Nov 30, 2018 | Torat Devorah
In this week’s parshah, we see the consequences of jealousy. Joseph’s brothers’ could no longer endure the favoritism that their father displayed towards their younger brother, and plotted to get rid of him in some way. Joseph was thrown into a pit, and later sold to merchants as a slave.
Fully aware that they would have some explaining to do to their father Jacob when they returned without Joseph, the brothers “dipped the coat (Joseph’s coat that was a gift from Jacob) in its (a goat’s) blood” (Genesis 37:31). There are a few questions that need to be answered: 1) Why did the brother’s fabricate an elaborate charade about what transpired with Joseph, and 2) What made Jacob think that Joseph had been devoured by a wild beast? And why did Jacob, speaking about the beast, say both has devoured him and has torn him apart? Besides, the order of what
happened should have been reversed!
The Alshekh answers these questions and explains as follows: The brothers had debated amongst themselves how to present Joseph’s absence. Had they claimed never to have seen him, their
father would organize search parties, questioning all caravans in the region. He would find out about the Ishmaelites who had traveled to Egypt. If they would say that Joseph had been found dead, Jacob would demand to see his grave. If they would say that they had HEARD about an
accident that had befallen him, they would be telling an outright lie. For these reasons, they felt it best to let Jacob form his own opinion on the basis of the faked evidence. Had they presented
Joseph’s coat in an undamaged condition, Jacob would have reasoned that Joseph had taken it off, and would have searched for him, thinking him still alive. The brothers could now imply that Joseph’s fate was due to his having slandered them.
Jacob knew for certain that it was Joseph’s coat. Being unaware of any character weakness in
Joseph except his tale bearing, he persuaded himself that Joseph had been punished in this cruel manner for his weakness. In the Torah, the warning not to listen to false information is preceded by the line “throw it to the dogs” in the book of Exodus. Shemot Rabba 31 points out that one who spreads false information deserves to be thrown to the dogs. Upon reflection, Jacob did not think that Joseph had been eaten alive; this seeing that he was made in the image of God and this
having been reflected in his face even after having informed on his brothers. Therefore he
assumed tarof, toraf – he had first been ripped apart by a free agent, i.e. a human being.
Afterwards, an animal had devoured his remains. This is why he repeated tarof toraf, i.e. he had been torn twice. He considered it possible that one of his sons had harmed Joseph. Jacob tore his clothing and wore sackcloth because he felt that if his interpretation of what happened was true, he himself was partly to blame. This, due to the fact that he had listened to Joseph’s tale bearing WITHOUT PROTESTING IT, although he had not believed the stories. When the brothers saw the depth of Jacob’s grief, they did not even attempt to offer words of condolence until a long time had elapsed. The Torah states that Jacob “mourned for his son for many years”. This was because of his exceptionally close bond that existed between the soul of Jacob and the soul of Joseph. He refused to accept consolation because of what he thought had been his own part in causing the tragedy. On the contrary, he felt that he himself was eventually going to die because of his
complicity in Joseph’s fate. For all these considerations, our sages read v.35, his father wept for him, as referring to Isaac, who was aware that Joseph was still alive but dared not reveal it to his son, seeing that God had not seen fit to reveal it to him (Bereishit Rabba 84).
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
Nov 23, 2018 | Torat Devorah
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 16, 2018 | Torat Devorah
“And behold! Hashem was standing over him, and He said , ‘I am Hashem, the G-d of
Avraham your father and the G-d of Yitzchak your father. I will give you and your descendants the land that you lie upon. Your descendants shall be like the dust of the earth. You shall spread to the west, east, north and south. All the families of earth will be blessed through you and your
descendants.” (Beresheit 28:13-14)
Yaakov flees his father’s home in order to escape the anger of his brother, Esav. He is traveling to Charan. He seeks refuge in the home of his uncle, Lavan. Evening comes before Yaakov has left the land of Canaan. Yaakov makes a camp and falls asleep. He has a vision. In this vision, the Almighty addresses him. Our pesukim contain a portion of this prophecy. Hashem promises Yaakov that he and his descendants will possess the land that he sleeps upon. His descendants shall multiply. They will become as numerous as the dust of the earth. They will expand in all directions. There seems to be a contradiction in these promises. First, Hashem promises Yaakov that he and his descendants will possess the land that Yaakov now sleeps upon. This seems to refer to a specific area. Sforno explains that it refers to the land of Canaan. Rashi quotes the Talmud and offers a similar explanation. However, Hashem then tells Yaakov that his descendants will occupy and take possession of the land to the east, west, north and south. This seems to indicate that the territory of Yaakov’s descendants will extend beyond the land of Canaan.
