Dec 18, 2020 | Torat Devorah
In this week’s parshah, the story of Joseph is continued. Last week’s parshah concluded with Joseph’s imprisonment and his interpretation of his cellmates’ dreams. Joseph, at the end of the parshah, asks the butler, who was set free, to remember him, and to put in a good word for him with Pharaoh.
We are told at the outset of the parshah that “it happened at the end of two years” (Genesis 41:1) that Pharaoh started dreaming strange dreams. The Or Hachayyim explains that the reason the Torah introduces this paragraph with the word ‘vayehee’, a word indicating an unhappy event, is that as of now, the exile of the Jewish people begins to unravel. EVEN THOUGH THIS EXILE HAD BEEN DECREED ALMOST TWO HUNDRED YEARS PREVIOUSLY, IT HAD NOT BEEN DECREED ANYWHERE THAT THIS EXILE HAD TO BE IN EGYPT. Moreover, this exile turned out to be more cruel than necessary in order to satisfy God’s decree (as is recorded by the Rabad in a glossary on Maimonides’ Hilchot Teshuvah ch.6). An additional reason for introducing this paragraph with the word ‘vayehee’ is that God announced that there would be a famine and God always shares the pain He inflicts on His world. Another explanation of this introductory word is that it reflects the mental anguish Joseph endured during the two years after the chief butler was released from jail. Originally, it had been intended that Joseph be released at that time (Bereishit Rabbah 89:2). He had to endure two additional years in jail because he had put his faith in a human being.
The Midrash on this verse understands the words “vayehee miketz” as indicating an end to darkness. ‘Ketz’ is also a word, which describes the evil urge. Accordingly, the Torah uses this word to allude to the reason that Joseph had to stay in jail another two years. These two years during which Joseph experienced mental anguish are counted as part of the Jewish people’s exile experience because the chief butler had neglected to remember Joseph favorable. The reason that not one but two years were decreed was because Joseph said both “if you would think of me” (Genesis 40:14), and “mention me to Pharaoh” (Genesis 40:14). He wanted to be remembered AND mentioned favorably. The wording ‘miketz shnatayim’ also means that it was on the second anniversary of the day the chief butler and the chief of the bakers had their dreams. When Joseph’s fortunes took a turn for the better this was to be related directly to the dreams, showing that the dream had correctly forecast what would happen.
Regarding the encounter between the brothers and Joseph, the Torah tells us that Joseph recognized his brothers, but that they did not recognize him. The Alshekh comments that it is remarkable that 10 intelligent people such as the brothers did not recognize Joseph, even accepting the Talmud Yevamot 88 that Joseph had not been bearded when he was thrown in the pit. At least, when bowing down to him, they should have been reminded of Joseph’s dream. This is especially the case since the bowing down occurred in the context of the dream, i.e. the presence of grain. The Torah explains this by emphasizing it was too hard to imagine that Joseph, whom they had sold as a slave to a country that never frees slaves, should have risen to the position of economic Czar in that country. They had allowed for two possible interpretations of Joseph’s dream. Either it presaged that he would be in a position of authority over them, or his harvest would be superior to theirs, and they would need what he had to offer. The present confrontation did not fit either interpretation, since a slave in Egypt does not become a ruler. Since Joseph supplied grain to everybody, this scenario did not fit their preconceived ideas either. For these reasons, the brothers did not connect their bowing down to the viceroy of Egypt with the dreams Joseph had dreamed 21 years ago. Besides, the second dream had shown 11 brothers plus mother and father bowing down to Joseph.
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
Dec 11, 2020 | Torat Devorah
This week’s parasha, Vayeshev, often falls on the Shabbat of Chanukah. Vayeshev and the Festival of Lights in fact share a number of connections, though on the surface there would seem to be little that is light in the parasha. In melodramatic fashion, each upturn in the story is matched by a sharper downturn. Joseph is loved most of all by his father, so he is hated by his brothers. When Reuven saves him from his brothers’ murderous intent, Joseph is taken from the pit and sold into slavery. He works his way up to be chief of Potiphar’s household, only to be falsely accused of a rape and cast into prison. He earns the gratitude of Pharaoh’s cupbearer, but it turns out to be short-lived, and Joseph must spend the week from Vayeshev to Miketz languishing in the dungeon. At the end of this week’s reading it is difficult to see the glass as half full.
Seemingly one of the most pessimistic readers of the story, Rabbi Tanhum, imagines for one of the verses a possibility even worse than the glass being half-empty. The Biblical text uses a peculiar duplication of language to describe the pit into which Joseph’s brothers cast him: that “Ha Bor Reik”- (the pit was empty) and “ein bo mayim” (had no water in it) (Genesis 37:24). Rabbi Tanhum, in an interpretation widely quoted by later commentators, understands this duplication to imply that while the pit had no water, it was full of snakes and scorpions. With one narrative touch, he changes the tone of the story from soap opera to reality TV -The brothers are either crueler or more careless than we might have thought otherwise.
