Jan 17, 2025 | Torat Devorah
In this week’s parshah, we read of the Israelite people in Egypt, and their quick and rapid growth. The Torah tells us that Pharaoh, as a result, said to his people: “Look, the Israelite people have become too many and too strong for us. Come; let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they increase. And if war breaks out, they will join our enemies, and fight against us and leave the country”” (Exodus 9-10). Nechama Leibowitz asks the following question: Why did Pharaoh, the ruler of the Egyptian empire require to look for pretexts ‘to deal wisely’ with the helpless Jewish minority in his realm? Why could he not destroy them with fire and sword without further ado? Who was to gainsay him? The following is the Ramban’s answer detailing Pharaoh’s policy, with regard to all the stages of his plan: “Pharaoh and his advisors did not regard it as a wise step to put the Israelites to the sword; for this would have constituted rank treason to persecute a people without cause, that had come to the land at the bidding of his royal predecessor. Moreover, the people of the land would not have allowed the king to commit this violence since he had to consult them (all the more so in view of the fact that the Children of Israel were a mighty and numerous people who would make war with them). He later suggested looking for a device by which the Israelites should not feel any hostile act was being committed against them. For this reason, he imposed on them a tax; for it was a custom of strangers in a country to pay a tax to the king. Afterwards, he secretly ordered the midwives to put to death the male children on the birthstools when even the mothers themselves did not know what was going on. Then, he commanded all of his people that they should cast every male child into the river. He did not give such an order to his chief executioners to slay them by the sword at the royal bidding, or to cast them into the river. Rather, he told the people to do so, and that if the father of the child were to protest to the king or his representative, they should ask him to bring evidence to substantiate his accusation and for vengeance to be done. When the king allowed matters to take their course, The Egyptians searched Jewish homes and even took the children from there. That is the implication of the statement and they could no longer hide him.” Leibowitz explains that the originality of Ramban’s interpretation lies in his explanation of the command to kill every male child. The text states that Pharaoh commanded “all his people” rather than “his princes and servants”. This was not therefore an official royal edict, but behind-the-scenes provocation. The government gave no order, but merely closed its eyes whilst the Egyptian masses “spontaneously” vented their indignation on the foreigners. Although Egyptian law protected strangers, in practice there would be no redress. This situation would be just as Ramban outlined.
We read that despite Pharaoh’s plans to stem Jewish growth at the outset of the parshah, “They increased in proportion to the repressive measures” (Exodus 1:12). The Alshekh comments that when the Egyptians realized that the Jewish population explosion was not a natural phenomenon, (since the Jews increased EVEN MORE after preventive measures had been imposed on them), they changed their policy and applied perech, i.e. peh rach,persuasion rather than coercion. The nation is described as benay Yisroel, to reflect that the Egyptians had become aware of a God who was on their side. They were afraid of punishment – vayakutzu mipney – they were full of dread on account of this. The Egyptians were anxious to lead the Jewish people into sin, so that they would forfeit the protection of their God. They embittered their lives (Exodus 1:14) – this means that the Egyptians used all means at their disposal to make the Jews reject their fate. They did all this in a manner that did not make the Jews feel coerced, and they hoped that the Jewish people’s God would have no sympathy for them.
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
Jan 10, 2025 | Torat Devorah
In this week’s parsha, Yosef brings his two children to his father Yaakov for a bracha [blessing]. Yaakov gave Yosef’s children a tremendous bracha: “By you shall Israel bless saying, ‘May G-d make you like Ephraim and like Manasseh'” [Bereshis 48:20]. In the future, whenever the Jewish people would bless their sons, they would invoke the prayer that they should be like Yosef’s two sons: Ephraim and Menashe. A very obvious question is asked. Yaakov had twelve illustrious sons. Why didn’t Yaakov say, for example, that the perennial Jewish blessing would be “May you be like Yehudah and Yosef” or “like Yissachor and Zevulun”? Why did Yaakov single out these two grandchildren to be the prototypes of blessing?
