Akeidat Yitzchak

Sefaria · Jewish Thought > Rishonim · 1,212 sections

_.27.1.4
Our sages agree that people and trees have much in common, are similar in structure and appearance. Just as the tree, though one integral unit, consists of separate parts, separate in their respective functions, so does man consist of separate parts. The roots and trunk of a tree are distinct from its branches, the former being rooted in the earth, the latter extending horizontally into the airspace surrounding it. Then there are the fruits to be taken from the tree to be consumed. So too, man has a trunk and root on earth, i.e. his material resources, vital juices, which enable him to exist in life on earth. Also, akin to the branches of a tree, man possesses wisdom enabling him to extend his life laterally and comprehend many disciplines, both secular and spiritual. Finally, the fruit of all these cognitive powers is recognition of G-d as one's Creator, and true belief in Him and in one's purpose in life. It is understood that if the trunk is healthy and wholesome, the chances of the branches developing properly and producing excellent fruit are good. True, there are exceptions when healthy trunks produce few branches and fruit. When the trunk is not sound however, abundance of branches and fruit will most certainly not be forthcoming. Similarly, a physically and ethically healthy human being may likely, though by no means certainly, achieve its purpose of cognition of G-d and true faith. We observe this phenomenon among many gentiles who have not had the benefit of revelation. When vital elements are lacking in the trunk however, i.e. the physical part of the human being, no true wisdom or true belief is likely to develop. By missing vital elements, we refer to the absence of good character traits, and the absence of vital senses. Just as a ladder cannot fulfil its function unless it is firmly planted on solid ground, and its rungs are sound, so progress toward the spiritual perfection of man depends on the availability of the basic ingredients. Absence of the necessary ingredients in the trunk can be traced to three causes. 1) Unethical conduct and poor character traits which prevent acquisition of wisdom, without which cognition of G-d will not follow. 2) Laziness and unwillingness to overcome natural handicaps and evil tendencies. 3) Lack of sensitivity to certain phenomena, resulting in a warping of the mentality (discussed in Chapter 8). Just as the successful growth of a tree and its development is noticeable first and foremost in the trunk which feeds the other parts, so man will be influenced primarily by his character traits rather than by his other accomplishments. It is natural that one will be influenced more by one's actions than by one's mind. He will not therefore discover true wisdom without being of good character, and if by chance he does find wisdom in spite of lack of good character, he will not be able to hold on to it. Just as a trunk which is weak or corrupt cannot for long feed the branches and the fruit, so an unhealthy character cannot for long support wisdom and spirituality. This is the gist of the message of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah quoted from Avot. It is also the reason why many mussar books have been written to pave the way for those who are desirous of acquiring wisdom and cognition of G-d, to learn to excel first in truly ethical conduct. Aristotle's book of ethics is a fine example, designed to help man achieve harmony with the will of his Creator. Granted that all these admonitions are recorded throughout the Torah and the books of the prophets in a scattered fashion, one needs to thank the authors of these books for their systematic approach and the sound reasoning displayed in their treatment of this subject. This is especially true of the four major traits to be developed.
_.27.1.5
The most important trait to be developed is patience. This is the ability to endure adversity easily, not without sensitivity, but heroically. One does not display one's pain or sorrow in a manner which reveals that one feels a burden that is difficult to bear. On the other hand, one does not conceal it to the point where fools would be justified in concluding that one is totally insensitive to such pains or burdens. The truth of all this is demonstrated by David, when the first son of Bat Sheva was deathly ill (Samuel II Chapter 12). Until the death of the child, David left nothing undone to plead for its life. However, as soon as the child had died and the Lord's decision had become evident, David did not mourn publicly, but demonstrated how to accept G-d’s decision gracefully, without outward sign of discontent. The reaction of Jacob's sons to the rape of their sister seems to point to a lack of this trait on their part. On the face of it, they failed to accept what had befallen Dinah as G-d’s decision, requiring graceful acceptance on their part.
_.27.1.6
The second of the four traits (described in Chapter 6) is to hate openly, not to bury one's hatred within one's heart. Hiding one's hatred reveals fear, whereas candor reveals more regard for truth than for public opinion. Therefore, attacking one's enemies by means of an ambush, i.e. by using deceit, is despicable. By hating openly, one displays contempt for the enemy. This was also demonstrated by Nachash of the Beney Ammon (Samuel I Chapter 11) who proclaimed his hatred for the people of Yavesh Gilead openly, showing his contempt for them. By using this tactic, the men of Yavesh Gilead were given time to arrange for their survival and to rush three hundred and thirty thousand people to their aid under Saul's leadership. Practicing this trait, then, can often be counterproductive, as it enables the intended victim to obtain aid before he becomes victimized.
_.27.1.7
Jacob's sons fell into this trap by acting deviously. They tricked the people of Shechem into thinking that they were friendly, while planning all the time how to kill them with impunity. They should have considered if their anger was not justifiable enough to proclaim their feelings publicly, as men of character would have done. If they felt that giving public vent to their feelings was not warranted, they should not have taken revenge either.
_.27.1.8
Trait number three of the four traits described in Ethics Chapter one, is the unseemliness of pursuing the acquisition of material wealth with undue fervor. Basically, this usually reflects a reluctance to give to others, an urge to be always at the receiving end (egotism is a very negative trait). Depending on the degree and the extent of the urge to acquire what belongs to others, Aristo calls the perpetrator either egotistical or wicked. Our Torah, similarly, deals frequently with the wrongful acquisition of property. The common denominator of such a character weakness is listed last in the ten commandments because it is the root of all evil. The Torah describes Abraham as the model par excellence of the person who gives rather than receives. The tribes of Reuben Gad and half of Menashe on the other hand, are typical of those who want to receive more in return for giving less, when they demanded territory on the East Bank of the Jordan and appeared unwilling to share the burden of military conquest of the land of Canaan (Bamidbar Rabbah 22). Solomon describes the consequences of such greed in Proverbs 20,21, "Property secured by theft will neither be blessed at the beginning nor at the end." The looting of the property of Shechem by Jacob's sons, certainly seems quite uncharacteristic of their heritage, and contrasts strongly with the Jews of Persia under the leadership of Mordechai who made a point of not touching a cent of the property of the antisemites against whom they had defended themselves (Esther Chapter 9).
_.27.1.9
The fourth trait listed by Aristo (Chapter 11) defines the true man of valor as someone who is not reckless, but weighs the dangers he exposes himself to in relation to the chance of success in battle. Being human, fear in varying degree is not alien to him. When facing certain death, he is aware of the advantages of life; when the cause is worthy however, he chooses death as being preferable to an unworthy life. Our sages, in Sanhedrin 74, have formulated three evils as the ones that are not fit to live with, and for the avoidance of which death is preferable to life (immoral sexual relationships, idol worship, and shedding inncocent blood). This will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 83. The value of not endangering one's life frivoulously, is demonstrated in Samuel II Chapter 23, when David refused to drink water which three heroes had secured for him at the risk of their lives. They could easily have been killed by Philistines at Bethlehem. David compared the water they brought him to their own lifeblood. Since our lives are a sacred trust given to us by G-d for safekeeping, we are not at liberty to endanger it needlessly. Until the owner (G-d) claims His property back, we have to preserve it faithfully. Elijah was wrong in offering his life back to G-d. (Kings I19) Why did he flee from Jezebel who would gladly have taken his life, had he not known that it was his duty to preserve it? When the wife of Job (Job 2,10) exhorted him to curse G-d and thus deliver himself up to death either at the hands of G-d or through a human tribunal, she did so thinking he would be better off dead than alive. Job, however, answered her that anyone willing to accept the pleasant aspects of life must likewise be prepared to accept the unpleasant parts if and when they do occur. Flavius Josephus's own account of how he surrendered to the Romans rather than commit suicide, is a valid argument in favor of our position. How much did Jacob's sons err when they destroyed a city situated in the midst of a densely populated area, an action that was bound to be followed by retaliatory measures by the whole district, and which could ultimately have resulted only in their collective deaths? Jacob remonstrated with them, "You have troubled me to make me odious" (Genesis 34,30). Had it not been for "the fear of the Lord" which overcame the inhabitants of the neighbouring towns, the inevitable consequences would have ensued.
_.27.1.10
We see, therefore, that the sons of Jacob displayed a total disregard for all these four character traits in their dealings with Shechem and his city. Aristo's lessons of self discipline are valid then for all those who have not had the benefit of the revelation at Mount Sinai, who have not heard the words G-d taught us in the Torah. Such people, if they want to attain wisdom and knowledge of G-d, must travel the path indicated by Aristo in his book of ethics. We Jews, however, are somewhat different trees inasmuch as instead of being rooted in the earth, we are rooted in heaven. Our roots, instead of going deeper into the ground, strive upwards. We learn the word of G-d as soon as we start learning how to walk: "The righteous lives by his faith" (Chabakuk 2,3). Our vital juices are our faith, and our body is the fruit nurtured by these Divinely inspired thoughts. This requires, on occasion, the very opposite of what Aristotele would call "ethical conduct." Abraham's unquestioning willingness to sacrifice Isaac, Jacob's subterfuge in securing the blessing intended for Esau, or his purchase of the birthright for a pittance, exploiting his brother's hunger, are all examples of this. In fact, practicing the finest human traits such as king Saul's pity for Agog, lost him the kingship (Samuel I Chapter 15). When the prophet (Kings I 20,35) says to his companion, "Strike me," and his companion refused, the companion was slain for his refusal to raise his hand against the man of G-d. The standards of ethical conduct for Jews are set from on high for the Torah oriented personality, and do not always correspond to the maxims espoused by mere human intellect, however well motivated. Generally speaking, there is no greater sin than disrespect for one's parents. King Chiskiyahu, who displayed that apparent disrespect when he dragged the remains of his father on a stretcher, may have referred to this publicly misunderstood action when he prayed for his survival on his deathbed, and referred to the upright ways of the Lord, invoking his own conduct as deserving recognition. Having obeyed G-d’s law, despite thereby creating a very unfavorable impression of himself amongst the people and thus having exposed himself to condemnation by his peers, he may have prayed for his survival as a sign from G-d that that conduct had been Divinely approved (Kings II 20,1-3). There are numerous examples of the truism (Proverbs 21,30) "No wisdom can prevail against the Lord." As long as the roots of our faith keep increasing and deepening, we will be nourished by the lifegiving waters of Torah, and need not be afraid of hostile phenomena around us, but we will be able to weather all onslaughts, as illustrated by the parable of the trees in the Mishnah we have quoted. Wisdom which is not based on the revealed will of G-d is apt to mislead its owner, and in times of stress may not protect him against the ravages of external forces. Since Jacob's sons’ roots were not in the earth, but were drawing their nourishment from heaven, they were able to defy all the normal rules of human conduct listed by Aristotele and yet succeed in their plan and its execution. Since the day Abraham had been commanded circumcision, his descendants had been set apart from those uncircumcised. They had, of course, been aware of all the trouble Abraham had gone to to avoid Isaac marrying a Canaanite girl, and the commandment of Isaac and Rebecca to Jacob not to marry a Canaanite. They had also observed that as a result of following these instructions, their father had established a family, all of whom were true to their heritage. Rape of their only sister then was a public desecration of G-d’s name, in the face of which ordinary rules of human conduct did not apply any longer. The brothers' deliberate flouting of all the four major rules of conduct was designed to impress the G-dly principles on which their lives were built, on the surrounding country. On all four occasions when the Torah describes the reaction of Jacob's sons to the rape, be it when they heard about it, when they negotiate with Chamor, when they slew the people in the city, or even when they reject their father's rebuke, each time they refer to the immoral act that had been perpetrated upon them, meaning their sister, and themselves by extension. The fact that the tum-ah defilement is mentioned only in connection with the brothers' reaction underscores that the Torah upholds their conduct (naturally, mention of the event and Jacob having heard about it prior to the brothers is a necessary part of the narrative).
