God, it was Yosef himself;
·
furthermore, they erredin
interpreting this as punishment - it was actually the reverse, an opportunity to
do teshuva.
· Now that after Yakov’s death they again showed that they misunderstood Yosef’s motives, fearing that he would take revenge, it was important to reinforce their understanding that all was in fact orchestrated by God (who caused them to sell Yosef, who caused the famine, and caused them to come to Yosef for food).
Deliberate
Provocation?
When Binyamin was given
extra portions prior to Yosef’s revealing his identity, the brothers overcame
any inclination to jealousy, but this was perhaps only because they were caught
up in a process which they realized was a divine punishment for their treatment
of Yosef as a result of jealousy. But
afterwards, Joseph again gives Binyamin preferential treatment, extra gifts
[45:22]: why would he do this if it might provoke
jealousy?
To
ensure that the brothers understood and had internalized the lesson, and would
never again be jealous of each other: like after Yom Kippur, when one feels
purged of sin, high with spirituality, but then the next week it’s back to real
life. So Yosef was testing them, with the same test, after they had already
resumed ‘real life’, to see if the teshuva was real.
There are very very many
parallels between the two stories:
·
a time of trouble [Vashti’s
rebellion/famine];
·
a consultation by a king
with his advisors [Achashverosh/Pharaoh consult their
ministers;
·
a Jew who saves the
king/kingdom (Mordechai saves Achashveros from the plotters/Joseph saves
·
a Jew (Esther/Joseph)
becomes second-in-command and saves the day;
·
parading in special clothing
as a sign of honor (Mordechai/Joseph)
·
the beginning of a period of
exile (Egypt/Persia);
and
many other parallels, even in the wording.
Va’y’chi[68]
Reading between the lines of
a Missing Space
Va’y’chi is unique among
parshas: there’s no long white space separating it from the previous parsha in
the Torah scroll (parsha stuma). Various reasons have been given for this: I
offer the following: it’s short, and is like a parenthetical entry between the
very end of the previous parsha, Va’yigash, and the beginning of next week’s
parsha, Shmos which mesh well with each other.
Indeed [Genesis 47:27] is very
similar to Exodus [1:7]: both refer to the overall situation of the Jews in
Yakov:
Yosef:
missing central elements of
the overall story
·
Did Yakov ever actually find
out that it was his own sons who had sold Yosef as a slave?[69]
·
Why did the Jews remain in
Of course one can speculate
on reasons[71],
but the fact that the matter is not discussed is itself
significant.
The UnDead
According to Rabbinical
commentary, “Yakov didn’t die”. Various interpretations are given for his
unusual statement[72].
In this context I offer the following three related
pieces:
Yakov is about to die
(47:29), and asks Yosef to swear to bury him in the family burial spot (in
It would seem that in some
sense Yakov lived longer than ‘originally intended’ – maybe to provide time to
give the all-important blessings to Yosef, Efrayim and Menashe, and the messages
(an ‘ethical will’) to the tribes. In this sense it is significant that “Yakov
didn’t die”.
In a very graphic
description, the Torah tells us that immediately after giving the blessings from
his bed, he pulls his feet up onto the bed [49:33] and dies!
From the fact that already
beforehand Yakov was close to death and already had commanded Yosef regarding
his burial, and the fact that he died immediately so abruptly and dramatically
after concluding the blessings, we can see that at this time Yakov was so ill,
so close to death, that had Joseph and the other brothers not been immediately
notified of his state they would have missed the opportunity for the blessings.
How did they find out about Yakov’s condition, to be able to come at the right
moment?
The Torah
says:
“And it came to pass after
these things, and he told Yosef ‘your father is ill’ ” but the Torah does not
say who told him this!
·
Right after this the Torah
says:
“And he said to Yakov: your son Yosef is
coming” but it does not say WHO told
him that.
Clearly the Torah is hinting
(broadly) at something[73],
and given that it is about Joseph it’s probably hinting again at divine
intervention[74]
- that in the natural course of events they would not have known to come right
then.