Rav Yissocher Frand explains: ‘Several meforshim [commentators] offer the following explanation, which I saw most recently from Rabbi Eliyahu Munk, zt”l. Yaakov saw a special quality in Ephraim and Menashe that he did not have the opportunity to see in his own children. Yaakov’s own children were raised in the best of environments. They lived in the Land of Israel, in the house of the patriarch Yaakov, insulated from any bad environment. Granted, it is not trivial to raise good children even in the best of circumstances. However, there is nothing novel in the fact that Yaakov’s own children turned out well. It is no surprise if a child who is raised in Bnei Brak or Meah Shearim grows up as an observant Jew. However, if people raise a child in a city such as Sioux City, Iowa — where their family is, perhaps, the only observant Jewish family in town — and the child is subject to foreign influences from all of his surroundings — and nonetheless, the child turns out a faithful Jew, that is truly a great accomplishment. The Patriarch Yaakov, perceiving that generations of Jews would spend so much of their time in Exile, formulated the greatest blessing that the Jewish people could give over to their children. “May they be like Ephraim and Menashe”. Ephraim and Menashe were raised in the Sioux City, Iowa of their time. They were the only Jews in the entire country! They had to grow up knowing that many things that they saw around them were not right, not the way things should be. Despite this, they turned out just like Yaakov’s own children. This is the special blessing that the Jewish people would need — the ability to be raised in a non-Jewish environment and yet turn out to be good and honest Jews.’
Then Jacob called for his sons and said, “Assemble yourselves and I will tell you what will befall you in “The End of Days”. Gather yourselves and listen, O sons of Jacob, and listen to Israel your father. (Breishis 49:1) When they had assembled, they thought they would hear a litany of blessings and consolations. Jacob our father answered and said to them, “Abraham my father’s father had blemished children that came out from him, Ishmael and all the children of Ketura. From my father Isaac issued, my brother Esau who was disqualified. I am afraid that that there might be amongst you a person whose heart is divided from his brothers and goes to serve other gods”. All twelve tribes responded simultaneously and said, “Listen (our father) Israel HASHEM is OUR G-D HASHEM is the ONE and ONLY.” At that moment Jacob our father answered, “Blessed is the Name of His glorious kingdom for all eternity!” (Talmud- Yerushalmi) Maimonodies writes in The Laws of “Shema” that this homiletic is the source of our inserting those whispered words after the first line of “Shema”, although it is not part of the verse- “Blessed is the Name of His glorious Kingdom for eternity!” With that as the punctuation to their discussion, it seems that Jacob’s worries were quieted by the brother’s unanimous pledge. Why was their declaration of faith at that moment taken as a “guarantee” of future loyalty? Rabbi Leibel Lam explains: ‘Shema Yisrael” can be called the “mission statement” of the Jewish Nation. Properly understood from its primal origin, The “Shema” declares not only our point of departure but our final destination, as well, as we say daily: “On that day HASHEM will be ONE and His Name will be ONE!” (Zechariah 14:9) With the end in sight and all his children unified in purpose around him, Jacob sought to and was successful at offering us a glimpse of that which paves our way to “The End of Days”.
Jan 7, 2025 | Torat Devorah
This week’s parshah sees the reunion of Joseph and his brothers, and of their father, Jacob. We see at the outset Judah confronting Joseph, still unaware that this high-ranking Egyptian was his brother. The Torah tells us that Judah approached Joseph. The Alshekh asks 3 questions: What is meant by the word ‘approached’? How could Judah, who had offered them all as slaves (and the thief to be executed), NOW be ANGRY that only one of them would become a slave and the others would go free? Why had Judah not used all the tear-jerking arguments before offering all the brothers as slaves in v.16? He answers that one has to note the formula Judah used, i.e. what can we say to my lord, what can we say, how can we justify ourselves? What he meant was that he knew that the theft of the goblet had nothing to do with its value since they had brought back far more money than the value of this trinket. He therefore said that their objective must have been the goblet with its magical powers. But they had toiled in vain since the magical powers of the goblet were exclusive to its rightful owner, to Joseph. Judah replied saying: “we can react in any of three ways: 1) friendly discussion, i.e. mah nomar, to calm you down. 2) mah nedaber, angry, outraged discussion at your repeated attempts to frame us. 3) Ha-elokim matza avon, we could resign ourselves by accepting God’s punishment for something else we have been guilty of. Mah Nitztadak, how could we claim to be tzaddikim or righteous people? Due to the latter consideration, we accept God’s verdict, but it must apply to all of us. By saying gam anachnu, also us, he includes Reuben whose guilt had been marginal, and Benjamin, who had been completely blameless in the sale of Joseph.