_.27.1.11
Some problems in the text of the story: 1) Why was the city near which all this occurred not mentioned by name? Shechem is certainly not more than a reference to the city that belonged to Shechem, just like Ir David, or Ir Sichon? 2) Why is Dinah referred to as a daughter of Leah and Jacob? Was there then another Dinah? Why the repetition of Shechem's love and desire for Dinah? 3) The report about Chamor going to see Jacob, although no discussion takes place prior to the return of the brothers, seems out of order. The return of the brothers, and their anguish prior to the arrival of Chamor in their home would have seemed a more appropriate sequence of the reportage. Mentioning that sexual intercourse with the unmarried daughter of Jacob is inadmissible hardly needs emphasis, so why the line "and such a thing must not be done" (34,7)? 4) Why does Chamor start immediately talking about marriage, instead of first trying to assuage the brothers' feelings? Shechem also discusses only the future instead of expressing regret about what had happened. 5) The conditions imposed regarding circumcision of all the people of Chamor and Shechem seem loaded with unnecessary verbiage. 6) Why did Shimon and Levi pick the third day after circumcision to attack the city? Would the townspeople not be still weaker immediately after circumcision? 7) Why would the brothers loot the town if the object was merely to punish them for participation in an immoral act? The more we hear about the moral justification of their act, the less we can understand the monetary gain as an apparent objective. 8) Why did Jacob delay fulfilling the vow he had made at Looz, i.e. Bet El, after the dream with the ladder? 9) What were the alien deities that Jacob told his household members to get rid off? Why is the death of Deborah mentioned? 10) The last two words in 35,12 seem superfluous. What is the meaning of "G-d rose from the spot He had spoken with him" (35,13)? 11) Why did the midwife say to Rachel, "Do not be afraid," when it was obvious she was about to die? 12) The words "It happened while Jacob lived in that country" in 35,21 seem superfluous. We already know that he had pitched his tent in Migdal Eder. 13) Why is Reuben's indiscretion mentioned in the same verse as "Jacob had twelve sons?"
_.27.1.12
(1) There is no firm evidence that the city of Shechem mentioned in the books of the prophets is identical with the town near which Dinah was raped. There are pointers that suggest that this was not the same city. If the brothers were tending sheep at Shechem while their homes were at Chevron, Shechem must be presumed to have been less than a day's walk away. It is unreasonable to assume that Jacob sent Joseph all by himself on a journey of several days, as would have been the case if Shechem mentioned there were identical with the Nablus of today. In particular, seeing that so much bloodshed had taken place there, it would have been irresponsible to send a seventeen-year old into such hostile country all by himself. Even the brothers themselves were hardly likely to provoke the local population by grazing their flocks in their vicinity. We must assume therefore that Ir Shechem means the city of Shechem in the same sense as Ir David means "the capital of David's kingdom." The author explains how to dispose of apparently contradictory comments by the Talmud in Sanhedrin 102. (2) The reference to Dinah being a daughter of Leah is undoubtedly complimentary. The Torah, by referring to her ancestry, emphasizes that she had nothing but the best of intentions, that her excursion did not indicate a departure from traditional Jewish conduct. The repetition of the three expressions "He took her, he lay with her, he forced her" indicate that she remained uncooperative during all three phases of what is being described; she did not weaken in her resistance in any way. The reason three actions are mentioned is because Jacob's family suffered three indignities: A) The shame suffered by the whole family; B) The damage done to the girl's innocence and the loss of her virginity; C) The physical pain caused Dinah when she had to submit to violence. The punishment for the first of these indignities prescribed by the Torah is boshet, compensation in financial terms. The second indignity which reduced Dinah's value as a prospective bride in the compensation for the victim. It is noteworthy that Dinah did not lose her appeal for Shechem on account of any of the indignities he had heaped upon her. "He cleaved to the daughter of Jacob" (34,3). The family of Jacob had not become sullied in his eyes; he loved her just as before (not like Amnon who lost all his desire for Tamar once he had raped her). Shechem tried to talk softly to Dinah's heart to help her recover from her pain. (3) The order in which the Torah describes the arrival of the sons, after Chamor had already arrived at Jacob's house, is to exonerate Jacob from any implication in his sons' subsequent actions, since there had not been an opportunity for them to consult. That is why Jacob on his deathbed refers to "in their secret counsel let my soul not be involved" (Genesis 49,6). It is to underscore that he had not been a party to their plan. Obviously, the sons could not have heard about the event while being in the field. Therefore, we must understand the sequence of events thus: (34,7) "When the sons came home and heard what a shameful act had been perpetrated against Israel, namely that a daughter of Jacob had been slept with, something that could not be tolerated." (4) Chamor uses the future course of events in order to compensate for an injustice that could no longer be undone. He emphasizes that he does not only want to legitimize his relations with Dinah, but goes far beyond this, and this constitutes a great honor for Jacob. The king offers the freedom of the country to Jacob's family. The sons' reason for deceiving Chamor has already been discussed in the first part of this chapter. (5) When the brothers use the term tame, defiled, when referring to the rape and subsequently suggesting a compromise, they are already using deceit, since they conveyed the impression to Chamor and Shechem that they had calmed down already and that their suggestions therefore could be taken at face value, could be believed. An exact examination of the text reveals that in fact the brothers did not breach any contract, nor did they retract from their original position. This is the reason Onkelos translates the word mirmah, slyness, deceit, simply as chochmah, cleverness, wisdom. They said, "We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to a man with a foreskin because it is a shame for us to forgive such an act." Chamor understood them to mean that the words "we cannot" refer only to the foreskin, not to the shame they had suffered. Similarly, Chamor understood their statement "if you will become like us," as referring only to the rite of circumcision, whereas the brothers used it in a wider sense meaning that they would have to embrace all aspects of the brothers' lifestyle and religion. Thereby they served notice that they were not going to forgive anything. We note that nowhere did the brothers promise that Dinah would become Shechem's wife. They only spoke in general terms, "our daughters," "your daughters," etc., and threatened to leave the neighborhood with their sister if their demands were not complied with. When Chamor reported in his city on these discussions, he represented the rape episode as having been resolved, and emphasized the future advantages to be gained by intermarrying with Jacob's family. The unexpected acceptance by the townspeople of the terms offered may have convinced the sons of Jacob that heaven had indicated its approval for their plan of revenge. (6) Possibly the "third day" referred to was the third day of the week, i.e. Tuesday, but in reality the first day after the circumcision. This day is under the constellation of Mars, and signals bloodshed. (7) The brothers had to prevent the wives and children from raising an alarm in the neighboring towns after they had killed the males. Therefore, the females and children had to be taken captive. Since abandoning the herds made no sense, and since their undertaking had evidently enjoyed the help of heaven, they felt entitled to acquire the livestock etc. The repeated outcry "May our sister be treated like a harlot?" underscores that to revenge such a misdeed, considerations of personal safety that are normally valid criteria, and which were part of the objections raised by Jacob, were not valid now. (8) Until now Jacob had not been certain that his dream about the ladder had been of a prophetic nature; he only became sure now that G-d spoke to him and identified Himself as having been the One to whom Jacob had made the vow at that time. (9) He was intent to remove any trace of idols that had been part of the loot his sons had taken from the city of Shechem and Chamor, and to remove any impurity acquired through contact with such idols. To this end, he instructed all his people to change their garments. Of course, the exhortation included the order to desist from any idolatrous practices that might have been picked up by his sons due to their contact with the idol worshippers. (12) The death of Deborah, a fine woman, may have been the final chapter in the sons' repentance of the whole Dinah episode, since we have a tradition that the death of righteous people provides atonement for the survivors. Inasmuch as all of Jacob's sons could qualify for the heritage promised to their forefathers, G-d repeats "to your descendants I will give the land," meaning to all of them, not like Esau or Ishmael who did not qualify though they too had been descendants of Isaac and Abraham respectively. (10) Contrary to the normal custom of a pupil departing from his master, in this case G-d departed from Jacob, the latter still remaining in his place. This suggests that Jacob's task had not yet been completed, prompting him to erect the monument and fulfil payment of his vow. It was here that the betrothal of Israel and G-d took place, later to be consummated by chuppah, a wedding ceremony at Mount Sinai. Details of this whole process will be discussed in Chapter forty-eight. (11) At the beginning of Rachel's labor, the midwife encouraged her saying, "Do not worry, this too will be a son for you." This gave rise to Rachel naming the child before she had even seen it. (13) It seems that Jacob had not been home at the time Reuben had rearranged the furnishings in Bilhah's bedroom. Reuben would not have dared to do this otherwise. The statement that the sons of Jacob were twelve may indicate that at that juncture Reuben lost his status as the firstborn, no longer counting as two (since the firstborn normally receives a double portion of the father's estate). More likely however, the Torah may stress that Reuben remained a full member of the Jewish people.
_.28.1.2
"JACOB SETTLED DOWN."
_.28.1.3
Bereshit Rabbah 85 quotes Rabbi Shmuel son of Rabbi Nachman interpreting Jeremiah 29, 11, "For I know that My thoughts about you have been thoughts of peace, says the Lord." While the brothers were busy selling Joseph, Jacob and Joseph each were preoccupied with their respective anguish; whereas Yehudah was busy taking a wife, the Almighty was busy creating the light of the savior; these are the "Thoughts of peace, not of evil, to provide for you a future and hope."
_.28.1.4
Just as man, despite his freedom to move within the confines of the earth, cannot move outside of it, so he cannot interfere with the laws of nature G-d has established, despite the free will that has been granted to him. Man's limitations are evident in three areas. Let us illustrate this. There are many necessary activities without which man would perish, i.e. provision of food, shelter, and clothing, all of which man pursues by choice, though his failure to pursue them would result in irreparable harm to himself. Secondly, there are activities which are undertaken under the influence of varying degrees of pressure, such as business trips to foreign countries, which though freely decided upon, have not really been initiated by the traveller's own free will. Thirdly, there are activities which man wishes to initiate but is prevented from executing due to the limitations placed upon him by the will of the Creator. Were man to aspire to travel to heaven, for instance, this is clearly impossible due to the nature of man and the universe, respectively. The limitation placed on man is consistent with the words of David in Psalms 33,10-11, "G-d destroys the counsel of nations, whereas the counsel of the Almighty prevails forever." This teaches that the limitations placed on human freedom aim at ensuring that G-d’s universe should not be tampered with unduly by any of His creatures. Superficial consideration of these limitations might lead one to conclude that freedom of choice does not exist in reality. If one assumes that the whole is nothing more than the sum total of its parts, it follows that if the whole is to remain inviolate, so must the parts remain inviolate. We have discussed this in Chapter twenty-two and twenty-six, and have demonstrated that G-d’s will does not impose itself on human will. A prisoner who has the run of his prison, is free and responsible for his actions, though he cannot escape from the walls of the prison. The Torah illustrates the limits of such freedom by many stories, the Joseph story being a classic example in which all participants play their parts, executing their own designs, without G-d’s overall design becoming thwarted. On the other hand, the freedom of choice of none of the participants is interfered with in any way. This is the basis for the whole system of reward and punishment. Rabbi Yoshua ben Korcha in Tanchuma Vayeshev explains the verse, "Go and see G-d’s accomplishment. He is terrifying in His acts above the sons of man" (Psalms 66,4) to mean that man has a habit of blaming his mistakes on G-d. A husband who wants to divorce his wife, for instance, asks her to pour him a cup of wine. She complies, whereupon he gives her a bill of divorce claiming that the wine had been lukewarm. The wife queries, "How did you know beforehand that I was going to give you lukewarm wine?" Similarly, we say to G-d, "You have predetermined our death, since it says in Your Torah, which had been written prior to the creation of man "this is the law of the Torah; when man dies in a tent etc" (Numbers 19,2). This clearly means that death is part of the scheme of things. The truth is, of course, the reverse. Although, in the final analysis G-d’s plan will prevail, no one has been forced to play a particular part on the stage of history. Is it conceivable that because of an extra strand of dyed wool in Joseph's garment a whole people should have become condemned to exile in Egypt? G-d wanted to carry out the prophecy made to Abraham at the covenant between the pieces. The chain of events in which the jealousy of Joseph's brothers played a prominent part ultimately proves to have become the instrument for carrying out G-d’s design. However, G-d could have found many other means to achieve the same end. Therefore, the brothers cannot claim exoneration by saying that what they had done, helped G-d to achieve His aim. The Bible is full of similar such lessons. The Joseph story with all its details would be completely superfluous were it not for the fact that it foreshadowed Jewish experiences in general.