1) Yakov on his deathbed tells his sons that he will reveal to them matters concerning “the end of days”. Why did Yakov intend to reveal these matters, and how did he know of them? It has been suggested that as he was on his death-bed, he was partially in “the world to come” and so had access to knowledge which he wanted to share it . The Sages teach that it was not meant to be, and so prophecy was removed from him at that moment, and therefore what Yakov actually then says to his children is more of an ethical will than a prophecy of the future. Perhaps one can expand on this idea by proposing that Yakov was not initially ‘meant’ to give any of the blessings!
2) How did Yakov have the
strength to give these penetrating detailed blessings to his children a few
minutes before death?
The Torah implies [48:2]
that had his beloved son Yosef not come to him, Yakov would not have had the
strength to give the blessings that day; he would have died without giving them.
And so God arranged for the blessings to occur by ensuring that Yosef was
informed of Yakov’s imminent death.
The Midrash teaches that
Ahron (next parsha) used to tell both sides of a conflict that the other was
sorry… by being creative about what he told both sides, and approaching them
simultaneously, they were both ready at the same time to forgive each other, and
this brought peace. By starting the loop with both people simultaneously, Ahron
achieved his goal.
Similarly there was no one
to know that Yakov was to die that day, and Yakov had no strength left to give
brochos in any case. So, to start the loop God stepped in and created the
simultaneous messages: notifying Yosef to go, and Yakov that he was coming.…..
this gave Yakov strength and he was able to give the blessings, and brought
Yosef and his children there to receive the blessings: Yakov was technically
dead, he was just staying alive through God’s intervention - indeed “Yakov
didn’t die”. In that state Yakov was connected to the higher realms, however it
was not up to him to decide what to say – God arranged all this in order for a
very specific message – the ethical will recorded in the parsha - to be
delivered to his children and all posterity.
And this is also why
immediately after delivering the message, he dies so abruptly.
a) Yakov is old and near
death and seems to be rambling: he begins telling Yosef that God promised him
the Land, and that he is giving Yosef’s two sons Efrayim and Menashe status as
his own sons: they will receive a share in the land equal to that of each of the
tribes, their uncles.
Then suddenly Yakov talks of
the death and burial of Joseph’s mother Rachel, their grandmother, his beloved
wife.
This seems like the
non-sequitar one might expect from an old man. But of course it
isn’t.
Yakov is giving the reason
for granting Joseph’s sons that special status: his words [48:7] imply that
Rachel died prematurely, before completing her mission – and from what Yakov had
just said to them we can see what this mission was: she ‘should have had’[76]
more children than just the two she had, Joseph and Benjamin. And so Yakov is
considering Rachel’s two grandchildren as though they were her sons.
b) Yakov was with Leah on
his wedding night, but thought he was with Rachel. And so his first born son
‘should have been’ Rachel’s first son Yosef; instead his first son was Leah’s
firstborn Reuven, and then Shimon. And so Yakov tells Yosef [48:5] who was
‘supposed to have been’ his firstborn, that his sons will be like his
firstborns: “they will be to me as Reuven and Shimon”.
c)
Yosef was named by Rachel in a manner that was perhaps not totally appropriate:
the name Yosef means “let God give me yet another son”! Perhaps indeed she was
supposed to have one more child than she actually had, but her asking for more
resulted in a curtailment, and indeed she was granted her request of having one
more, but she had been otherwise slated to have two more! [Be careful what you
request – you may unfortunately be granted it!] Furthermore, due to Yakov’s
saying’ let the person die’ she died early and had only the two
sons.
Ephrayim and Menashe were
then accepted as tribes in place of Yosef (“let God give me yet another son”)
and the meant-to-be but never actually born additional
son.
[To
understand the above we need to know of:
These were explained in a
previous parsha sheet, and so for reference are included in the Appendix at the
end of this sheet.
Grave Suspicions
Why does Yakov suddenly talk
of the burial of Rachel in his conversation with Yosef [48:7]?
Rashi brings commentary to
the effect that Yakov was deflecting implied criticism: that Yosef wondered why
his father hadn’t bothered to transport Rachel to burial in the family plot that
he himself was asking to be transported to. However one could offer an alternate
but related reason: Yosef was a child when his mother died but he presumably
knew why she was buried where she was; if he didn’t know as a child then
certainly later on. Rather, Yosef, knowing that Yakov had loved Rachel so much,
wondered why he was not asking to be buried next to her, or for her to be moved
to where he would be buried.