The commentaries offer various solutions to this problem. Sforno suggests the simplest approach. He explains that the two promises refer to different periods. The first promise refers to the near future. Yaakov will become a prince in the land of Canaan. His children would enjoy similar respect. Bnai Yisrael will be exiled to Egypt. But, eventually, Yehoshua will lead the nation in the conquest of the land. The second promise will not be fulfilled immediately. There is an intervening step. Hashem tells Yaakov that before the fulfillment of this promise, his descendants will become similar to the dust of the earth. Above, we explained this comparison to the dust in accordance with Unkelus’ explanation. Unkelus understands this to mean that the population will be as numerous as the dust. Sforno offers a different explanation. The nation will experience exile. In exile, Yaakov’s descendants will suffer terribly. They will become as low as the dirt. However, this exile will end with redemption. The Messiah will restore Yaakov’s children to their land. At this point in time, the second promise will be fulfilled. Bnai Yisrael will spread beyond the borders of the land of Canaan. The nation will extend its boundaries in every direction.
Rav Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik offers a different explanation. He explains that there are two ways an area can become part of the land of Israel. The first means is through Hashem’s specific assignment. This applies to the land of Canaan. Hashem gave this land to Bnai Yisrael as a homeland. The second method is through conquest. Land that is conquered by Bnai Yisrael becomes part of the land of Israel. In other words, even an area that is not part of the original boundaries, as defined in the Torah, can become part of the land of Israel. This is accomplished through conquest of the land. Based on this analysis, Rav Soloveitchik resolves the contradiction between the two promises. First, Hashem promises Yaakov and his descendants the land of Canaan. This is a specific area with defined borders. If the Almighty had stopped with this promise, other lands conquered by Bnai Yisrael would not be included in the nation’s homeland. Therefore, Hashem adds that the nation will grow and expand the borders of the land. These extended borders will become the boundaries of the land of Israel. Conquest also defines the land as part of the land of Israel.
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
Nov 2, 2018 | Torat Devorah
Rabbi Kalman Packouz relates the following story: ” Many years ago I took my wife for our anniversary to the finest restaurant (at the time) in Jerusalem, The Carvery in the King Solomon Hotel. We tremendously enjoyed the ambiance on this special occasion. My wife ordered shishkabab. When her order arrived there was one shishkabab on her plate. I asked the waiter, “Where is the other shishkabab?” He replied, “This is the way we serve it.”I asked him to please bring the menu (which was in English) and then showed him the description: “Skewers of meat roasted to perfection on our grill.” I then explained that “skewers” ends with the letter “s” indicating that the word is plural — and that the minimum plural number is two. To give added weight that there was a missing shishkabab, I directed his attention to the photograph at the top of the menu — a beautiful plate … with two skewers of shishkabab! The waiter was very gracious, but reiterated “THIS is the way we serve the dish”. I thanked him for his assistance and asked if it might be possible to have a word with the maitre d’. The maitre d’ unctuously glided over to our table and inquired how he could be of service. I once again proceeded to give my insights into the structure and grammar of the English language and the lack of congruity between what was offered on the menu and what was served on the plate. The maitre d’ gave me a compassionate look one reserves for people of lesser intelligence who don’t know what they are talking about … and informed me, “THIS is the way we serve the dish.” My wife and I thoroughly enjoyed our dinner — although in the back of my mind I was composing my letter to the Food and Beverage Manager. I wrote truthfully extolling the virtues of the restaurant — the fine decor, the excellent service, the delightful food. I then wrote, “However, there is one small matter which I know that a person of your high standards would want to know about — a seeming misrepresentation in the menu.” I then shared our experience with the shishkabab along with an explanation of the finer points of English grammar. I know that if such a situation happened in a fancy restaurant in America, it would likely have been dealt with at the waiter level with an apology and a second shishkabab. And if the situation ever reached the Food and Beverage Manager, more than likely he or she would invite the couple back for dinner, compliments of the restaurant. I wasn’t