_.28.1.5
Joseph is selected here as the stereotype of a Jew. Jacob's typical issue is described as "these are the generations of Jacob, Joseph..." (Genesis 37,2). Many other verses throughout the Bible express the same theme. Tanchuma at the end of Parshat Vayigash writes that whatever befell Joseph sooner or later befell Zion etc. Just as Joseph was tending the sheep near his brothers at the beginning of his historic career, so the Jewish people were close to the land of Edom their cousins at the beginning of its historic career when they received the Torah. By its acceptance of G-d’s law, Israel, so to speak, brought "evil" reports about other nations who had failed to accept the Torah when it was offered to them. When G-d says in Jeremiah 2,2, "I remember your love and kindness in your youth when you followed Me into the desert etc," this corresponds to Joseph being loved by his father more than his brothers. G-d gave Israel the Torah, accorded it special status, just as Jacob chose Joseph, gave him the colored coat and assigned him priestly duties (as Rachel's eldest). When the cousins (gentile nations) perceived this, they hated Israel just as the brothers had hated Joseph. Our sages point out that the reason the mountain on which the Torah was given was called Sinai, was because the word is reminiscent of hatred, i.e. events on that mountain accounted for the hatred of the Jewish people and Judaism by the gentile nations. Joseph's dreaming of the homage paid him reflects the homage paid the Jewish people during the early generations of their conquest of the land of Canaan, when most nations acknowledged Jewish achievements from afar in their respective countries. A time came when the nations became resentful of Israel's pre-eminence, and just as in Joseph's dream they challenged, "Do you want to rule over us or reign amongst us?" Joseph had dreamed of the more influential celestial bodies, since he foresaw Ishmael's and Esau's opposition, one of whom uses the lunar calendar whereas the other uses the solar system as basis for its calendar plus all the other eleven constellations excluding the constellation of Israel which does not revolve around the other constellations. The future will reveal that all these rival nations and destinies will submit to Joseph (Israel), resulting in shame and derision for sun and moon respectively, as we read in Isaiah 24,23, "And the moon will be ashamed, while the sun will feel disgrace."
_.28.1.6
When that time comes, Israel will excel on three fronts: true faith, willing acceptance of Torah laws, understanding same, as well as success in the political arena.
_.28.1.9
The author explains how future events are hinted at in the encounter between Yehudah and Tamar, especially events involving the tribe of Yehudah, the house of David etc.
_.28.1.10
He also explains how the Messiah as leader will outshine all previous leaders such as Abraham, Moses, and even the angels.
_.28.1.11
The study of, and retention in memory of, Torah in that future will be far superior to what it is at present, since it is a well known fact that whatever is experienced personally, without the help of intermediaries, leaves a lasting impact, is impressed on one's memory indelibly. When the Jewish people begged Moses at Mount Sinai to act as the intermediary between them and the voice of G-d, they found out that what is learned from the lips of the intermediary is subject to being forgotten.
_.28.1.12
The reader is referred to the original for study of this part of the chapter in which the author deals with many Midrashim on the subject.
_.28.1.17
Some problems in the text of our story: 1) Since the brothers were all superior people who would neither ruin their father's old age nor heap guilt upon themselves, why did they treat Joseph as they did? This is especially puzzling since we know from Gittin 52, that dreams as a way of foretelling future events may be discounted, disregarded even? 2) Since the brothers appear to have feared that Joseph would rule over them, why did they reverse their intention and allowed Joseph to live? Surely this kept the chance of his dreams coming true alive? 3) Why did the brothers have to resort to subterfuge to get rid of Joseph? Why did they not simply kill him and bury him? Why did they so readily consent to changes in plan, such as Reuben's suggestion to throw him into the pit, and Yehudah's suggestion to sell him to the caravan of Midianites? From their entire behavior, it seems they wanted to avoid bloodshed and were only afraid of what Joseph could do to them if he remained alive and free at the same time. 4) Why did the Torah not report explicitly how the brothers were punished for their treatment of Joseph? In fact, it appears that they had heavenly assistance in carrying out their plan (Bereshit Rabbah 84). They appear to have been beneficiaries of their misdeed, getting the V.I.P. treatment in Egypt during the famine in later years, ensuring their own and their families' survival and well being. We seem to find here a classic case of the chote veniskar, the sinner who is rewarded for his sin. All these arguments lead one to believe that their actions might have been involuntary, pre-ordained and therefore not culpable, if we had not already explained previously that this was not the case. 5) If Joseph's reports to his father about his brothers' wrongdoing had been factual, he should have received a reward for alerting his father to actions which their father would not have been able to correct unless someone had told him about them. Why was he punished for this? If, on the other hand, his reports were not factual, the Torah should have written, "He made up evil reports," not "He brought home evil reports" (37,2)! 6) Hatred by the brothers is mentioned three times. We hear the word "jealousy" only in connection with the second dream, when there is no mention of the word "hatred." Why is this? Why are the words "to rule" and "to reign" used separately? What is the difference between them? 7) What prompted Jacob to send out Joseph to check on the welfare of the brothers on this of all days? Why did Joseph get lost? Why did the man whom he encountered tell Joseph about his brothers' plans to relocate? 8) Why did the brothers select a wild beast as their alibi instead of claiming that robbers had killed Joseph and that they had buried his remains? Why did Jacob not send a search party to find Joesph's bones to bury what was left? 9) What had been in Reuben's mind when he said "Do not shed blood?" His plan too would have resulted in Joseph's blood being spilled. Why did he say in his brothers' presence, "What will happen to me since the lad is gone!" Surely, this statement revealed to the brothers that he had intended to rescue Joseph? What is Rashi trying to say when he writes, "The holy spirit spoke here?" Even Yehudah's advice allowed for the chance of Joseph surviving and ultimately revenging himself. Why the confusing statements about the Midianites and the Ishmaelites? 10) Why did Jacob refuse to be comforted (see Moed Katan 27, that one must not grieve for the dead excessively)? The statement should have read, "Jacob was unable to accept comfort." 11) Why is the sequence of the story interrupted by the affairs of Yehudah and Tamar? Why does the Torah have to tell us the name of Yehudah's first father-in -law? What do the names of his three sons denote, and why are we interested in reading about Yehudah's whereabouts at the time Sheylah was born? 12) Since Yehudah's two older sons seem to have died for sins that gentiles are not culpable for, namely the deliberate wasting of semen, how could they have been guilty of the death penalty not even having been aware that there was a prohibition? What did Onan mean by saying that the issue would not be his? 13) Why did Yehudah delay marrying off Sheylah seeing that the reason he gave, "Maybe he will die too,” would apply for the remainder of his entire life? 14) How did Tamar know that Yehudah would want relations with her even if he did encounter her at a place where harlots customarily stationed themselves? Having encountered him, why did she set such a high price on her favors that she endangered her whole plan? Why did she become pregnant with twins? Why does the Torah give such a detailed report about the strange behavior of the infants during their birth? 15) What do our sages in Sotah 7 mean when they heap praise on Yehudah for his honesty in saying, "She is more righteous than I" i.e. that he publicly confessed without considering that by doing so he degraded himself in public? Either a harlot had been permitted for a man to lie with before the Torah had been given, or he could have married her as a partner in a levirate marriage. In either case, what was the great admission he made? How did he expose himself to public disgrace by admitting to conduct which was perfectly legal? If on the other hand, Tamar was legally as out of bounds to him at that time as she would be after the Torah legislation had been revealed to the Jewish people, he had committed a shameful act by living knowingly with a harlot, or he had engaged unknowingly in a forbidden incestuous relationship with his daughter-in-law, and a continuation of such relations was certainly out of the question? Besides, who had appointed Yehudah both judge and jury in the case of his daughter-in-law, that he had the right to execute her? Since when does a judge preside over a case in which he has a personal interest? 16) It is strange that Potiphar's wife should make a public issue of her involvement with Joseph, a revelation which would reflect discredit upon her regardless of the appearance of her having been wronged. She could have waited for Joseph to weaken at a later date. Why did Joseph leave his clothing behind when he ran out of the house?
_.28.1.18
Bereshit Rabbah's comment in Section 84, that as soon as the righteous wish to enjoy this world, Satan interferes, claiming it should be enough for them to know that they enjoy eternity in the world to come, will be explained in Chapter 30. The plain meaning of vayeshev Yaakov is that Jacob settled down. Since the Torah had previously reported the settling down of Esau in the mountains of Seir, the Torah now proceeds to describe Jacob as settling in Canaan, the home of his fathers, the land for which he had longed and toiled for so long to return to. The word "these" in this case means "such" or "thus," describing the character and condition of Jacob's descendants, and the developments which resulted from these conditions. Compare Genesis 27,46, "From the daughters of Chet such as these," or Numbers 26,53, "To these the land shall be divided," meaning to "people such as these." (5) Since Joseph was young and delicate, he had not yet assumed the task of tending sheep with his brothers as a regular duty, but rather did so as a pastime whenever the brothers grazed their flocks near his home. At such times, the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah would watch over his well being. Since he was close to them, he would carry tales of their doings to his father. The surrounding population, observing handsome people like the sons of Jacob, were jealous and accused the brothers of all kinds of misdeeds in order to discourage their respective wives from getting involved with them. The brothers would discuss such matters among themselves, and Joseph, instead of trying to suppress the fact that he had overheard these conversations, repeated them at home. In this way, he created the impression that the subject matters of the conversations he had overheard should be taken at face value, and reflected on the lifestyle of his brothers.