Yakov answers that Rachel is
not being neglected, her burial place is not simply a random spot from which she
should be moved, but rather her presence there will be of great significance to
the Jewish people in future ages.
………………………………………………………
3 Introductory segments (advanced
readers can skip):
Summary of the
story of Yakov’s Blessing of Ephraim and Menashe
Joseph
brings his two sons to his father on his death bed, careful to indicate which is
the older, but Yakov gives a blessing crossing his arms to place his right hand
on the head of Efrayim, the younger son, and his left on the head of the older
Menashe [48:14]. His son Joseph, who had suffered greatly from the jealousy and
hatred of his older brothers, attempts unsuccessfully to move Yakov’s hands so
that his right hand would be on the older grandchild. Yakov doesn’t allow his
hands to be budged. And there is no recorded rivalry between the two brothers as
a result.
Introductory: The Blessings of Efrayim and Menashe as the Culmination of the Book of Genesis
The
blessing given to Ephrayim and Menashe is very unusal: that future generations
will bless their children by saying “let God make you/(place you!) as Efrayim
and Menashe”. Why were they blessed in this way? What did they do to deserve
that this be so for generations?
As is
well known, Genesis brims with sibling rivalry on the metaphysical and physical
planes, with older brothers constantly usurped by/jealous of the younger,
however no such negative ramifications are recorded for this event, implying
Menasheh’s compliance in the giving of the blessing to his younger brother
Efrayim. As such, this event of sibling peace has great significance – it is the
counterpart to the primal fratricidal murder of Abel by Cain - and so brings to
a conclusion the book of Genesis and it’s associated period of spiritual
development.
This
event of brotherly love:
·
derived its
power partially from their grandmother Rachel, who was willing to sacrifice her
marriage to Yakov in order to save her sister from embarrassment and pain.
·
paves the way
for:
1. Joseph’s overlooking his brothers’ sins
[50:17-21],
2. The extraordinary brothers in the next
parsha, Moses and Ahron, with the younger trying to refuse his mission in favor
of his older brother, and the older brother being happy for the success of his
younger brother – the God who testified to the jealousy and hatred of the
brothers for Yosef testifies that Ahron was truly happy for
Moses.
This
is the significance of the blessing given to Efrayim and Menashe in our parsha:
that future generations will bless their children by saying “let God make
you/(place you!) as Efrayim and Menashe”, blessing their children that they be
able to overcome sibling rivalry/jealousy as Ephrayim and Menashe
had.
Introductory: Premeditated
Incitement to Jealousy:
Yosef,
who suffered so much from sibling jealousy was horrified: it was with great
regret that Abraham cast Ishmael out, and Yitschak was fooled into causing the
brother-hatred, and Yakov unwittingly caused Yosef’s brothers to hate him by
showing Yosef favoritism, but here his father by deliberately placing his
right hand on the younger brother was going to deliberately perpetrates an act
which is almost designed to cause jealousy between his two sons, in front of his
eyes!
………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
“I know, my son, I know” (Yada’ti
bni, yada’ti)
Yosef
tells his father that his right hand is on the younger and then Yakov says: that he is aware: “I know, my son, I know”.
Why is he using this double phraseology, and why is it important enough for the
Torah to record it?
Even
after answering Yosef that he knew that his right hand was on the younger, “I
know, my son” Yosef’s manner certainly would have had a question” “OK, so you
know which is the older and which is the younger, BUT WHY ARE YOU DOING
THIS!!??”
With
the second “I know” Yakov was indicating to Yosef that he was quite aware not
simply of the correct order of the two sons’ birth, but
also:
·
He knows of the
loaded nature of the act of openly preferring one over the other. He knows that
an ancestor’s blessing can cause eternal strife as was the case between he
himself and his brother Esav, but he was doing this with a purpose: perhaps it
was a necessary ‘rite of passage’ for those aspiring to be in the special line.