When Judah saw that Joseph was intent on only keeping Benjamin, he realized that their present misfortune had nothing to do with the sale of Joseph, and was NOT Divine retribution. He was merely dealing with the caprice of the local authority. The Alshekh adds that Judah therefore decided to adopt a new line of argument. Up until now, an interpreter had conveyed Judah’s words to Joseph in Egyptian. Now, vayigash, he stepped up close and told Joseph that if at first, he had accepted the judgement that they would all be slaves, it was because he could not picture himself as a free person, while Benjamin became a prisoner. He tells Joseph that bi adoni – the burden is on him rather than on his brothers because he was the one who guaranteed the safety of his little brother. He compared Joseph to Pharaoh who was legally required to master all languages. Therefore, Judah argued, I do not need to speak to you through an interpreter, since you understand quite well what I have to say. Had you not mastered every language, you would not occupy this exalted office and enjoy such authority.
Later on, in the parshah, when Jacob is about to travel to Egypt, we read that Hashem tells him: “Fear not to go down to Egypt” (Genesis 46:3). The question as to why Jacob was afraid to go to Egypt can be posed. Not only had he just found out that the son he mourned for 20 years was alive and well, but his son was a vice-regent of the realm. Nechama Leibowitz says that we should compare this directive to that written in Genesis 26:2, directed to Isaac, where it says: “Go NOT down into Egypt; dwell in the land, which I shall tell thee of. Leibowitz says that perhaps this is what Jacob was afraid of – that he would be violating an explicit Divine command issued to his father Isaac. But Jacob’s concern is focused on the symbolic dread of the founder of the nation of the spiritual consequences of leaving the homeland and going to Egypt. Hizkuni explains that Jacob was concerned for the future of the nation as a whole, the future of his children in the Egyptian exile and the bondage to come. Though he knew full well that he was going to a land of plenty and to live in comfort, who would guarantee that his descendants would want to leave Egypt and return to the land of Canaan, which alone had been promised to his forefathers? Perhaps his children would forget their destiny as they wallowed in the plenty of Egypt and would not want to leave. His fear therefore, was based on the worry of what would happen to his people in the future, and not what would happen in the present time – when all was safe.
Jun 25, 2021 | Torat Devorah
What is the true message of an entire Torah portion of Balak dedicated to the hiring of a Gentile soothsayer to curse the Israelite nation – but whom instead becomes inspired to bless Israel and portray the ultimate messianic destiny of Israel in the most exalted and majestic of poetic metaphors? Are there indeed individuals with true power to foretell future? And if indeed Balak is a superior human being with profound prophetic insights emanating from a Divine source, why does the Torah triumphantly record the fact that “Balaam Ben Beor the magician” was killed by Israel with the sword together with the corpses of our Midianite enemies during the conquest of Israel (Joshua 13:22)? And why does our Biblical text juxtapose the sublime poetry of Balaam with the seemingly ridiculous tale of the talking donkey?
Rabbi Shlomo Riskin explains: I believe that the entire portion of Balaam is a study in contrast between the legitimately earned prophecy of Moses and the venally inspired sorcery of Balaam. The Torah understands that there exist individuals who seem to have been born with special powers: superior physical strength, a phenomenal photographic memory, sharp vision which can penetrate the thickest of partitions, intense concentration that can cause physical objects to explode, and can perhaps even bring messages from the dead. There is even a difference of opinion amongst our Sages as to whether such phenomena reflect actual occurrences or are merely slight-of-hand trickery.
In a later generation, the arch-rationalist Maimonides calls all pronouncements emanating from supernatural communications and insights – including the writing and wearing of mystical amulets (kameyot)- “false and vain”, bordering on idolatry (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Idolatry 1, 16 and Guide, Part 1, Chapter 61); on this basis, Rav Yosef Karo similarly dismisses all magical incantations as “not availing in the least,” but merely exercising positive psychological influence upon individuals in distress (Shulhan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, 179, 6). The Vilna Gaon, on the other hand, suggests that Maimonides’ philosophical study “misled or corrupted him,” insisting that there are amulets and incantations, perhaps and perhaps even communications from the beyond, which are rooted in the sacred and the divine. Perhaps the most important and representative view on the issue is presented by Rav Shlomo Ben Aderet (Rashba, Responsa 548), when he had to judge the credibility of a Reb Nissim who claimed to have received the messages from an angel; the great Talmudic scholar Rashba insists that divine communication akin to Prophesy can only rest on one who is truly wise and pious, strong and courageous, and sufficiently wealthy as to not be in need of monetary contributions from those seeking his advice. Claims, and even what seems to be empirical facts, of supernatural abilities by individuals who are not outstanding in Torah scholarship and piety dare not be taken seriously – at the risk of flirting with idolatrous and even demonic blandishments.