_.28.1.19
The author wonders why Rashi accepts as facts matters that even the Midrash only voices as a suspicion. (1) "Israel loved Joseph because he was a ben zekunim, son of his old age. When the brothers saw this they hated him." Here we find that the real reason for their hatred was not related to his tale bearing, something they recognized as being due simply to his immaturity. They believed that Jacob's love for Joseph precluded Jacob from loving them. The letter mem in the words mikol banav, is to be understood like the letter mem in the words ma-asser mikol meaning "a tenth of all." Here too the meaning would bem "The brothers saw that of all his sons, Jacob loved Joseph." They all felt relegated to the status of sons of concubines vis a vis Joseph. Being aware of the status of Ishmael in Abraham's household and Jacob's own status in Isaac's household when compared to Esau, his father's favorite, the brothers concluded that they themselves were to be excluded, and that the colored coat was evidence that Joseph had been selected to be the carrier of the tradition. Had they been right, they could have attempted to obtain a blessing by deceit, just like their father Jacob had done. In that case, they would have concealed their feelings towards Joseph. In fact, however, their hatred was confined, at least initially, to their inability to talk to Joseph peaceably. (6) When Joseph started having dreams and revealed the nature of his thinking by prattling on about them, the hatred intensified and brotherly love receded still further, until finally no more is said about hatred, but we hear only about jealousy. Thus a plan was formed to take action against the object of their jealousy. We find something similar in the relationship between Saul and David. Saul's jealousy was stirred into action by the growing success of David (Samuel I 18,14-16). The dream in which Joseph saw his brothers' sheaves of grain bowing down to his own sheaf reflected the fact that when later on the brothers encounter Joseph on their first trip to Egypt, they paid homage to him since they were in need of obtaining grain from him. At that time, they did not bow down to Joseph per se, since they were unaware of Joseph's identity at that time. In the second dream, reference is made to the time when they would pay homage to him as a ruler over them. Perhaps they ridiculed him when they said, "Do you want to be king over us?" meaning that such a thing could never be until their descendants had increased sufficiently to warrant establishing a nation and a monarchy. Or, they asked, "Do you wish to rule amongst us?" As Onkelos suggests, they accused Joseph's dreams as reflecting his fantasies during his waking hours. Once the brothers had convinced themselves that they were permitted to dispose of Joseph, or were even duty-bound to do so, they planned to do it far away from home so as to have a free hand and not be inhibited by the proximity of their father. Nablus is approximately a day's journey from Hebron, and they knew that Joseph would visit from time to time. Midrash Rabbah's suggestion is that from the word et, it is clear that the brothers' primary concern was to "tend to themselves." A new element into the frequent visits by Joseph of his brothers is introduced. Previously, due to the brothers grazing their sheep in the vicinity of Hebron, Joseph would visit by day and be back home by evening. This was no longer the case. No doubt, Joseph had not planned to stay away longer than necessary and to report back to his father. Since G-d did not want lo postpone His plan, He assisted Joseph when Joseph left the beaten trail not having found his brothers in Nablus and went to look for them. Joseph imagined that the man whom he encountered who seemed to know who he was, would certainly know where his far more famous brothers were. This is why he said merely, "I seek my brothers," without bothering to identify the brothers further. Sometimes G-d uses the very efforts man makes to thwart His plans as instruments to advance His plans. This is what Joseph had in mind when he said at a much later stage, "G-d intended for the good what you had intended for evil." The apparently superfluous words of the angel, "They have moved from here," give rise to the comment of our sages that they had severed brotherly relations with Joseph, and that their very departure from Shechem (Nablus) was proof of this. What the man meant to tell Joseph was that the brothers' departure itself was far more relevant than the place they had moved to. (2) The brothers' attitude towards Joseph was unanimous, though they disagreed on the method of implementation. Each of them considered how to rid themselves of the evil forces that they felt Joseph represented. In Jeremiah 18,18, we find a similar dilemma facing those who wanted to silence the prophet. Their course of action was "let us go and bad-mouth him, then we will no longer have to listen to his rebukes.” They too wanted to avoid laying a hand on him directly. (3) The brothers had intended that disposing of Joseph should not bring any further consequences. Had they given the impression that robbers had attacked him, surely the robbers would have taken the colored coat, but would have left the body. This would have set off a hunt after the robbers. The idea of putting him in a pit and preserving the coat would explain that no remains were found, and would prevent a search being instituted. In this way they would escape retribution by their father. They hoped to escape retribution by G-d by saying, "Let us see what will happen to his dreams!" What they meant was that if his dreams had indeed been Divine messages, they were anyways powerless to prevent their realization. If Joseph's dreams would be realized, at least they would know that they were meant to be realized. In that event, G-d Himself would prevent them from actually becoming guilty of bloodshed. If, on the other hand, G-d would not save Joseph, the brothers would feel at ease for having opposed their father whose love of Joseph they considered misplaced, and it would have proved to Joseph they considered misplaced, and it would have proved to them that Joseph had deserved his fate. (7) Jacob may have chosen that day since he had heard the brothers had decided to graze their flocks so much further from home. (9) Reuben may have hoped to dissuade Joseph from his mode of behavior and to save him in that manner, although in order to get his way with his brothers, he had to use more devious language to conceal his plan. Reuben explained to his brothers that they must make allowance for the possibility of a natural means of Joseph surviving, if they wanted to escape responsibility for having murdered him. Relying on G-d performing a miracle to save Joseph is not enough to claim that not only the brothers' will but also G-d’s will had been done, should Joseph die as a result of their actions. Rashi's comment that verse twenty-two had been said by the holy spirit, means that the second part of the verse is a report to us, the readers, not of the conversation that took place between Reuben and his brothers, but that the Torah added this line as evidence that Reuben was not lying when he said to the brothers in 42,22, "I told you not to sin against the lad!" The caravan looked like a typical Ishmaelite caravan from the distance, but on closer inspection turned out to be a group of Midianites. Since the former usually carried merchandise down to Egypt, Yehudah suggested they sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites. Later they recognised the Midianites, a special branch of the tribe of Ishmaelites. Since Yehudah had not been aware of everything Reuben had in mind, namely to bring Joseph back to their father, he advised in keeping with the expressed intention of Reuben, that they refrain from laying a hand on Joseph themselves, and that they merely sell him. Since Joseph was their flesh and blood, they did not want to become guilty of murder, did not even want indirect guilt on their conscience. (8) In order to forestall any search or further inquiries, they then treated Joseph's colored coat in such a way that the impression would be created that he had fallen victim to a ferocious beast. Jacob's mourning was indicative of his despair to ever see Joseph again. The contrast between Jacob's behavior and that of David, when the latter lost his first son by Bat Sheva, is explained in Midrash Tanchuma Parshat Vayigash (compare Samuel II 11,12). (10) Jacob mourned himself, having a tradition that should a son of his die during his lifetime, he, Jacob, would end up in purgatory. This accounts for his reference, "For I will go down to my son to she-ol," the latter word meaning gehinnom, i.e purgatory. This subject and the need for all of his twelve sons to play their part in the founding of the Jewish nation is discussed in Chapter 31. Jacob hoped that this would be the last and only mourning he would have to observe before his death. In this way, his refusal to be comforted was not a complaint against what fate had decreed against him. Since Jacob was aware that his son must have died because of a sin he had committed, and that this in turn reflected on the manner in which he had raised him, acceptance without further mourning would indicate that he, Jacob, had not been sufficiently chastened by what he had suffered, and that just as in the case of makkat mardut, lashes imposed by Rabbinic tribunal for a person's obstinacy in not submitting to the Rabbis' decision, a further series of lashes is administered until the victim changes his attitude. Jacob was afraid then that if he did not mourn sufficiently he might be in line for further chastisement. This is similar to what Job says (Job 9,27-28), "Should I say I will forget my complaint and comfort myself, I am afraid of all my sorrows, I know that You will not acquit me." Anyone acting differently would be like someone whose I.O.U. had been paid off, but had not been destroyed by the creditor. The brothers' intention had been fulfilled as soon as Joseph was sold to Egypt, a country from which slaves could not escape. Thus the brothers were no longer worried about Joseph's dreams becoming realized. Even when they came to Egypt during the famine, they never thought of him in that connection. G-d had to put in motion all these events in order for Israel eventually to become fit to become G-d’s chosen nation once they would leave Egypt. If the brothers were not punished, it is not because they were not free to do otherwise, but because they acted freely, convinced that their conduct was justified. (4) Midrash Tanchuma, which pictures G-d as having been involved in the brothers' plan, wishes to direct our attention to the fact that the ultimate benefit which accrued to the brothers from their action, is proof that it enjoyed Divine sanction, and that if the brothers had not done what they did, G-d would have been forced to seek other means to set in motion a chain of events leading to similar results. After the lesson we have learned from the first story about events showing a dovetailing of G-d’s plans with the freely executed actions of man, the second is even more impressive. (11) It demonstrates that G-d wanted the founder of Jewish royalty to be born from a union of Yehudah and Tamar. The latter was a fit mother for royalty both because of her conduct and because she was a descendant of Shem, the king of Salem (Bereshit Rabbah 85). Yehudah, being unable to watch the grief of his father, had moved away and befriended Chirom. This association led to the selection of Bat Shua as his wife, Yehudah's motivation apparently being a combination of financial and esthetic considerations. Since Bat Shua was from a distinguished family, her ancestry is mentioned in spite of her own name not being revealed. (12) Had Yehudah paid more attention to the personality of his wife, his sons would presumably have turned out better. When he got around to selecting a wife for his oldest son Er, he chose better than for himself. This, however, failed to inspire his son, and that is the reason the latter avoided procreation with Tamar. Since the duty to procreate is universal, and since there is no need to spell out the penalty as a warning, Er died for his sin of omission. In this way, what appears to have been G-d’s plan, namely to produce the source of Jewish monarchy through the union of Yehudah and Tamar, seems to have suffered a setback. Onan also refused to have children with Tamar, being aware that any offspring from her would not really be considered as his own. G-d’s plan thus appeared to have suffered a further setback. The participants' free choice was the cause of these delays in carrying out G-d’s plan. If Onan felt that children with Tamar would not be counted as his children, seeing they would be from a levirate union, having relations with his sister-in-law for purposes other than procreation would be incestuous and thus punishable by death. (13) Now Yehudah's plan for a union between his remaining son and Tamar was postponed due to Sheylah's tender age. He wanted to wait for Sheylah to attain both physical and spiritual maturity so that when he would eventually marry Tamar, he would perform his marital duties properly. As far as Yehudah was concerned there was no specific time-limit for the postponement of the marriage between Sheylah and Tamar. Tamar did not feel that she needed to accept such delay silently. The names Er and Onan are suggestive of their respective deaths, arirut meaning barrenness, whereas aninut conveys the pain and anguish caused one's progenitors through one's untimely death. The name Sheylah suggests the disappointment in store already at his birth in a disappointing, illboding place (38,5). Meanwhile Tamar was waiting, widowed, for Sheylah to attain manhood and for her to become his wife. (14) She had not been aware that Yehudah had had a different timetable in mind for her marriage to Sheylah than had applied when she had been married to Onan. In removing her widow's garments, Tamar had planned to remind Yehudah of his promise in the event he had forgotten same. Covering herself with a veil, adorning herself, and placing herself at a site where she hoped to encounter her father-in-law on the way to Timnah, she hoped to find favor in his eyes so that she would be given to Sheylah. Her plan was sound, and she had no reason to think that Yehudah would suspect her of being a harlot, seeing that both her garments and her veil indicated her chastity. It had not occurred to her that Yehudah would suggest a sexual relationship without even inquiring after her name, i.e. who she was. Since according to the laws existing at that time, a union with one's father-in-law was permissible, Tamar preferred the certainty of the union offered now to the uncertainty of a union with Sheylah in the future. She asked Yehudah for a proper token of his esteem so as to have future evidence of the validity of the union now taking place between them. Since it was customary to pay off harlots after they had performed their part of the bargain, Tamar's insistence on a pledge before the union, marked her as different. Her insistence on receiving personalized items as a pledge, made it obvious that she was only concerned with the performance of the levirate act of marriage to produce offspring from this distinguished man. Yehudah's endeavors to retrieve his ring and staff to avoid being involved in a scandal and his desisting eventually to avoid drawing too much attention to himself petered out since he had made a sincere attempt to pay the promised young goat. The statement by the townspeople nearby that there had not been a harlot in their neighborhood proves that it had been Yehudah who had jumped to the wrong conclusion about the veil Tamar had covered her face with. Since Tamar's status was one of shomeret yibbum, waiting for consummation of the levirate marriage, her pregnancy led to her death sentence in accordance with the laws of infidelity governing that region. (15) Possibly, both Yehudah and Sheylah had been informed, since they were the only ones with whom Tamar would have been permitted to have sexual relations, and whose admission to such relations would have saved her from being burned. Yehudah's statement "Take her out and let her be burned," means "We did not have relations with her, therefore we cannot save her from her penalty.” Tamar did not send her pledge to Yehudah via the judge so as not to embarass him in case he wanted to own up and declare his being responsible for her pregnancy. Yehudah's statement "She is more righteous than I," reflects that what he had done to her had been quite legal, since she had been fit to become his wife, that Tamar also had acted with the proper intention so that not only the act had happened to be legally in order. This is the reason then that his admission was so praiseworthy. The praiseworthy conduct of Tamar was commented upon many hundreds of years later, when Boaz had become the father of Ruth's child, the latter having invoked the same kind of right Tamar had once invoked (Ruth 4,12). Both are portrayed as having been motivated by the purest and most noble intentions. The fact that both of these women played a major role in the founding of the davidic dynasty can only reflect Divine intervention. Our sages, in their deep insight, comment when interpreting the words "She is more righteous than I" that this comment was made by heaven to show that the turn of events was not haphazard, but the outcome of heavenly planning. Yehudah did not continue to live with Tamar, seeing that he would thereby commit an injustice against his son Sheylah whom he had denied Tamar only to take her for himself. The twins Tamar gave birth to reflect heavenly planning at work also, since through a single act of union Tamar produced seed for both her deceased husbands. If, whenever the Torah mentions Yehudah's offspring, the two sons who had died prematurely are mentioned, we may infer that there is a reason for this. True, Aaron's two sons Nadav and Avihu are also mentioned on frequent occasions after they had died, but in their case the reason is to explain why Aaron's younger son became High Priest after him. Their names being mentioned is not as strange, therefore, as the repeated references to Er and Onan. To have these two long deceased sons mentioned in the census taken in Numbers 26,19 may therefore be explained by their having lived on in the persons of Peretz and Zerach respectively. Perhaps the struggle described about each of the babies wanting to be the first to be born suggests that each one wanted to replace Er and Onan vicariously, both of whom had had to wait a long time to be re-incarnated in this fashion. We have explained earlier that ever since Jacob's time, natural birthright was something that has been fought over. The midwife who thought that she was earmarking the firstborn when she tied the string on his hand, stood corrected when the firstborn turned out to be the younger one after all.