sure that the F and B manager would know this — so, I informed him — very self-servingly — of the predominant standard of expression of apology in such a situation for an elegant restaurant. He wrote back thanking me for my letter, apologizing and asking my wife and myself to please come as guests of the restaurant for dinner! Our second dinner went smoothly — until they brought the steak. I asked the waiter, “Excuse me, please, but where is the baked potato?” The waiter responded, “THIS is the way we serve the dish!” I then asked if he would mind bringing me the menu. When he brought it I pointed out the photograph of the plate with the steak … and the baked potato! He went to huddle with the maitre d’ — and then brought the potato. There are many lessons to be learned from this story: 1) Be sure to be truthful in word and deed 2) If you make a mistake, own up and make it right 3) Beware of letter writers! How does this story connect with this week’s Torah portion? Avraham wanted to purchase the Cave of Machpela for a burial place for his wife, Sarah, in Hebron. Ephron, the owner of the field with the cave, initially makes a flamboyant though ingenuous offer to give Abraham the burial site. Later, Ephron offers the field for 400 “internationally-negotiable” silver shekels worth many times more than a regular shekel. The Torah makes note of Ephron’s diminished stature by spelling his name without a letter twice after he revealed his greed and original insincerity. I sincerely believe that the restaurant did not intend to deceive. However, Ephron did intend to deceive. Some people think that the Torah is just about spirituality, but “business is business” and that the Torah does not apply to business. Not true! True spirituality is integrating the Torah into your being so that you are truthful in all of your dealings. Ultimately, the Almighty runs the world and what one gains from deception will not benefit him in the long run.”
Eliezer arrives in Charan. Rivka gives him water to drink. The Torah states: “And she finished giving him to drink. And she said, ‘Also for your camels I will draw water until they finish drinking.’ “ (Genesis 24:19) Why does the Torah specify that she will draw water rather than writing “I will give the camels to drink”? The great Spanish Rabbi, the Abarbanel, tells us that Rivkah was meticulously careful not to say anything that would be untrue. Therefore, she said she would draw water, as if to say, “I don’t know for sure if they will drink or not, but I will draw water for them. If they want to, they can drink.” Rabbi Shmuel Walkin adds that we see here how careful we should be to keep away from saying anything untrue. He cites as an example Rabbi Refael of Bershid who was always very careful to refrain from saying anything that was untrue. One day he entered his home while it was raining outside. When asked if it was still raining, he replied, “When I was outside it was raining.” He did not want to mislead in case it had stopped raining from the time he entered his home. Rabbi Zelig Pliskin explains that this may seem to be ridiculous or inconsequential. However, if a person is careful with keeping to the truth in such instances, he will definitely be careful in more important matters. On the other hand, if a person is careless with the truth, he can even be tempted to lie in major ways.
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
Oct 26, 2018 | Torat Devorah
Parshat Vayera centers on a phenomenal moment in Jewish tradition: the negotiation between God and Abraham about the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. By all accounts, the people of the doomed city do not have a lot going for them. Ezekiel enumerates their sins, saying “She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me.” But Abraham fights for them, claiming that there must be some number of righteous people within the gates. He asks: Will You sweep away the innocent along with the guilty? … Far be it from you to do a thing like that! … Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly? Abraham challenges God. He advocates for the people of the city and for God’s own moral standing as a God of justice. Here Abraham demonstrates that he is iconoclastic, thwarting the traditional power dynamic between divine and devotee and bringing morality into the debate of action.
In a midrash, the Rabbis characterize this remarkable interaction as prayer. Discussing the importance of kavanah—mindfulness or
intention—during prayer, the rabbis declare that Abraham is the highest exemplar. The midrash points to this story, saying “…And nobody had kavanah in their prayer like our Father Abraham, which we see from the fact that he said: “Far be it from you to do a thing like that!” What is it about this kind of chutzpah clappei shamayim -challenging the heavens—or what today we might call “speaking truth to power”—that the rabbis see as the ultimate spiritual expression?