The truth is that the Bible is indubitably clear when it warns us against seeking after any manner of magic or sorcery and exhorts us to be whole-hearted and pure in our service of the Divine (Deuteronomy 18:9-14). Our prophets did not major in futuristic prophecies but rather in chastising towards more ethical and genuine behavior; they certainly did not take remuneration for their words. And individual devoid of the proper – difficult to acquire – intellectual and spiritual prophetic attainments who makes pronouncements which even may appear to be vindicated by future discoveries is no better than the “talking donkey” in our Torah portion; a prophet of G-d must first and foremost be a model of Torah scholarship and piety.
Moses was a prophet of G-d; Balaam was a soothsayer. Moses sought Divine truth while Balaam yearned for gold and silver. The conclusion of our Torah portion is most succinct and specific: ”There is no sorcery for Jacob or magic for Israel.”
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
Jun 18, 2021 | Torat Devorah
The Torah states the following: “The Children of Israel, the whole community, arrived in the desert of Tzin in the first month and the people settled in Kadesh. Miriam died there and was buried there.” (Numbers, 20:1). There are many questions that need to be answered from this seemingly simple verse such as: Why does the Torah tell us what month the Israelites arrived – not usually found when the Torah reports arrivals; Why did the Torah emphasize that the whole congregation arrived?; Why did Miriam’s burial have to be mentioned and later on the absence of water as affecting the entire congregation? Torat Moshe explains that our sages say that Moses and Aaron were busy with the funeral arrangements for Miriam, when they saw a multitude approaching. Moses was somewhat nonplussed, but Aaron felt that the people had surely come to pay their last respects to Miriam. Moses did not think so, for that if Aaron had been correct, the people would have approached in an orderly procession. The confused mob approaching suggested to Moses that these people had something to complain about. When the people overheard this, they quarreled with Moses, and left Aaron out of it. In fact, they should have paid their respects to Miriam for a variety of reasons, not the least of it the fact that they had enjoyed a water supply for 40 years due to her merit. It was due to their indifference that God let it come to a critical situation. Should one argue that the people had been unaware that their water supply had been due to Miriam’s merit, God had stopped the supply IMMEDIATELY when Miriam had died, to bring home this lesson to the people who had either not known or had pretended not to know. Mention of their arrival in the desert, and the date, is to tell us that lack of water was not due to the natural habitat, nor to the time of year. At winter’s end, there is plenty of moisture remaining from the rainy season. Neither was the absence of water due to unfriendly terrain, since the people had settled there – in Kadesh – obviously a place fit for habitation. Water disappeared ONLY with the death of Miriam. This proved that the death of the righteous woman had caused the absence of water. The congregation was denied water now, because they had neglected to give water to Miriam after her death.