_.28.1.21
In discussing the care G-d took to make Joseph successful in Potiphar's household, Bereshit Rabbah 86 quotes the parable of a wine trader who had twelve animals all loaded with wine, one of which had entered a store. Since he did not have any assistants, the trader entered the store, leaving the other eleven beasts unattended. When asked how he could leave eleven animals and their loads unsupervised, he replied that the eleven in the public domain were unlikely to become contaminated, whereas the one animal which had entered private quarters was in greater danger of becoming contaminated. This is the reason G-d displayed more supervision of the life of Joseph. His surroundings were more likely to influence him negatively. The fact that Potiphar employed Joseph inside the house brought Joseph's talents to his attention more quickly, and impressed upon his master that he had secured himself a servant whose success reflected Divine guidance. Joseph's good looks endangered his chastity, since his master's wife desired an immoral involvement and Joseph must have been flattered by her attentions. In resisting her advances, Joseph made several points. Firstly, he argued that committing such a sin, unless one benefitted from it, would be inexcusable. There are three areas in which compliance with Mrs Potiphar's suggestion could be advantageous to Joseph: 1) He might advance his career. 2) He might be elevated in status within the household. 3) He would indulge his sexual appetites. In refusing to comply, Joseph pointed out that none of these three benefits would apply to him (38,8-10) since 1) his master had not withheld anything from him and had entrusted everything in the house to him, his career could hardly be advanced any further. 2) There was no one more honored than he in that household. 3) His master had not denied him any outlet for his sexual needs, his legitimate physical desires. For these reasons, compliance with the immoral suggestion of Mrs. Potiphar would be a sin against G-d which could not even be excused on the basis of someone not being able to cope with his carnal urges. In fact, there was no greater wrong a person could commit. How could he allow himself to become so guilty in the eyes of the Lord? Joseph's answers, based on philosophy, theology, did not end the matter. Since the power of love is strong, the day came when the fact that the two were alone together in the house gave Mrs. Potiphar a chance to press her advances on Joseph. (16) This left Joseph no choice but to leave his clothing in her hands, instead of himself. Leaving the house in his underwear, in full view of other members of the household, created a stir. Since Mrs. Potiphar did not trust Joseph's discretion, feared him telling his part of the story first, she tried to forestall him by twisting the truth to suit her purpose, using Joseph's garments as incriminating evidence. She claimed Joseph had left his garments to flee faster, since he had reason to believe that her cries would bring people to the house to assist Mrs. Potiphar fight off her alleged rapist. Though this episode again resulted in Joseph's fall from grace, even his stay in jail could not prevent him from realizing his ultimate destiny of becoming royalty. His sincerity, his dedication to any task entrusted to him, quickly advanced him even within the jail, until two ex-ministers consulted him about their dreams. This again afforded G-d an opportunity to advance Joseph by natural means, and to put him in a position to execute His Master Plan. We have tried to show how the freedom exercised by all the players in our drama nevertheless contributed to the realization of the Master Plan G-d has for historic developments.
_.29.1.2
"THE INTERPRETATIONS ARE THE LORD'S."
_.29.1.4
In order to make use of one's eyesight, light is indispensable. Even possession of perfect eyesight is useless, since one is unable to translate one's potential into the actual, unless the objects to be seen are bathed in light. None of our other senses requires external phenomena to enable them to function. One can smell in the dark, touch in the dark, etc. Because the sense of vision requires light in order to function, light is also called "wisdom," seeing that wisdom is also an external agent assisting all our senses to improve the quality of their respective perceptions. G-d the great "Seer" is different inasmuch as He does not require light to enable Him to see and perceive all that exists. Whereas photography cannot function when outside light penetrates the viewer, the Almighty, the seat of light who is surrounded by light, is not handicapped by that fact. Daniel 2,22 says, "He knows what is in darkness, though surrounded by light." Isaiah 60,1-2 says, "Though the earth will be surrounded and covered by darkness, the Lord will light you up. His glory will be visisble to you." This "glory" will not be visible to other nations. The fact that the account of the story of Creation commences with the creation of light, illustrates the point that in order to build successfully, one must be able to see what one is doing. Though night is no darker than daylight for the Almighty, the point was to describe the inescapable need for daylight for man to be able to live on earth successfully. For this reason, we read at the end of the story of creation, "G-d saw all that He had made and it was very good" (Genesis 1,31). Until He had viewed it, it could not have been described as "very good." Solomon also describes the relationship of light to darkness as like the relationship of wisdom to foolishness, explaining that the fool, though he sees, walks in darkness, whereas the wise, even though blind, carries the source of light in his head (Kohelet 2,13-14). Since Torah more than anything else has been designed to provide wisdom, the verse "for each mitzvah is like a candle, but Torah is light itself" (Proverbs 6,23) is self-explanatory. When Moses says to Yitro "You will become our eyes" (Numbers 10,31), he had this kind of vision in mind, i.e. one which provides spiritual light, wisdom. The fact that the members of the Jewish Supreme Court, the Sanhedrin are called "the eyes of the community" (Horiot 5) is to be understood in the same vein. Basing ourselves on this comparison between eyesight and wisdom, the Torah's statement that Joseph's interpretation of Pharaoh's dream was "good in the eyes of Pharaoh and in the eyes of his servants" is clear. It means that people who had up to now walked in darkness, suddenly were greatly enlightened (Genesis 41,37). In the final analysis, providing spiritual enlightenment to those walking in spiritual darkness is what the interpretation of dreams is all about. The ability to relate apparently unconnected phenomena to one another, is what foretelling of the future amounts to. When Joseph had said to Pharaoh's ministers who were in jail with him, "Ks not the interpretation of dreams G-d’s business?" (Genesis 40,8), or when he said to Pharaoh, "May the Lord put Pharaoh's mind at ease" (41,17), this underscores that only someone possessed of qualities especially conferred upon him by G-d could succeed in interpreting dreams. Our sages in Berachot 25 appear to contradict this theory when they state that "All dreams follow the mouth." At first glance this seems to mean that the interpreter of a dream determines its meaning and significance although logic dictates otherwise. When the Torah says that Joseph explained each man's dream according to its dreamer, surely this means that each dream allowed for only one explanation. How then can our sages allow latitude to the interpreter to impose his own meaning? Strangely enough the Talmud reports two identical dreams that permitted widely divergent interpretations. Still stranger is the statement of Rabbi Neriyah (Berachot 56) that the twenty-four interpreters in Jerusalem offered twenty-four different interpretations for the same dream, all of which turned out to be true.
_.29.1.5
Because of all the foregoing, we believe that the approach to dreams is dealt with by Elihu in Job Chapter 33: "G-d speaks to man during a dream, a nocturnal vision; when deep sleep overcomes man, when he rests on his couch. Then the Lord does open the ear of man and impresses him with His teachings." Elihu refers to three different levels of enlightenment conveyed by means of dreams: 1) The prophetic vision, chizayon laylah, the type of dream granted to many of our prophets. Normally, the purpose of these visions was to prepare the prophet or his people for coming events. 2) A second level of communication, commonly referred to as ruach hakodesh, holy spirit. This is inferior to the nocturnal vision described previously. During this kind of communication, the dreamer usually loses most of his normal faculties. This sort of communication is described in greater detail by Daniel (10,8-10). We also find Abraham being the recipient of such a communication during the early stages of his career, at the brit beyn habtarim, covenant between the pieces (Genesis Chapter 15). The above-mentioned two levels of communication from G-d were reserved for the Jewish people exclusively after the erection of the tabernacle in the desert (see details in Chapter 82). 3) A third and lowest level of communication from G-d, is one that is common to all men who dream of many things while they are asleep. Some of these dreams are of no significance whatsoever, simply reflect thoughts that are carried over from one's waking hours; others are thoughts suppressed during waking hours, which can no longer be controlled while one is asleep. Some parts of these dreams may have substance, however, and may have deeper meaning. In some cases, an insignificant part of the dream contains something meaningful. In others, the proportion of the meaningful part may be very substantial. Job 33,15, then, is to be understood like this: A) in a dream of nocturnal vision; B) when deep sleep overcomes man; C) while sleeping on the couch. When our sages state that dreams equal 1/60 of prophecy (Berachot 57), they mean that the element of truth in a dream may be as insignificant as the amount of issur, forbidden ingredient, that can be assimilated in a large mass of permissible material. Since every person has a chance to receive revelations of such minute proportions, Elihu says, "Then He reveals to the ear of men." The fact that all kinds of subject matter may be contained in the dream, creating a picture of confusion prompts the dreamer to consult an interpreter to sort it out for him. It is this that Elihu means when he adds, "And He seals their instruction, that He may draw man away from his purpose." The art of the interpreter is to separate the message from the trivia contained in all dreams. It is this that Pharaoh referred to when he said to Joseph, "You hear a dream (with a view) to interpret" (41,15), i.e. you possess the insight to weigh what is pertinent and what is not. Since several elements in a dream may contain revelations pertinent to the future, an interpreter may isolate only one of these elements, overlooking the other. This is most likely what the Talmud means when it tells us of twenty-four different interpretations of the same dream, which each proved true, but incomplete.
_.29.1.6
The Zohar on Parshat Vayeshev relates a conversation between three Rabbis, from which it becomes clear that if an unexplained dream compares to an unread letter, that it is not the reading itself that makes it come true, but that, having read it, one becomes alerted to the fact that it has come true. This then is the meaning of "all dreams follow the mouth," not that the latitude granted the interpreters determines the cause of events. When Joseph said, "Do the interpretations not belong to the Lord?", he meant that even if G-d has endowed someone like himself with the insight to elicit a message from this dream, there may well be additional interpretations which would become clear only in later generations or even in subsequent eras. If this were not so, Joseph would have used the word "interpretation" in the singular. Since Joseph's own dreams foreshadowed events in the near future as well as events in the more distant future, any interpretation would not have to be exclusive of other meanings. One of the prerequisites of success when interpreting dreams is the knowledge the interpreter has about the dreamer himself. Not all dreamers will interpret identical dreams identically (compare Yuma 87). Rabbi Chanina dreamt that Rav had been hung on a palm tree. He took this to mean (knowing Rav's stature) that Rav would be appointed head of the academy. Had he dreamt the same thing about a robber, no doubt he would have interpreted such a dream completely differently.
_.29.1.9
Some problems in the text: 1) Why did Joseph ignore the first part of the butler's dream when he interpreted it? Why did he ignore the first part of the baker's dream? 2) Why did Pharaoh's experienced interpreters fail to come up with the appropriate interpretation? The meaning of the dream appears so closely connected to the subject matter of the dream, that not much heavenly interference seems to have been called for? 3) Why did Pharaoh wake in between these dreams, and why did he say to Joseph that no one could tell him, when in fact he seemed to have been offered a variety of interpretations? 4) The words of the chief butler "each one according to his dream we dreamt," and later, when in the presence of Pharaoh, he repeats "each one according to his dream he interpreted," call for an explanation. There seems to be superfluous verbiage. 5) Why did Joseph introduce his interpretation by saying that Pharaoh's dream is one? Later on he repeats the same statement again. Why? 6) How could Joseph, while still a prisoner, have presumed to offer Pharaoh gratuitous advice? 7) Why was Joseph elevated to a position which, at best, he should have been elevated to after his interpretation had been proven accurate? It seems Pharaoh gave Joseph carte blanche! 8) Why did Joseph not inform his father of his new position and where he lived? 9) Why does the Torah bother to tell us exactly when Menashe and Ephrayim were born? 10) Why did Pharaoh tell the people at the beginning of the famine to do exactly what Joseph would tell them? 11) How is it possible that the land turned desolate so suddenly that all the private hoards of grain which had been accumulated during the seven good years had been depleted so fast? 12) Why did Jacob say that he had "seen" that there was grain in Egypt, when at best he had heard about it?
_.29.1.10
And it came to pass at the end of two full years etc.