·
perhaps hinting
that he knows what happened to Yosef at the hands of his brothers (due to
sibling jealousy)
·
he knows it
will all work out ok in this case; he knows somehow that Ephraim and Menashe
would succeed in overcoming any jealousy and would bring the whole
brother-jealousy issue to an end.
In [48:10] we are told that
Yakov was blind (‘from old age’), but immediately after this we are told of
Yakov using a phrase implying ‘sight’ twice in one sentence, saying [48:11]“I
never even imagined (prayed) that I would see your face (again), and now God has
shown me even your children!”.[77]
·
We are being informed that
although his father Yitschak also was ‘blind old age’ and could not see at all,
Yakov’s blindness, although deriving also ‘from old age’ allowed him (at that
stage) to discern the children [either he could identify them even without sight
or he could see them from close up but not from further away], and so Yakov’s
choice of placing his right hand on the younger was not due to an error, as was
however the case when Yitschak, due to the same type of ‘old age blindness’
believed him to be his brother Esav.
·
We are told
that before the blessings began, Joseph saw his father cross his arms to place
his hands that way, so why did Joseph not correct Yakov before the blessing
began?
·
If Yakov was
not finished giving the blessing, how could Yosef interrupt him in the middle,
especially if he did not see fit to correct him beforehand without
interrupting!?
·
If the blessing
was over when he tried to move his fathers’ hands, why did he bother? Did he
believe that more blessing was to follow? He was right - but how did he
know?
Answers:
·
From [48:15] we can see that
although Yakov’s first blessing was about Ephrayim and Menashe, it was
actually directed at Joseph, not his children! Yakov blessed his son
Joseph with the success of his children. Since it was a blessing about the children, Yakov placed his
hands on their heads while he blessed
Joseph.
·
Probably Yosef realized that
next there’d be a blessing directed to the children themselves. As there indeed
was. And so Yosef tries to switch his father’s hands so that the blessing to them will be with Yakov’s hands
placed in chronologically correct order.
·
Perhaps there would not have
been another blessing of the children themselves separately from the blessing to
Joseph about them, but now gauging the positive reaction of the children, he is
moved to give them a special blessing. And this is why he says the second
“ya’dati” : he knows from the positive reaction of the two children to the first
blessing, about them but directed to their father, that they will be ok with
receiving a blessing in the reverse order of their
birth.
Yosef brings his children to his father Yakov [48:13], taking care to hold them in reverse order so that the older is in his left hand, opposite Yakov’s right hand. Why is Yosef suddenly making sure of the order of the children? What makes him suspect that there will be a problem of Yakov giving priority to the younger, as indeed there was!?
Answer:
·
immediately preceding this,
Yakov mentions the two children, naming the younger first [48:5], so there is
already an indication either of confusion or of his intent to switch their
blessings!
[Also: Yakov cannot see, and
Yosef knows that Yakov himself exploited the lack of vision of his father
Yitschak to get the blessings instead of Esav. The situation was fraught; Yosef
did not want his sons to have to choose the position they would take in getting
the blessing, and perhaps compete with each other, and therefore he takes
care.]
What’s With the Knees?
Staying One Move Ahead
The order of events
preceding the blessing to Efrayim and Menashe is strange: the Torah is perhaps
implying something by it.
We are told
that:
1.
Yosef brought his sons near
to Yakov [48:10];
2.
Yakov hugs and kisses them
[while they were on Josephs knees?];
3.
Joseph then takes them off
his knees (48:12), and bows deeply (all the way) to his
father;
4.
Joseph then brings his sons
near to Yakov [48:13]: Again!?
· Why the second bringing of his children to Yakov – were they not already with their grandfather?
· Why does the Torah emphasize this repeated action by taking care to use the same word in both passages: “and he approached”[78] .
· Why does Yosef suddenly prostrate himself to his father in the middle of things?
· Why does the Torah mention that Yosef had the children on his knees, and that he removed them before prostrating himself to his father?
·
Yakov stipulates that these are the children
born to Joseph before Yakov came to
Answer:
I would like to suggest the
possibility that after hugging and kissing them as mentioned in the Torah, but
before Yosef got up to bow, Yakov had already placed his hands on the
children in the reverse order (in accordance with his earlier statement
mentioning Efrayim before Menashe). Yosef was now trying to rectify this!