Rabbi Tanhum’s statement is not particularly unusual in its content; the process of midrash often offers this type of embellishment. The statement stands out somewhat more for its context. It appears in the Talmud (TB Shabbat 22a) in the midst of a discussion about kindling the lights of Hanukkah, and how high off the ground they may be placed. To be fair, the flow of Talmud is not always linear; it offers many varieties of excurses and digressions. In fact, the most extensive discussion of Hanukkah in the Talmud only appears in the tractate Shabbat as an extended digression from the topic of Shabbat candles. In this case, the reason for the inclusion of a statement by Rabbi Tanhum is rather pedestrian. It follows another statement attributed to him, which is germane to the topic at hand: he notes that a Hanukkah light that is higher than twenty cubits off the ground (about thirty feet) does not fulfill the mitzvah. A candle that is too high off the ground will not be seen by passers-by, and will not contribute to pirsumei nisa- publicizing the miracle.
Rabbi Joshua Heller explains;” The religious spirit of Hanukkah is one of ascent and optimism. For instance, there were once two schools of thought regarding the proper lighting of Hanukkah candles. The school of Shammai taught that one begins by lighting eight candles on the first night, counting down to one, reflecting the days that have gone by and the quantity that remain. The practice of Hillel’s school, and our practice today, is to light an additional candle each night, to show the increasing greatness of the miracle. We celebrate the Maccabean victory even though it was short-lived, and focus even more on what is comparatively a minor miracle, the lights burning for eight days when it seemed that they would only last for one. Rabbi Tanhum’s statement reminds us that we must keep the reminders of goodness ever in sight, and in our minds. Conversely, the story of Vayeshev is one of descent- down into the pit, down into Egypt, down into the dungeon. Rabbi Tanhum’s reading, at first glance, would seem to make that descent even worse. However, I believe the intent of his statement, though, is just the opposite. He wants his listeners to be astonished by Joseph’s miraculous survival, and recognize the true extent of the divine providence that accompanied Joseph on each phase of his journey. Rabbi Tanhum would have us develop a new appreciation of the events of Vayeshev: The week-long cliff hanger exists only to whet our appetite for Joseph’s later triumphant ascendance. Each downward step of the story—from the brothers’ jealousy to Joseph’s descent into Egypt and Israel’s enslavement in Egypt—is part of a divine plan leading to their descendants’ redemption at the Red Sea and revelation at Sinai.
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
Dec 4, 2020 | Torat Devorah
Parshat Vayishlach
In this week’s parshah, we read of the encounter between Esau and Jacob after many years of not seeing each other. Following the encounter, the Torah tells us that “Jacob arrived intact in Shechem” (Genesis 33:18), and goes on to tell us that Shechem is in the land of Canaan. Mentioning the fact that Shechem was in the land of Canaan seems superfluous. The Alshekh explains that possibly, the Torah wishes to absolve Jacob of even indirect responsibility in the rape of Dinah, reported afterwards. This is why Jacob is described as having returned in perfect physical, spiritual, and economic condition. Since nothing of this kind had happened when Jacob was traveling, exposed in no man’s land, far from a spiritually sacred place, this proves that the events with Dinah were not due to any negligence on Jacob’s part. Having also paid generously for the land he occupied, Dinah’s rape can also not be explained in terms of hostility by the local population towards Jacob and family. Her rape was due to her uncharacteristic tendency to go out alone, a tendency inherited perhaps from her mother, who had also gone out to meet her husband (30:16). Bereishit Rabbah 80 states that the fact that Dinah is referred to as daughter of Leah, in this context, though we are all aware of the fact, is to draw our attention to this hereditary trait in her. According to tradition, Berakhot 60 explains that she had originally been meant to be male, but had been born a female because of her mother’s prayer not to shame her sister Rachel by granting her fewer male offspring than the maidservants. If that is so, then Dinah’s tendency to leave the home unaccompanied was a residual male tendency, not a fault inherited from her mother. Moreover, since the Torah testifies that Dinah wanted to make contact with other girls (as distinct from males), the purity of her motivation is established. Had the prince himself not seen her, nobody would have dared molest her. At any rate, the Torah teaches that for the daughter of a man such as Jacob to go out alone is potentially dangerous. She ought to be chaperoned. In addition, the Torah teaches 3 other lessons: 1) It is natural for something impure to attempt to contaminate something pure. 2) An affinity of the impure for the pure exists only after the pure has become polluted. 3) Even after having absorbed a degree of pollution, the pure will not develop an affinity for the impure. The Torah emphasizes the lack of reciprocity of Shechem’s infatuation with Dinah both before and after the rape. Jacob’s silence may have been motivated by his fear that Dinah might have developed reciprocal feelings for Shechem, and refuse to come home even when rescued. The fact that Shechem is described as LOVING Dinah indicates that there was an element that transcended the merely biological, and that he had found words to appease her, i.e. “he spoke to her heart.”