_.29.1.11
(2) Whereas both Joseph, the butler and the baker were central figures in their respective dreams, Pharaoh had dreamt about things which seemed of no particular concern to him. This was sufficiently strange to trouble his mind. The other unusual feature was his waking and then having a second dream in which the same numbers played a central role. He felt that there was some symbolism in this. Pharaoh's magicians failed to understand the subject matter of the dream, because they concentrated only on the numbers. The subject matter was not really part of their art. (4) In the case of the butler and the baker, each had dreamt the other's interpretation; since the subject matter was closely related, Joseph could easily have mistaken it for being the same. Nonetheless, he was astute enough to recognize the differences in the two dreams. Joseph concentrated on interpreting the differences between the dreams instead of concentrating on their common denominator. (1) When the chief butler referred to Joseph in a derogatory manner, he did so in order that Pharaoh might not think that he had a personal interest in promoting Joseph's fortunes. This prompted Pharaoh to say to Joseph, "I heard that you can interpret a dream when you hear it according to all its ramifications, even though it may appear to contain only a single message." Joseph replied, "On the contrary, the task of the interpreter is beyond human intelligence alone, and requires Divine inspiration." (3) Pharaoh's waking in between was designed to confuse his magicians. Joseph exploited this fact to explain it as one of the reasons Pharaoh's advisers had failed him. The other reason was that the dream was prophetic in nature; G-d revealed His intentions. This is something quite outside the art of professional dream interpreters. At the same time, by portraying himself as privy to G-d’s intentions, Joseph improved his own image both in the eyes of Pharaoh and those of his servants. Joseph explained, A) There really has been only one dream. B) The subject matter was something that G-d was about to do on a universal scale; the dream did not relate to the fortunes of the person who had dreamt it. Although, normally, such matters are revealed by prophets, in this instance Pharaoh had been found worthy to be the vehicle of prophecy. In this way, Joseph flattered Pharaoh (Daniel, when interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's dream flatters N. similarly). (5) Although one might consider the seven fat cows as representing seven years and the seven good ears of corn as representing an additional seven years, and similarly one might consider the seven lean cows as seven years and the seven ears of corn whose kernels had been blown out as another seven years, Joseph repeats that this is not so. He had to emphasize that the magicians had erred on that score. Joseph then proceeded to explain that the interpretation of the dream was of secondary significance compared to the measures which had to be taken to neutralize the effects of the dream were it allowed to become history. (6) By suggesting in detail how to safeguard both the land and the people, Joseph promoted himself both in the eyes of Pharaoh and in the eyes of his servants. Pharaoh was impressed by the advice on how to forestall an economic and human tragedy of vast dimensions. (7) Before giving the advice, Joseph had to stress, i.e. repeat the dreadful consequences that would ensue if the famine were to occur without proper precautions having been made as to how to deal with it. The reason that Joseph suggested that the matter be handled by Pharaoh personally, was to stress the importance of the steps to be taken. Pharaoh enlisted the support of his advisors by asking, "Can we find such a person?" After having obtained their consent, he turned to Joseph and appointed him. (8) The reason Joseph's age is mentioned at this point is to absolve him from blame for not having informed his father about his whereabouts while he was in an inferior position from which he had no chance to escape, even if ransom money were offered. Even now, his status would be contingent on his prophecies proving true. Should the seven good years not occur, or should the famine fail to materialize, he would be discredited and be in disgrace again. (10) When the famine struck, first in the surrounding countries, Egypt had plenty of bread and exported. The population protested the export, asking Pharaoh to prohibit grain exports. Pharaoh sent them to Joseph saying that the latter was in charge and had full power of attorney. Joseph stalled deliberately, in order to become the sole distributor of government stocks, once the private hoards had been exhausted. The famine in Egypt increased due to the price gouging by the individual hoarders. (11) As a result of this, the famine became country-wide, later on even world-wide. Once prices had risen dramatically, Joseph started releasing government stocks at what had by then become market prices. He could therefore not be accused of overcharging; thus he accumulated untold wealth for Pharaoh. After one had heard in Canaan that there was more bread in Egypt, the rumour began to circulate that Pharaoh had begun selling. (12) Some of this government grain had already reached Canaan; this is where Jacob had seen it. He then told his sons not to buy from middlemen at inflated prices, but to go to Egypt and buy at the source. Possibly, his sons needed to be encouraged, since they did not want to demean themselves and undertake such a lengthy journey in order to buy necessities, wealthy and dignified as they considered themselves to be. Also, they were anxious to avoid ostentation. This is why they are described as "arriving with the other travellers." They made a point of mingling with the common people. Joseph at first had some doubts if these men were really his brothers, seeing that their conduct was quite unlike what he remembered. Only after having spoken to them severely did he become convinced that they were his brothers. This is why we read first "he recognized them" and later "he recognized his brothers." The number of brothers travelling is stated to stress that all those who had been involved in selling him and stripping him of his colored coat were now facing the consequences of their actions. We observe that through Pharaoh's dream, G-d saved most of mankind from famine, enabling Joseph's family to survive and become reunited etc. without in the least interfering with the freely made decisions of any of the parties involved.
_.30.1.2
"And Joseph was the governor... And Joseph’s brethren came" etc.
_.30.1.3
Midrash Tanchuma on Parshat Vayigash quotes Rabbi Yonathan as saying, "The angels said to come and behold how the ox and the lion argue with one another. Wisdom proves stronger for the wise than ten rulers in the city" (Kohelet 7,19). "Wisdom strengthens the wise" refers to Joseph, since the Torah writes, "After the Lord has let you know all this, there is no one as wise and full of insight as you" (Genesis 41,39).
_.30.1.4
The ten rulers referred to are the ten brothers of Joseph, since it is written, "Ten of the brothers went down." They could have laid Egypt waste with their strength, but Joseph vanquished them with his wisdom. Since man is forced to sojourn on this earth although he has been provided with a soul by G-d, it is fitting that his fate be similar to the fate of other strangers in this world. Due to the soul's celestial antecedents, plus the fact that man was created in G-d’s image, his place should not really be down here on earth, but his natural habitat should be near the Almighty Himself. This is what David says in Psalms 119,19, "Do not hide Your commandments from me, because I am a stranger on this earth." It is natural for man to keep his intimate secrets from those whom he considers of inferior status. David pleads with G-d in Psalm 55,14 not to keep His secrets from him, because he is aware that his place of abode is so inferior. Also in Psalms 39,13, he pleads that though he may have become estranged from G-d through some of his deeds, G-d should not turn away from his supplication, since at least his ancestry is so superior. The reason that ordinary man, i.e. the one who does not constantly advance towards moral and spiritual perfection, is called am ha-aretz, people of the earth, is precisely because he has made the "lower" world his permanent home instead of treating it like the foyer to a far superior world (Avot 4,21). This world is reserved for those who preserve the Divine image in which they were created. Because our world is merely a foyer to the ultimate palace reserved for us, it is only natural that during our stay on this earth we must submit to the indignities usually reserved for aliens everywhere. The two major areas in which aliens are disadvantaged while far from home are A) They cannot claim the respect due them as they would in their native society, and B) they have to perform work unbefitting the dignity of their real status in order to earn their livelihood. Jeremiah already compares G-d as not insisting on the respect due Him, since He is in exile when His people are in exile (Jeremiah 14,8). "Why should You be a stranger on earth, like a guest requiring lodging, when Your name is proclaimed with us?" The meaning there is "Since You are not a stranger, and since You have existed from time immemorial, if You do not help us as our Savior, You will be considered like a man without recourse, like a disabled hero." This too is the line Moses took when he argued that people will comment on the demise of the Jewish people as evidence of the inability of G-d to overcome the Canaanites (Numbers 14,13-17). When our sages advise a person who is unable to master his passions to go to a place where he is unknown (Chagigah 16), they want to prevent the sin to be committed to fall into the category of chilul hashem, desecration of the holy name of G-d, something that it is impossible to atone for in this life. When a stranger is observed committing a sin, this does not influence the society of the place in which the sin is committed, since nobody pays the stranger any heed anyways. If the same sin were committed in one's hometown, others may use it as an excuse to do likewise, and the chilul hashem is beyond recall. The second major indignity suffered by strangers is their inability to converse in the language of that country, thereby making themselves laughingstocks and misfits in the new society they find themselves in. Even if in order to earn some money one subjects oneself to such indignities by becoming a stranger in a foreign land, since one has no guarantee that one will return home with a sizable fortune, what guarantee is there that even if the money has been earned, it will endure (see example of Rabbi Eleazar ben Charsum in Yuma 35)? Forsaking preoccupation with the acquisition of permanent wealth, namely Torah knowledge, cannot be justified. Our purpose in this world is to prepare ourselves for the world to come. It follows that those who demean themselves by unnecessary preoccupation with the acquisition of material wealth, demean the "palace" in favor of the "foyer." When the Midrash comments on the words Vayeshev Yaakov, that if a person of the caliber of Jacob wanted to live serenely on this earth, Satan interfered, the meaning is quite plain. A tzaddik who demonstrates too much interest in material wealth and pleasure in this world imperils his standing as a tzaddik and invites yissurim, painful tribulations, to remind him of the error of his ways. This is what the Midrash meant when it says one cannot demand the "goodies" of both worlds. "Peace" is real only in the other world, as indicated by the promise to Abraham, "And you will join your fathers in peace" (Genesis 15,15). The yissurim, afflictions, make its recipient realize that his presence on this earth is comparable to that of a persecuted stranger. Jacob's experiences are a perfect example of this analysis. The disappearance of Joseph, the rape of Dinah, the famine, the apparent loss of Shimon, the threatened loss of Benjamin, all combined to bring home that truth. Unless Jacob was a stranger on this earth whose rightful abode was in the celestial regions, how could we account for all the indignities he had to suffer? The second disadvantage we have mentioned as being suffered by aliens in a country not their own, the language problem, is also relevant when we view man's temporary stay on earth. As a rule, speech is used to articulate man's physical needs, i.e. food and drink etc., or to put it more crudely, to communicate those of his needs that he shares with the animal kingdom to others. Whenever mere language does not suffice to assure him of his needs, he resorts to violence, i.e. a call to arms: (Proverbs 18,6) "The lips of the fools engage in quarrels, his mouth calls for turbulence." Their very language becomes an instrument of violence. Jeremiah 18,18 illustrates this point further: "Let us smite him by means of language!" Wisdom, however, is superior to violence and to instruments of war and strife (Kohelet 9,16). When speech is employed to express the spiritual yearnings of man, it does not become an instrument of war or a means of animalistic gratification. When Solomon says, "Do not answer the fool according to his foolishness; answer the fool in accordance with his folly!" this means, "Do not use the power of speech to answer the fool on his own level, but use the power of speech so that even a fool can recognize his folly (Proverbs 26,5). The ox is the animal that uses its brute strength to work hard uncomplainingly. Joseph had to suffer many indignities in the early part of his life, such as the brothers' jealousy, the Midianite slave merchants, Potiphar's wife's accusations etc. Nevertheless, he proved his moral superiority in his encounter with his master's wife. This moral superiority which he demonstrated when it clearly hurt his chances of a continued career (when he refused the advances of his master's wife), was richly rewarded by G-d, who alone was aware of the pure motives which had governed Joseph's behavior throughout. Joseph's ability to control his carnal urges made him a paragon of virtue. The Talmud Shabbat 63 says that whoever fulfills one single mitzvah completely, wholeheartedly, will not receive evil tidings. He will not need to worry about receiving bad news, but can enjoy undisturbed confidence that G-d’s personal Providence will remain at his side. Joseph's strength, i.e. the ox's strength, lay in the certainty that his cause was righteous, not in his ability to pull heavy loads. The lion, on the other hand, represents mere physical prowess. The brothers, in being described as "rulers" are conceived as having made themselves at home here on earth, not being content with remaining aliens, the purpose of man's sojourn on this globe. For this reason, then, Joseph representing the inner strength of a man of spiritual values, was able to overcome the combined strength of his brothers who had threatened to destroy Egypt failing release of their brother Benjamin.