From the fact that Yosef a
bit later tells his father “not so, father, this is the older one” we can see
that Yosef thought his father could not tell the difference, and so he felt
right in intervening. So rather than correcting his father Yosef looks for an
excuse to move the children and bring them back in the appropriate order: he does not remove the children from his
knees in order to bow, he bows in order to be able to remove
them!
Therefore the Torah makes sure to tell us that he takes
them off his knees and then bows, and that he approached again, and that now he
had them arranged in the way he wanted them to be when Yakov blessed them – the
younger facing Yakov’s left hand, the older facing Yakov’s right hand. And then
Yakov again places his right hand on
the younger, this time deliberately crossing his hands to do so. [By having his
hands on their heads with his arms deliberately crossed during the blessing of Yosef, Yakov was
able to gauge their reaction to the simple act of reversal in a relatively safe
way: if he had detected jealousy he could indeed have removed them or allowed
Joseph to rearrange them before giving the children their blessing.]
Yosef thinks that perhaps
Yakov did not realize that Yosef has returned them in the proper order, or wants
his father to now rectify the situation, and so he now corrects his
father.
Furthermore, the word for
“knees” (“birkotav”) is exactly the same spelling in the Torah (where vowels are
not included) as the word for “his blessings” (“brachav” in masculine form), and
so perhaps one could read the passage as saying not “Yosef removed them from his
knees” but rather “Yosef removed them from his (Yakov’s) blessing” ie he moved
them away just as Yakov was about to begin to bless the children (in the
improper order), and now the reason for the Torah including this word is very
clear – rather than being odd, implying that adult children were sitting on his
knees, it sheds light on the entire story.
·
Why it was necessary for
Yakov to place his hands on the heads of Efrayim and Menashe while giving the
blessings? [79]
·
Even if Yakov wished to
place his hands on the heads of both children, since he gave only one blessing
and directed it at both of them why was it necessary to place this or that hand
on a specific head? Why not just place whichever hand on whichever child’s
head.
Answers:
A) This was a mechanism for testing their
jealousy-index;
B) Yakov’s hands were a connection to the two
children:
·
By placing
himself in contact with them during the flow of the blessing to Joseph, Yakov
was better able to sense their inner feelings. [He was able thus to feel
Menashe’s lack of jealousy, and so when he finished the blessing to Yosef and
prepared to bless the children he kept his hands as they were. Yosef however was
not ‘connected’ in this link and so could not feel Menashe’s emotions and so he
tried to rearrange his father’s hands. ]
·
Not only were
they given identical blessings; mores this blessing was not given to them
sequentially, separately, but simultaneously, in one utterance meant for them
both: the link created by the two hands allowed for the one blessing to flow
along two paths ;
C) Yakov was a channel for blessing, and was
connected not only to each child, but served as a connecting link between them,
linking them to each other!
·
This connection
helped them empathize with each other and overcome any tendency to
jealousy.
·
since the
reason for their receiving a blessing was due to an aspect of their relationship
as brothers, their connection to each other, rather than as individuals, the
blessing was given while both were connected in this
link
·
the content of
the blessing was self-referential: it was not for their individual gain, for
example it was not a simultaneous blessing “each of you will be wealthy as a
reward for being connected so deeply” nor even “you will each succeed in life
because you are connected so deeply” but rather the content of the blessing was
that others would recognize their connection, be inspired by it, and would bless
their children to be like them, and so the blessing was given via a physical
connection of each to the other.
Although on his deathbed
Yakov severely criticizes his sons Shimon and Levi [49:5-7] for their killing of
the inhabitants of Shchem [Chapter 34] we can see indications that he is not
totally against all aspects of it:
·
Shimon and Levi were not
themselves cursed by Yakov, it was their
anger which was considered cursed [49:7].
(Just as Adam and Eve were not cursed by God, only the ground and the
snake were.)
·
Yakov does not criticize the
other brothers for the aspect of the action which they were part of[80].
·
Yakov grants Schem as part
of the inheritance he bequeaths [48:22];
·
Yakov says that he
took Shchem – and took it with his might. This implies both his acquiescence in
its takeover and in the way it was taken.