Genuine prayer requires a combination of openness and chutzpah—the strength of mind to honestly engage with what is within and around us, and the strength of imagination to see how it might be different. Abraham’s intense focus on approaching the world in this manner is a type of perpetual prayer. And in this case, he was able to push even God to do the same. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, theologian, civil rights and anti-war activist, also found great inspiration in using prayer’s directed introspection as an impetus toward worldly engagement. He states: ‘Prayer is meaningless unless it is subversive, unless it seeks to overthrow and to ruin the pyramids of callousness, hatred, opportunism, falsehoods. The liturgical movement must become a revolutionary movement, seeking to overthrow the forces that continue to destroy the promise, the hope, the vision. Though we can only dream of relating to God as Abraham did, our liturgy reminds us that we too can pray for justice. Prayers aimed to subvert oppressive systems and challenge the status quo can be found throughout the siddur. Prayers that the hungry should be fed and the naked clothed seek to break the chains of global capitalism that leave millions starving and unprotected. Prayers that the sick will be healed and that the dead will rise challenge the circle of life we believe to be natural. If we can challenge the very systems of creation, davka—how much more so—can we challenge those who claim the authority of God.’
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
Oct 19, 2018 | Torat Devorah
Abraham, at the outset of the parshah is told to go and travel to a land that God will show him. G-d promises to make him a great nation, to bless him and to make his name great, so that he will be a blessing for all. It is interesting to note that Abraham had no idea where he was going! And what is this blessing he is promised? The Or Hachayim (Rabbi Chayim Ben Attar) explains that this additional blessing was to compensate Avraham for God purposefully not telling him his destination. Rabbi Attar explains that this was a tremendous and very difficult test. Not only did Avraham have to leave his home and all the people he knew, but he was travelling blind not knowing even the country he was bound for. The fact that Avraham did not question God and just accepted to undertake this journey demonstrates what a true Tzaddik he was and how worthy he was of Hashem’s blessings. That is why Avraham encountered success wherever he went- his total faith was unparalleled and therefore recognized by Hashem.
“And it occurred, as he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, ‘See now, I have known that you are a woman of beautiful appearance. And it shall occur, when the Egyptians will see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife!’ – then they will kill me…’ ” (12:11-12) How was it possible that only now Avraham recognized Sarah’s beauty? The Arizal says that up till this point in time Avraham had no
concept of physicality – like Adam before he sinned. However, as he approached Egypt, the world center of decadence, even his lofty spiritual level lessened when he perceived good and evil – the domain of physicality. Sensing this change in himself, Avraham recognized the depths of impurity that was Egypt. He now sensed that it was indeed possible for man to sink to murder in order to satisfy his physical desires.
The following is a quote from the the Vilna Gaon: “In every generation new barriers need to be erected, for every generation is less than its predecessor and the eruv rav (descendents of the Egyptians who left Egypt at the time of
the Exodus) grow stronger. Therefore, it is necessary to barricade anew the breaches (in morality) perpetrated by the eruv rav. This is what the Torah means when it says “Guard my guardings!” (Vayikra 29:9)
Rabbi Chaim Zvi Center explains: Like Avraham, the closer we get to our own little Egypts – the larger our cars, our houses and our physical well-being loom in our lives – the more we know that we need to build
stronger and stronger fences against a world that celebrates immorality and conspicuous consumption.
Rabbi Yaakov Asher Sinclair comments: ” Life’s essential journey is that of the soul discovering its true identity. We learn this from the first two words in this week’s Torah portion. “Lech Lecha.” “Go to yourself.” Without vowels, these two words are written identically. When G-d took Avraham out of Ur Kasdim and sent him to the Land of Israel, He used those two identical words —Lech Lecha —“Go to yourself.” Spiritual growth requires the soul to journey. Our soul must notch up the miles, not our feet. The spiritual road requires us to forsake the comfortable, the familiar ever repeating landmarks of our personalities, and set out with an open mind and a humble soul. We must divest ourselves of the fawning icons of our own egos which we define and confine us — and journey. Avraham experienced ten tests in his spiritual journey. Each was exquisitely designed to elevate him to his ultimate spiritual potential. When G-d gives us a test, whether it’s the death of a loved one or a financial reversal or an illness, it’s always to help us grow. By conquering the obstacles that lie in our spiritual path – be it lack of trust in G-d or selfishness or apathy — we grow in stature. We connect with the fundamental purpose of the journey — to journey away from our negative traits and reach and realize our true selves. We ‘go to ourselves’. “
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