_.30.1.5
Problems in the text: 1) Since the Torah states that Joseph recognized his brothers though they did not recognize him, what point was there in deliberately acting like a stranger? Why is the fact that he did not recognize them repeated? 2) Why did Joseph remember his dreams as soon as he saw his brothers? Would it not have been better to state that as soon as he saw his brothers, "He remembered what they had done to him?" 3) Why did Joseph accuse the brothers of spying? How was that accusation countered by the brothers explaining that they were all the sons of one father? Why did they repeat this statement, and how did their answer cause Joseph to say that this only confirmed his suspicions? 4) Why did Yehudah say, "My lord asked if we had a father etc," when in fact the Torah does not report that Joseph had asked this at all? 5) The two accusations A) you are spies and B) you came to look for the weakness of the country, seem not to have been responded to by the brothers. How could Joseph ignore the ongoing anguish suffered by his father and not reveal to him that he was alive? 6) It seems strange that during the three days that all the brothers were imprisoned, no mention is made of any mutual recriminations; neither did they ascribe their misfortune to the manner in which they had treated Joseph at the time the latter had pleaded with them from inside the pit while they were imprisoned. Only after their release and Joseph's statement that he was a G-d-fearing man, do the brothers admit that they deserved punishment for their insensitive conduct towards Joseph. Besides, how could Reuben accuse his brothers of not listening to his pleas not to spill Joseph's blood but rather to throw him into the pit, when in fact they had listened to him? 7) The conversation between the brothers in the presence of an interpreter seems foolish. It would only make sense if there were no one present who understood Hebrew. Why did they reveal their secrets while being overheard? The use of the word "sack and fodderbag" seems confusing (42,27). Why did not all the brothers examine their sacks as soon as one of them had discovered that he still had his money? Why is the expression "sacks" not used when the brothers came back to Egypt later? We do not find the word used when they examined their loads! 8) Why did Jacob refuse to accept Reuben's proposal, seeing he knew quite well that sooner or later the brothers would be forced to undertake a second journey to Egypt? What new dimension did Yehudah's proposal contribute which moved his father to approve of their journey? Why did Jacob describe the return of the money as only a possible error on the part of the Egyptians? 9) Why are we told all the details about what was served at the luncheon, and why all the details about the seating arrangements? If the Midrash is accurate, then the Torah should have stated "Joseph seated them according to their age, instead of "They sat down according to their age." The latter would hardly be cause for amazement by the brothers, it would be perfectly normal for them to sit down in that order. 10) The last time, Joseph had ordered that the brothers be given "grain." This time he ordered that they be given "food." Why the change? Why was the money this time placed at the opening of their fodderbags, whereas the last time it was put "in the sack?" 11) What is the meaning of "Also this time I accept your argument?" 12) Why did Yehudah volunteer all the brothers to become servants of Joseph? Surely, when one is in danger one must not voluntarily give up any advantages one still possesses, in this case one's very freedom! 13) Why did Yehudah make his speech when Joseph had already displayed extreme consideration by insisting that only the guilty party be punished, and that there would not be any guilt by association? What more could he reasonably have expected to accomplish? 14) The review of events as described by Yehudah lacks foundation in fact. Joseph had never asked about their father till the brothers had volunteered they had an aged father. How could Yehudah summon up the courage to misrepresent the facts as he does in 44,19? 15) Why do most commentators regard the words "he will die," as applying to Jacob, when the subject at the beginning in verse 44,22 refers to "the lad dying?" 16) What precisely is the meaning of "to control oneself," when words such as "to suffer," "to keep a grip on oneself," seem more appropriate to describe Joseph's feeling of discomfiture when he heard Yehudah describe Jacob? 17) Why was Joseph's first question after he had revealed himself to the brothers, "Is my father still alive?" After all, he had heard from the mouth of Yehudah repeatedly that their father was still alive. Why did Joseph first say "You have sold me here," and then reverse himself saying, "Not you have sent me here, but G-d etc.?" 18) Why did Joseph instruct his brothers to hurry home and not to engage in arguments? Why did he specifically instruct that his power and glory in Egypt should be mentioned only at the end of the brothers' report about their reunion? 19) What is the meaning of the words "My mouth is speaking to you, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin witness all this?" 20) Pharaoh seems to repeat the order to allow Joseph's family to immigrate in 45,17 and again in 45,19-20, as well as that they were to be given V.I.P. status. Why? 21) Why did Benjamin receive bigger gifts and 300 shekel, a gift the brothers did not receive?
_.30.1.6
We read in chapter 42,6 that Joseph, though ruler, made it his personal business to allocate grain to the individual buyers. This in spite of the fact that he had many officials who could have attended to such tasks. The reason must be that he supervised the sales personally in order to be on hand when his brothers would show up as buyers sooner or later. When the brothers did arrive, and, naturally bowed down, the first of Joseph's dreams had been fulfilled. (1) His recognition of his brothers was only partial, since they had changed substantially during the twenty years since he had last seen them. The word vayitnakker means "he still remained strange to them," not that he deliberately misrepresented himself still further. The inquiry about their origin was designed to establish positively that these men were indeed his brothers. As soon as the brothers said that they came from Canaan, that clinched the matter for Joseph. From that moment on he had to be careful not to give himself away; therefore, the Torah repeats that now he recognized them fully. The brothers on their part did not have an inkling of Joseph's true identity, however. (2) Once Joseph saw his first dream fulfilled, he became curious to know if the second dream also was capable of being fulfilled. To this end, he devised stratagems that would lead to revelations about which members of his father's generation etc. were alive. Without such knowledge, he judged that the second dream could not possibly become realized. He could not imagine how else eleven stars and a sun could bow down to him. (3) The brothers' reply to Joseph's accusations was two-pronged. We are neither spies, nor, if we ever had been spies are we engaged in plying our trade now. Since the last accusation seemed to expose them to more immediate danger, they responded first to that accusation. They stated unequivocally that they had come to buy grain, witness their beasts and their haversacks etc. They also stated that they had never been spies; on the contrary, they were all the sons of one man. In fact, they said, they could afford to place all their cards on the table. Their answer was disarming in the sense that the brothers felt the secrecy necessary to function successfully as spies could never be maintained in a large family such as theirs. Besides, they argued, a respectable family such as they would have no need to resort to the spying business, anyways. (4) Joseph continued to pry and said that although their natural occupation may not have been spying, on that particular occasion they had come as spies, their gear being only camouflage to hide their real intentions. In this manner, Joseph managed to flush out the information about their father which was what he had been after all along. (5) The classic part of the brothers' answer was that if spies do not operate on behalf of a large group of people, they are a useless commodity. Since the brothers had no such large number of people to fall back on, seeing they were all the sons of one man, and since their residence in the land of Canaan was of recent origin and they were not even landowners, Joseph's accusation was so ludicrous that it was not even worth pursuing. They referred to their father as "one man in the land of Canaan," not "one man from the land of Canaan." Since all the accusations levelled against the brothers had failed to elicit the response Joseph had waited for, namely that his father was still alive, he resorted to their imprisonment and the demand to bring Benjamin to Egypt. He wanted to examine their attitude towards Benjamin, and to judge from their reaction to his demand if their father was still alive. He planned the phony theft of the goblet already at this stage, since he had to find out if the brothers still resented a son of Rachel as a rival for the affection of their father. Even when Benjamin eventually did come down, the question about Jacob being alive had not been settled in his mind, and he had no other recourse but to inquire directly if Jacob was still alive and well. On the surface, Joseph made it appear that questioning a young and inexperienced youth such as Benjamin would be a test of the brothers' truthfulness. If Benjamin in his youthful innocence and naivite would confirm his brothers' statements, that would show Joseph that he was not dealing with spies. When Benjamin finally did get to Egypt, Joseph pretended to be amazed at his age and sophistication, and asked, "Is this your little brother of whom you have spoken?" He meant, "How can I assume that he is more innocent than you are?" I need to test him just as thoroughly. Joseph knew that his father, if still alive, would suffer some anguish, unavoidably, but he did not think that all the brothers would necessarily return with Benjamin. He had considered it more likely that some of the brothers would stay behind with Jacob during that time. The fact that all the brothers did in fact return to Egypt, may have been prompted by their desire to prove their innocence concerning the money that had been found in their sacks after they had left Egypt. (9) The reason Joseph repeated his question about whether their father was still alive after he had revealed himself, was because of the moving description by Yehudah that Benjamin's failure to return would cause Jacob's death.
_.30.1.8
(6) Reuben complained to the brothers that his intention had been to prevent them from committing any wrong altogether, not merely to prevent his brothers from killing Joseph outright. They had not treated him in accordance with his intention then, only in accordance with what he had dared to say at that time. (7) The conversation during which the brothers accused each other concerning their erstwhile treatment of Joseph did not take place in Joseph's presence. After having used the services of an interpreter, Joseph presumably left the room. The interpreter may have stayed behind on his own to offer some words of comfort to the brothers. While he was engaged in conversation with some of the brothers, others paying him no heed, they may have berated each other, unaware that the interpreter was straining to overhear the gist of their conversation also. The return of their money had never been intended to frighten them, but to encourage them into thinking that they had found sympathy in Joseph's eyes. Jacob chose to interpret it differently, along the lines of Proverbs 28,14, "Hail to the man who is constantly afraid." The words "sacks" and "bags" respectively, may be understood as follows. The large sacks were intended to hold grain, the smaller bags, fitted with pockets, were meant to carry various necessities for the journey, such as ropes etc., as well as their money supply. The bags were normally carried inside the larger sacks for added protection. Joseph may have instructed his servant to have the money placed inside their sacks, whereas the servant in charge of Joseph's household placed it in the bags containing the balance of their money and loading equipment, under part of the grain supply. Apparently, one bag was placed near the top of the sack so that when it was time to feed the animals, it would be found. This would keep the other brothers guessing if it had been an oversight or whether all of them had been framed. No doubt, they each looked inside their sacks, but not finding the money near the top, they did not want to waste any more time by unloading their entire grain supply. When they arrived back home, Jacob at first saw no particular danger, since the brothers had refrained from telling him about Joseph's threat that they would die if they did not bring Benjamin with them. Only after it had become clear that each one of them had had his money replaced in his sack, and that there could be no doubt that they had been carefully framed, did Jacob start to worry. His outburst "You have bereaved me" is perfectly natural then. When Joseph had their bags filled again, during their second trip, sacks are not mentioned at all. The emphasis is on their receiving so much in the way of food supplies, that even the bags normally used as containers for their own food, were put in service, and were presumably carried outside their sacks. When it eventually came to searching for the goblet, we only read that they quickly lowered their bags, opened them, an action that did not consume much time since the bags were not inside their sacks, as usual. When the brothers loaded their donkeys the first time (42,26), we read that "they lifted their (respective) grain purchases on their donkeys," implying that they helped each other adjust their respective heavy loads. The second time, after the search which resulted in the goblet being found in Benjamin's bag, it only says (44,13) "each one loaded his donkey," implying that the load could easily have been handled by each brother without assistance. The conclusion that "travelbags" are smaller than "sacks" is inescapable. (8) Reuben's offer to guarantee Benjamin's life with that of his own two sons, needs to be understood as follows. "I am prepared to accept Heavenly judgment concerning the life or death of my own two sons, if I fail to bring Benjamin back to you." Jacob understood this to mean that Reuben obviously did not consider the journey very dangerous. He refused the guarantee, pointing out that his own fears were based on the fact that he had already lost one son, and that since the Egyptian ruler had not made Benjamin's appearance a matter of life and death, it was not justifiable to expose Benjamin to such danger. However, once their food supply had run low, and Yehudah had to reveal the extent of Joseph's threat, which did make Benjamin's appearance a matter of life and death for all of them, Jacob could not risk all their lives in order to save the life of Benjamin from danger. He therefore reluctantly agreed to let Benjamin accompany the brothers. (2) At that point Yehudah had misrepresented the inquiries Joseph had made about their families in order to counter Jacob's question "Why did you do such an evil thing to me to tell the man about your family status etc?" Basically, Yehudah used the argument, "If you are faced with a certainty on one hand and a possibility on the other hand, you have to give prior consideration to the certainty." "Our collective death is a certainty if we stay here, whereas if we go down to Egypt, there is a chance that we will all return safely." The same argument is used by the king (Kings II 7,13) when