We can infer from this that
Yakov did not necessarily think that the killing of the Shchemites was wrong –
rather, it was imprudent, not politically expedient. And, it was undertaken
without due consultation, and possibly endangered the whole
family.
Even though those partaking
in it might have felt themselves justified, what underlay the sale of Joseph was
hatred and jealousy. Yakov judges that it was temper which underlay the killing
of the Schemites, so he criticizes them even though the action itself might have
been justified.
His criticism is not against
the act, but against the motivation: some things are justified but imprudent,
and though it did not materialize, at the time Yakov had feared the vengeance of
the surrounding peoples [34:30].
On his deathbed Yakov is
warning Shimon and Levi to be aware that their temper may lead them to
unilateral violent action which although possibly justified can endanger
themselves, or even the whole family.
Did Yakov know what happened to Yosef? Possibly, even Reuven didn’t know what had happened to Yosef
Reuven says not to kill
Yosef, to put him in the pit and not to do anything to him, and the Torah tells
us that he had the intention of saving Yosef from them [37:22]. In 37:30 he
returns and finds Yosef gone, cries out “what will I do now” and together with
the rest of the brothers fabricates the evidence of a wild animal attack on
Yosef (placing goat blood on Yosef’s “coat of colors”). However there is no
certainty that he knew what had happened - he perhaps believed Yosef was
dead, killed by some animal or kidnapped/killed by bandits!
Years later, in standing in front of Yosef with the interpreter between them [42:21] the brothers say “we are being punished because we didn’t have mercy on him” (in other words that they threw him into the pit despite his pleas). Why do they not say “for having sold him”?
Maybe the brothers didn’t want to admit in front of Reuven what they had done! (that they had sold him, or allowed him to be taken from the pit by others and sold as a slave).
In
fact we see from Reuven’s statement in response to this [42:22] “his (Yosef’s)
blood is being demanded of us” that indeed Reuven seems to believe that Yosef
is dead!
·
It isn’t clear from the
passages where everyone was at each point, almost a deliberate obfuscation:
Reuven’s leaving is not mentioned, only his return, so when we initially read
the story we don’t know that he was not there, until later on we are told of his
return;
·
although the brothers stated
their intention to sell him to the arriving Yishme’elim, those who actually drew
Yosef out of the pit and sold him to the Yishme’elim were not the
brothers.
There is much in the
interaction of Yosef and Yakov here that is reminiscent of Yakov’s
reconciliation with Esav [33:3 –11]:
·
Yakov,
Rachel, and Yosef star in both:
·
There
Yakov bows to Esav, here Yosef bows to Yakov:
·
Esav sees
Yakov’s children and asks who they are; Yakov sees Yosef’s children and asks the
same:
·
Esav and
Yakov kiss and embrace and here Yakov kisses and hugs Yosef’s
children:
·
Yakov
tells Esav how significant it is for him to “see his face” is, and here Yakov
tells Yosef the same;
·
Esav and
Yakov there, and Efrayim and Menashe here, are an older brother and a younger,
with the younger rather than the older having receiving the
blessings.
·
Yakov
implores Esav to “accept his blessing” [33:11], ironic since he took the
blessing from him creating the enmity: here Yakov is giving blessings, Yosef
asks him to please change the placement of his hands, presumably to prevent
future enmity between the brothers.
Clearly these are fateful
events, shaping history, and Yakov and Yosef, being very aware of the
undercurrents, are operating in accordance, to hidden higher
purposes.
Next Parsha:
Slavery
D)
Yosef instituted
mass-slavery in Egypt (!) [the end of the previous parsha: (47:25)]: and his
descendants become slaves there.
E)
Joseph remained a slave, in
prison, because the minister “didn’t remember Joseph and forgot him”; his
descendants remained as slaves imprisoned in
F)
Rachel steals her father’s
idols. Yakov, not knowing that it was she (just as he didn’t know it was NOT her
at the wedding), and thinking that Lavan is totally unjustified in his thorough
search of their belongings says [31:32] in anger: “let the thief die”. And so
Rachel dies early, in childbirth. This is also of course a terrible tragedy for
Yakov who loved her, and whose words kill her.