The red heifer plays a central role in the process of purifying someone who becomes “tamei”, i.e., spiritually tainted. A Jew becomes tamei when he or she comes into contact with a corpse, and as long as you are tamei you may not enter the Holy Temple in Jerusalem (Bamidbar 19:13,21). However, this condition is treatable. A red heifer is slaughtered and burned, and its ashes are used to create a mystical potion with purifying powers. A Kohen sprinkles the contaminated Jew with the red heifer ash mixture and the Jew then returns to a normal state of tahara, i.e. spiritual purity (19:1-12). (Obviously, these laws have been out of use ever since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.) This procedure is hard enough to understand, but here’s the clincher: The Kohen who administers the sprinkling becomes tamei! The very same process that purifies the contaminated Jew contaminates the Kohen (19:21). Several great medieval rabbis independently compiled listings of the 613 biblical mitzvot. But the most innovative of these works is undoubtedly the Chinuch (anonymous, 13th century). Besides the basic listing, the Chinuch also speculates about the meaning and purpose of every mitzvah. This makes for a fascinating blend of law, ethics, and philosophy. When it comes to the red heifer, however, the Chinuch throws in the towel. “Although my heart emboldened me to write hints of the reasons for the other mitzvot… when it comes to this mitzvah my hand goes weak and I am frightened to open my mouth about it at all. For I have seen how our sages of blessed memory wrote at length of its deep mysteries and the vastness of its theme…” (Chinuch, mitzvah 397). Rabbi Yaakov Kamanetzky (1891-1986) questions the Chinuch’s nervous reaction to the red heifer. The Chinuch knew that all mitzvot are ultimately beyond our understanding. Mortals can’t expect to fathom the myriad of divine reasons for mitzvot. Although we certainly do appreciate the beauty and relevance of every mitzvah, we need to remember that we are only dipping beneath the surface of great depths of meaning. As the Chinuch himself admits, his explanations of the mitzvot are no more than surface level interpretations. He never claimed that his suggestions were all there is to it. So why won’t the Chinuch provide us with some insights into the red heifer? If he managed to supply a reason or a message for each of 612 other mitzvot in the Torah, why not finish the job? Rabbi Kamanetzky explains that the Chinuch did not at all give up when it came to the red heifer. He indeed does reveal its message. The red heifer’s message is the very fact that it is completely unknowable. This is a fundamental principle for all of Torah. There comes a point with every mitzvah where we must recognize that our human minds are limited. There is more to this world than we can ever know. There is a spiritual reality.
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
Jun 11, 2021 | Torat Devorah
In Ethics of the Fathers 5:17 it states: ‘Every controversy that is pursued in a heavenly cause is destined to be perpetuated; and that which is not pursued in a heavenly cause is not destined to be perpetuated. Which can be considered a controversy pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And that not pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the controversy of Korach and his congregation.’
This week’s parashah focuses on Korach and his assembly rallying against Moses and Aaron in the belief that they are worthy of more distinctive roles as Israelites. In discussing controversies, the Malbim draws an interesting and penetrating distinction between two different kinds of controversies. He explains: ‘Our Sages wished to point out that in a holy or heavenly cause both sides are, in fact, united by one purpose, to further unselfish, Divine ends. However, in a controversy pursued for unholy ends and for personal advancements and the like, then even those who have come together on one side are not really united. Each are governed by their own calculations of what they stand to gain and are ready to cut each other’s throats, if it so serves their interests. This was the case as far as the controversy of Korach and his congregation. Korach was interested in High Priesthood, since he contended that Amram had received the firstborn share as the eldest son of Kehat, in the fact that his son, Moses, had been appointed leader and king over the people. It was therefore only right, so Korach claimed, that the High Priesthood be given to himself as the son of Yitzhar, the next in line of succession. Dathan and Aviram and On ben Peleth, on the other hand, were animated by their considerations in their opposition to Moses. Their grievance lay in the fact that they belonged to the tribe of Reuben who, as the firstborn son of Jacob, was entitled to all the highest offices – that of spiritual and political leadership. Instead, they complained that the priesthood and Divine service had been given to the tribe of Levi and leadership of the tribes to Judah and Joseph. Similarly, the 250 men contended that, as they were “princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown”, they should be accorded the priesthood. They were against conferring a hereditary title on a tribe but asserted that individual prestige and distinction should be considered. Ibn Ezra suggests that these 250 rebels were in actuality firstborn who considered that the priesthood was their natural privilege.
Moses, in response, said the following statement to all those who had rallied against himself and Aaron: “Through this shall you know that God has sent me to perform these acts; that it was not from my heart” (Numbers 16:28). The Alshekh comments that it would be totally out of character for a man like Moses who always defended his people, even the sinners, to now announce an especially cruel fate for Korach and his associates. He therefore prefaces his announcement and the impending punishment of the rebels by explaining that only in this way could the fact that he had not appointed himself to a position of leadership be demonstrated. Just as his own appointment had been through supernatural power, so the death of the challengers would occur through supernatural power. When a body has been invaded by cancer or some other deadly disease, only the surgical removal of the infected part of the body can stave off total disaster. In this instance too, only the excision of these rebels could prevent the rebellion from infecting the whole nation with fatal results. Theirs was a spiritual disease; the disbelief in the Divine nature of Moses’ prophecy. Moses therefore made the point that the very death of the rebels represented the greatest act of mercy by God, since it saved mankind.
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