Following the rape, Simeon and Levi “were distressed…because he had committed a disgraceful act against Israel, etc.” The Or Hachayyim comments that the Torah uses two expressions, 1) “they were angry,” and 2) “they were distressed” to indicate that Shechem had been guilty of two wrongs. It would have been shameful for the family of Jacob even if Shechem had married Dinah – seeing that they would not give their sister to an “unclean” person. That, however, would have been merely distressing. The fact that Shechem raped their sister – something that was repugnant even to the local inhabitants – aroused their anger. Bereishit Rabbah 80:6 states that Gentiles had accepted sexual restrictions upon themselves after the flood, and one of the restrictions included rape. This is the reason as to why the brothers’ anger was magnified, as Shechem had transgressed an important restriction.
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
Nov 27, 2020 | Torat Devorah
D’var Torah
Parshat Vayetze
And Jacob went out from Be’er Sheva, and he went to Charan (Genesis 28:10). The story of Jacob’s journey to Charan is the story of every soul’s descent to the physical world. The Lubavitcher Rebbe explains: The soul, too, leaves behind the spiritual idyll of Be’er Sheva (literally, “Well of the Seven” — a reference to the supernal source of the seven divine attributes or sefirot from which the soul derives) and journeys to Charan (literally, “Wrath”): a place of lies, deceptions, struggle and hardship; a place in which material concerns consume one’s days and nights, sapping one’s energy, confusing one’s priorities, and all but obscuring the purpose for which one has come there in the first place. Yet it is in Charan, in the employ of Laban the Deceiver, not in the Holy Land and its “tents of learning,” that Jacob founds the nation of Israel. It is here that he marries and fathers eleven of the twelve sons who will become the twelve tribes of Israel. Had Jacob remained in the Holy Land, the life of this pious scholar who lived 3,500 years ago would have been of no significance to us today. The soul, too, achieves its enduring significance only upon its descent into “Charan.” Only as a physical being, invested within a physical body and inhabiting a physical environment, can it fulfill the purpose of its creation, which is to build “a dwelling for G-d in the physical world.”
And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put under his head (28:18). But earlier in it says, “And he took of the stones of the place, and put them under his head.” This tells us that all the stones gathered themselves together into one place and each one said: “Upon me shall this righteous man rest his head.” Thereupon all were merged into one (Talmud Chulin 91b).
“Jacob kissed Rachel, and he raised his voice and wept” (Genesis 29:11). Upon meeting his cousin, the young girl destined to be his life-mate, Jacob, a man in his upper seventies, kissed her. The shepherds around them were disgusted. Who does he think he is? He comes to our town to bring perversion. We have to do something about this. Jacob overheard their conversation and was upset. He kissed Rachel as an expression of love for his cousin, in a familial type of a way. He had no sensual thoughts, no lustful motives. If so, why did Jacob cry? He cried because he recognized that he had made a mistake. He hadn’t realized that the townsfolk were so base and so sensually oriented that they would take his innocent kiss as anything more than it was. (This explanation of the passage is based upon the commentary Da’as Sofrim by Rabbi Chaim D. Rabinowitz, a noted Torah scholar in Israel.)
We, the people of the Book, live life on a different plane. Although we have lived for centuries among the nations of the world, we remain, spiritually and intellectually, separate. It doesn’t even dawn on Jacob to look at Rachel in a lustful way, he was thinking in more elevated terms. He was thinking of family and of the future of the Jewish people. The townsfolk were not oriented the same way and their reaction was formed on the basis of their base assumptions.
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
Nov 20, 2020 | Torat Devorah
The Torah states: “Jacob was an ‘Ish tam’ (straight person) who sat in tents (of study)” (Genesis 25:27) what do we learn from the fact that Jacob was an “Ish tam”? Rashi defines the word “tam” as a person who is not skilled in deceiving others. As is his heart, so are his words. Jacob was not called a “tam,” but an “Ish Tam.” That is, he was a master over the trait of being a “tam.” He was totally honest, a man of great integrity. However, in those situations when it was appropriate to use cunning strategy to accomplish something, he was able to do so.