G)
Rachel says to Yakov re her
lack of children: [30:1] “Give me children, because if not I am dead/I will
die!” and indeed she dies early.
AR: The irony is that it is
just as soon as Rachel has what she requested, that is she has children – plural
- that is, as soon as her second
child is born, she indeed dies. And even more ironically she dies in
childbirth!
H)
Yakov gets angry with her
saying “Am I (in place of) God, that I prevented you from having children!?”.
AR: Yakov’s statement takes on ironical overtones, since it turns out that
although he didn’t prevent her from having children, having children was her
undoing since she died in childbirth (and indeed he prevented her from having
more children by causing her to die in childbirth).
*
The Ramifications of the Naming of
Yosef
Rachel is not satisfied by
the blessing of finally giving birth to a child: she says “Let God add to me
another son”, and therefore names her son Joseph/“Yosef” = ‘let Him add’! This
dissatisfaction has grave consequences:
I)
AR: The word ‘yosef’ in this
context initially appears in the Torah after Eve gave birth to Cain: we are
told: “and she additionally (“vatosef”) gave birth to Abel”. The parallel is
clear: Cain was intensely jealous of Abel, and killed him, and the brothers were
intensely jealous of Yosef, and wanted to kill him.
J)
AR: Rachel asks for a child
“in addition” to the first-born, and gets one, Benjamin. Later however Joseph
disappears and Yakov must console himself with Benjamin INSTEAD of Joseph, not
in addition to him!
K)
Yakov and Rachel were fated
to be married and have Joseph, and for him to be the first born. Joseph was
meant to have great spiritual potential as a result of this; this would also
have forestalled all power struggles. Instead Yakov was with Leah first and
Yosef was not the first-born, and his spiritual energy was
weakened.
L)
It was crucial that the
thoughts of both Yakov and Leah be attuned at the moment of conception. Yakov
thought he was with Rachel but he was with Leah instead and so the child that
resulted, Reuven, was spiritually impaired, and this caused his actions to be
less than perfect (he didn’t save Joseph; his actions regarding Biha).
M)
Though as it turned out
Reuven was first-born, it was still Joseph who was preordained to be the leader,
and this was the root of the struggles between the brothers. (Their struggle was
like those of the previous generations: between the first-born Yishmael and his
younger brother Yitschak [first-born of Sarah], and between the first-born Esav
and his younger twin brother Yakov.)
Yakov is cheated repeatedly
by Lavan. Yakov places a magic stick near the sheep when they conceive, and the
sheep come out this color! Intentions Have Effect. I heard the following from my grandfather:
Lavan told Yakov that since he was given Rachel in the end, the deception had no
negative long-term effect. Yakov countered that the negative effect was in the
mystical mismatch of intention that he had when with Leah, thinking it was
Rachel, and this affected Reuven and Joseph negatively. Lavan countered that
such things could have no effect. So Yakov showed him that even what the sheep
think of when conceiving has a physical effect (!) how much more crucial are
human thoughts.
DELETE FROM BREISHIS: USE
ONLY WEHERE SPEAK OF Moshe RABBENU
As
is well known, in relating the creation account the Torah uses three terms: in
order of their implied significance they are: ‘bara’/created (from
‘nothinness’), “yatzar”/fashioned (from a pre-existing substance), and
“asah”/made. As has been pointed out by the commentators, of all the creations
only Heaven and Earth, Humans, and the ‘Tanninim Hagdolim’ (usually translated
as “great sea serpents/monsters” [dinosaurs?]) are “created”: “God [thus] created the great sea
monsters”.
Question: Heaven and Earth
is the initial all-encompassing creation and so the term is appropriate there.
Humans are created in the divine image, unique, and so “creation from nothing”
is appropriate as well. Why the “taninim”? And what are they; no such animal is
known today.
We
are told by the sages that during the initial creation God created all the
miracles that were to be used later.
Employing this idea of the
sages we can say as follows: One important miracle we are told of involves Moshe
Rabenu (Moses) appearing before Pharaoh during the initiation of the exodus.
Creation and the exodus are tied to each other: both reveal the glory of God to
all, both are the reason for the Shabbat.