The Rebbi from Lublin teaches that a person needs to be the master over all of his traits and appropriately use them. As the Sages say, “Whoever is compassionate when he should be cruel will eventually be cruel when he should be compassionate.” If a person fails to apply so-called negative traits in their proper times, he will end up applying them when it is wrong to do so.
After Avraham died, Jacob cooked lentil soup as a sign of mourning. Esau came from the field, saw the soup and said, “… please, pour for me from this red thing” (Genesis 25:30). Later in the Torah portion (27:22) the commentator, Rashi, mentions that Jacob always spoke politely and used the word “please.” Esau, however, always spoke in a rough manner to his father. What can we learn from the fact that he was polite in this conversation?
Rabbi Zelig Pliskin explains: Even though Esau excelled in honoring his father, he still spoke to him in an insolent and arrogant manner. We see here that when Esau had a desire for food, he spoke in a respectful manner and used the term ‘na’, “please”. This is the manner of people with faulty traits. Even though they constantly talk with chutzpah, when it comes to manipulating someone to fulfill their desire, they speak softly and humbly.
When Yitzchak found out that he gave the blessings to Yaakov and not to Esau as he thought he had, the Torah tells us: “Yitzhak trembled greatly” (Genesis 27:33). Why did Yitzhak tremble so much? Rabbi Chaim Shmuelevitz, the late Rosh HaYeshiva of Mir, cited the Sages who stated that Yitzhak experienced greater fear and anxiety at this moment than he did at the akaidah, when he was brought up as a sacrifice by his father, Avraham. There he was bound and ready to be killed with a sharp blade. From here we see, said Rav Chaim that the realization that one made a mistake is the greatest of pains. This was not a onetime mistake. Rather, Yitzhak realized that all the years he thought Esau was more deserving than Yaakov he was in error. The anxiety experienced in the awareness of error is a powerfully painful emotion.
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
Nov 13, 2020 | Torat Devorah
The Torah tells us that “Sarah died at Kiryat Arba – the same is Hebron” (Genesis 23:2). The Or Hachayyim explains that we must not misunderstand that Kiryat Arba was the cause of her death. The reason the town was mentioned and was so named is to tell us that it was built on the four basic elements. Death normally implies a departure from, or disintegration of, the four basic elements that a body is composed of. When the Torah adds that “Kiryat Arba” is also known as Hebron, this is meant to be an illusion to the word “habor” – something that is joined together. The message is that when the righteous ‘die’, this is not to be viewed as a process of disintegration. The righteous are still called “alive” even when they have ceased to function in regular bodies on this earth. Maimonides illustrates this somewhat in the fourth chapter of Hilchot Yesodei Torah, where he describes that one element is capable of becoming transformed into another element, which was similar to it, i.e. earth can be transformed into water. When man cleaves to God, all his elements become transformed into fire, the element, which forms the basis of the soul. The Torah adds the apparently superfluous words “in the land of Canaan.” This is an allusion to the fact that this present world is called ‘The Land of Canaan”, a simile for the evil inclination or Satan. This is so because the existence of Satan is the incentive for us to overcome him and to attain holiness and sanctity (Zohar 1:80).
Eliezer, Abraham’s trusted servant, is sent on a mission to find a wife for Isaac. He meets Rebeccah and knows that she will become Isaac’s wife, as she passes all the required tests. When Eliezer goes in to meet the family, he states the following: “I am a slave of Abraham” (Genesis 24:34). The Alshekh comments that Eliezer wanted to forestall enquiries as to why Abraham or Isaac had not come personally on such an important errand. He also wanted to reassure them concerning the age difference between Isaac and Rebeccah. By pointing out that though he held a high position, he was still a slave, he made them aware of the great stature of his master. It would not be dignified for someone of his master’s stature to come PERSONALLY on such an errand. Therefore, he mentioned something about Abraham’s great wealth. By explaining the circumstances of Isaac’s birth, he assured them that Isaac was not blemished and suffered no disability. The fact that Isaac had not come himself was not because he had something to hide. He also wanted Rebeccah’s family to know that Isaac would be the sole heir of all his wealth. If Isaac had waited this long to get married, it was not for lack of willing partners, but because Abraham did not want Canaanite blood in his family. He wanted it understood that this was the ONLY objection of the local girls, but that Eliezer would be free to choose anywhere but in the land of Canaan, even if such a girl were not related to Abraham. Concerning their possible reservations about entrusting Rebeccah to him, a mere slave, Abraham had assured him that God would send an angel to precede him on his mission. He relates how such prediction had indeed been fulfilled at the well. Also, he had covered the distance in a single day; further proof of Divine assistance (“I arrived this day”). When relating the test he had decided on at the well, he changes the details so as not to give the impression that ANY girl who would offer him water had a chance to become Isaac’s wife. This is why he refers to almah, a young lady of a good family.
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