Moses was to make a his
staff became a tannin; when he did so it swallowed the ‘taninim’ of the Egyptian
magicians: ie Moses’ staff became the “large tannin”.
Perhaps the tanninim
hagdolim of the creation account were created initially to create the
possibility for Moses’ staff to become a ‘tannin gadol’. [83]
[24] In theology/philosophy this is known as Imitatio Dei [ = “imitating God”].
[25]
We are created in the image of Elokim, but the
[26] Interestingly the keywords tamim and hithalekh appear also when Abraham is enjoined by God “Hithalekh lefanai ve’hyeh tamim” “walk before me and be tamim”. [Note: The words “tzedaka”/Tzadik and “vehakimoti et briti” “I will maintain my covenant” also appear by both Abraham and Noah.] See Gen 17:1,7.
[27] (Harran not at all on a
straight line from Ur to Ca’na’an, but it along the trade route of the Fertile
Crescent which was preferred to the straight-line desert route: today it is in
Southern Turkey very near the Syrian border and has the remains of a temple to
the moon god ‘sin’, and beehive-shaped houses.[yes, I was there.])
[28] Note the very nice
parallel:
“and they left to go with
them to Cana’an and they arrived in
“and they left to go with them to Cana’an and they arrived in Cana’an.”
[29]
For those not familiar with the story: Q: Why did they go to
[30] Midrash reminds us that they were related and so ‘sister’ as a generic term was appropriate. Furthermore, scholars have found indications that in those times ‘sister’ was a term reserved for a specially favored wife.
[31]This also explains the words: “and Sarah, in the tent, HEARD” and several other elements of the story. Note also that Maimonides teaches that all such encounters were visions: perhaps then Manoach and his wife also had a combined vision.
[32] Like Rivka and Yitschak re the revelation about the twins. See also re God saying “will I conceal from Abraham” re Sdom.
[33] Note that Noah’s ark had 8 people.
[34]
See also the parallel in [
[35]
As a favor to
[36]
When
Moses killed the Egyptian who was beating the Jews, we are told that he looked
all ways and the sages teach that this means that he examined the future
generations to be descended from this tyrant to see if there was justification
to allowing him to live, but there was not. If there was redeeming value in
future generations for his progeny, he would not have been killed.
Perhaps the same can be said of the people of Sdom (and the generation of the Flood?): they would not have married and had children and so there was no redeeming value in their future to save them in the present.
[37] Alternate possibility: because Abraham insulted the sand of the desert and therefore this was in consequence (?!) to teach us that we should be respectful of all.
[38]
EDITING NOTE: This is at end of the parsha, and should stay at end in
any further version because it is a minor point only (what’s the
message?).
[39] [24: 22] And it came to pass, as the camels had done drinking, that the man (Eliezer) took a golden ring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold” [24: 30] And it came to pass, when he (Lavan) saw the ring, and the bracelets upon his sister's hands, and when he heard the words of Rebekah his sister, saying: 'Thus spoke the man unto me,' that he came unto the man; and, behold, he stood by the camels at the fountain. 31 And he (Lavan) said: 'Come in, thou blessed of the LORD; wherefore standest thou without? for I have cleared the house, and made room for the camels.'
[40] Plishtim means ‘invaders’; these are the Philistines who settled on the coast, after whom the Palestinians of today are named though they do not necessarily have blood or ethnic connection to them.
[41]
today the Lebanese are stealing
[42]
[43] Rabbinic commentators relate this to Isaac’s special status as a korban (sacrifice).
[44] Eve and Tamar and other women as well were the essential instrument in much of history.
[45] There are various ways to read the passage: Yakov is NOT close enough a relation to work for Lavan for free: ie since he is not his brother why should he work for free; or: that he is his brother but that does not mean he should work for free,.
[46] And then he made Yakov work
another seven years for Leah as he had for Rachel!
[47] Note that it says “mey’avney hamakom” “from the stones of the place” and “makom” = “place” is a name of God; the stone became one: God is unity.
[48] keywords: “Vayifga ba Makom”: Vayifga ba = “and he (Yakov) arrived at/met, “makom” = “the place”.
[49] Keyword: “Vayifge-u bo”
[50] The first cloned large mammal.