it is a question of risking the last remaining five horses to investigate the condition of the army of Aram. (8) Yehudah's guarantee is different from Reuben's in that he himself offers to be the guarantor, not merely his sons. Having reconciled himself to the inevitable, Jacob resorts to prayer and gifts, just as he did at the time he faced Esau over twenty years previously. The comment that the money which had been returned in the brothers' sacks might have been the result of an error, is to be understood as follows: "Surely they must have noticed the error in the meantime, and are already waiting for you to bring back the money." Therefore, Jacob commanded the brothers to take a double supply of money to enable them to pay both for the last purchase for which they still owed, as well as for the grain to be purchased on this trip. Jacob's parting remark, "If I am to be bereaved, I shall be bereaved," is in line with our commentary on the words "for I will go down to my son mourning to the grave." This meant that by refusing to be consoled over his loss, Jacob wanted to make sure he would not expose himself to further grievous losses as punishment for his sins. Here, too, Jacob says that since he has been bereaved once, and still feels crushed by that bereavement, he is confident that he would not have to face another bereavement, such as harm befalling any one of the brothers. The correct translation of the verse then is: "as for me, since I have already been bereaved once, I shall remain thus bereaved" (not another). When the brothers arrived in Egypt, and Joseph noted that they had indeed brought Benjamin with them, he immediately hatched the plan of the trumped up charge that the goblet had been stolen. However, he had to engineer both the opportunity for the theft, as well as to find out if his father was still alive. The latter piece of information had not yet emerged from anything that the brothers had said. (9) A luncheon invitation at which the goblet would be used and would be shown as possessing magic qualities, would provide the motive for its theft. For that purpose, the brothers are led to Joseph's residence. Not being aware of that purpose, the brothers misinterpreted this turn of events, assuming they had been led there to be enslaved together with their animals, for the theft of the money. In order not to wait for an awkward interrogation, the brothers explain to the chamberlain in charge of Joseph's house what has happened. They changed the true sequence of events somewhat, claiming that all of them had found their money already during their return journey. In this manner they hoped to forestall the question why the brother who had found his money had not returned forthwith to return it. Since it would have been an unnecessary hardship on their families to have all returned once more, they had waited until their next trip to return this money. When Shimon was led out to them, and they had been reassured that Joseph's treasury had indeed received their original purchase money, so that the money they had found in their sacks must have been a treasure given to them by G-d, they felt more at ease and prepared the gifts they had brought along for Joseph, having heard that they would be his guests for lunch. When Joseph met them, he inquired about their father, having made sure that he used the brothers' own statement as the cue for this kindly interest. For that reason, he said, "Is your old father, of whom you have spoken still alive?" The brothers, distinguishing between "old" and "father," inform him that whereas their grandfather had passed on, their father was still alive and well (Pessachim 4). The reason Joseph did not share a table with his attendants was that the Egyptians who do not eat certain foods would feel outraged seeing Joseph eat such foods. The ruler, moreover, never shared a table with his subordinates, so that three separate tables were necessary, since the brothers also ate a diet abhorrent to the Egyptians. The brothers, according to their habit, seated themselves according to their ages. The servants of Joseph, eating with them wondered why these travellers should be so honored as to be entertained by their ruler. (10) When their bags were filled with grain, including those bags not normally filled with grain, their money was returned to them, presumably to compensate them for the distress of having been accused as spies. However, hiding the goblet in Benjamin's bag was accomplished without anyone becoming aware of it, and the ensuing drama was meant to test the brothers' feelings toward Benjamin as a son of Rachel. The emphasis in the words "my goblet, the silver goblet," stresses that although the goblet is only made of silver, not gold, like most of Joseph's other utensils, it possessed additional qualities which had prompted Joseph to pursue the brothers and conduct a search, despite the fact that as a trinket the goblet was inexpensive. (11) The brothers' argument that they had already proved their honesty by having returned the money they had found in their sacks after their first trip, was accepted conditionally. However, if perchance one of them should be found to have the goblet in his possession, the trustworthiness of that individual would have been destroyed. An accused person can conduct his defense based on any or all of three premises. He can compile a list of all his meritorious deeds which are unknown to the judge and which have a bearing on the matter he is accused of. Secondly, the accused can use logic to convince the judge to deal with him in an understanding manner; thirdly, he can deny having committed the offense he is being accused of, claiming he had become the victim of violence or a frame up. (12+13) Yehudah made reference to all three arguments. Concerning the excellence of Benjamin's character, he said "What can we say to my lord?" He meant that since Joseph knew the true facts, and was aware of the trumped up nature of the charges, any defense would be futile. Concerning argument number two "What could we state?", this means, "We have no merits to offer in our defense;" concerning argument number three, Yehudah said, "What can we say to justify ourselves," seeing the stolen object has been found in our possession. Since the brothers had first said that if one of them would be found with the goblet, he would have to die, Yehudah now said, "The judge has found your servants guilty," servants in the plural, i.e. take us all as servants, since it would be on account of our comment that the one would be guilty of death. At least comfort us by accepting us all as your slaves. Alternately, the word elokim is a reference to G-d having punished us now for sins we have committed independently of this affair with the goblet. Yehudah hinted that they had once sold their brother as a slave; now they wanted to atone for this by becoming slaves as well as their youngest brother who had become enmeshed in that whole affair because of the wrongdoing of his older brothers. This in spite of the fact that the goblet had been found in his bag, Joseph's reply was that though the thief was indeed guilty of being put to death, it was his privilege to reduce the penalty, seeing that no one else had been hurt by the accused's crime. He would certainly not punish those who had not committed a crime.
_.30.1.9
"Then Judah came near unto him"
_.30.1.10
Despite Yehudah's having said previously that there was nothing he could say to alter the fact of Benjamin's guilt, he now attempted a different tack, prompted by the vision of his father's anguish. He appealed to Joseph to open his ears, i.e. to become accessible to what he was about to tell him. He implied that there is no shame attached to a ruler changing his mind, hinting that Joseph was not unlike Pharaoh, the latter also not always keeping his promises, i.e. changing his mind (Bereshit Rabbah 93). No doubt, when that happened there were compelling circumstances. That is why Joseph also could change his mind without any stigma being attached to him on that account. Yehudah's basic approach was that even when a certain crime carries a certain penalty, administering such a penalty in equal measure to every criminal regardless of any other consideration, could not contribute to the dissemination of true justice. When a weak young man has to submit to the penalty of 39 strokes of the whip, he may well die instead of merely suffering the indignity that the penalty is meant to subject him to. In such cases the attempt to administer justice results in murder. Therefore, Torah law (Makkot 22) provides safeguards to determine when the lashes have to be stopped to prevent such an eventuality. Also, should administering the penalty prescribed, result in a loss to society that outweighs the good which the offender's punishment would do for society, such punishment may well be deferred. Possibly, the reason David did not punish Yoav for the murder of Avner was for precisely this reason. Maybe this is why G-d did not punish David in connection with Bat Sheva, though Saul was dealt with harshly for his sin of not killing Agog. This may also have been the reason for the people's displeasure when Saul wanted to kill Jonathan. Since Jonathan was slated to become Saul's successor, the people felt that punishing him would in effect be punishing them (Samuel I Chapter 14). Also the plea of the woman from Tekoah for allowing Absalom to return to Jerusalem may have been prompted by similar considerations (Samuel II Chapter 14). A third reason for tempering punishment though deserved, is that the penalty in question is only one example of a variety of penalties applicable. Murder, whether intentional or unintentional is punishable by death or exile respectively, and the Torah repeatedly stresses that converting the penalty to a fine or any other type of punishment is strictly forbidden (Numbers Chapter 35 and elsewhere). From this it follows that crimes other than murder, lend themselves to a variety of punishments, the particular penalty to be determined by the judge. (14+15) Yehudah describes that Benjamin's penalty deserved to be altered for all the reasons listed. We have already raised the question how Yehudah could have had the audacity to claim that Joseph had asked about their father, when in fact he had not. Also, Yehudah's claim that he had told Joseph that Benjamin's separation from his father would lead to his death, can nowhere be found. Obviously therefore, Yehudah reconstructed their previous encounter as having resulted in the equivalent of all these questions, though they may never have been articulated in so many words. The accusation of their being spies, irreputable people, had forced the brothers to reveal that they were people of good repute, all of one family, sons of one father, thereby implying that they did not share the same mother. They had revealed that their remaining brother was the sole survivor of his mother's children, and therefore by implication, that his father leaned on him especially. Since their father had twelve sons, he was presumably an old man by this time. Although Joseph was aware of all this, he had insisted on Benjamin coming to see him. Yehudah continued that all the brothers had been imprisoned because they had refused to send one of them to bring Benjamin down to Egypt, and that they had only consented in the end, because Joseph had made it an issue of life and death by implication. When Joseph had said that he wanted to set eyes on Benjamin, the brothers had assumed that his intention was completely above board, whereas now it turned out that he wanted this spoiled young man as a slave, a task that Benjamin's previous lifestyle had not prepared him for, and which might result in his death.
_.30.1.11
Secondly, Joseph was to consider the effect Benjamin's disappearance would have on his aged father, who would never survive that. Surely Joseph had no quarrel with their father that he should wish to punish him also.
_.30.1.12
Thirdly, the nature of the crime was such that Joseph had latitude to vary the penalty; therefore, Yehudah asked to be allowed to serve his brother's sentence, since he was anyways much better suited to perform the tasks a slave would be expected to perform. At any rate, he could not return to face his father in view of the fact that he had guaranteed their brother's safe return. The entire journey to Egypt had only been due to Yehudah's insistence. Moreover, if he were to return to Canaan minus Benjamin, he would be forced to witness the death of his father from anguish. (16) Joseph's emotions had overcome him on two previous occasions. Once when he had heard the brothers confess their guilt about their conduct versus himself, the other time when he had first set eyes on Benjamin. On one occasion he had left the room to cry; the other time he could restrain himself only with difficulty. This time his emotions were so strong that instead of leaving the room himself, he ordered everyone out of the room, so that his servants would not see him cry. Since they had left him in order not to witness their ruler cry, it happened that they also missed the dramatic moment of Joseph revealing himself to his brothers. The Torah, by again using the term mitapek, holding himself back, wants to contrast the increasing emotional stress Joseph underwent at each successive encounter with the brothers. That he asked about his father, having just heard from Yehudah, only emphasizes the fact that Yehudah's description had been so heart-rending, that Joseph had needed confirmation that his father had still been alive at the time the brothers had left the land of Canaan. Concerning the conflicting statements about the brothers having sold Joseph to Egypt, the meaning is, of course, that whereas G-d’s actions are invariably good, He used the brothers' action to turn it to constructive use on behalf of the Egyptian nation. Therefore, the brothers ought not to grieve that their purpose, namely to prevent Joseph's dreams from coming true, had not been accomplished. G-d had accomplished a far greater purpose, using an action initiated by the brothers. Even their own welfare had been enhanced. Since G-d had sent Joseph to Egypt, they would be spared the ravages of the famine still in store for Egypt and the surrounding countries. Now that they had seen the work of G-d, they would realize that the dreams involving Joseph's being a ruler, referred to his being a ruler over the Egyptians, not as they had thought as him becoming a ruler over them. They had therefore proven to have been tools in the hands of G-d who had engineered his being brought to Egypt, using the brothers' suspicions to serve His overall design. When the brothers asked Joseph's forgiveness at a later stage after their father had died, when they were afraid of Joseph intiating reprisals, they said, "Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the G-d of your father," reminding Joseph that whatever they had done to him, had been done in the service of G-d, by Joseph's own admission. Joseph's reply to that argument will be discussed in Chapter thirty-three. (20) Joseph had to explain that he could keep his father and family in style only if they came to Egypt, where he was in a position to exercise power and influence, and that therefore, no disgrace was attached to their father's migrating to Egypt. (19) When proving his identity, Joseph had to use the kind of proof that would also convince his brother Benjamin, who had neither known of the fact that the brothers had sold him, nor had been aware of the details of what had happened at the time of the sale. The latter facts could have been common knowledge only among the ten brothers and Joseph. Use of the Hebrew language by Joseph all of a sudden would be one point, the other would be the modesty with which he gave the entire credit for his meteoric rise to power to G-d. (21) His mode of behavior towards Benjamin, the crying, the larger gifts etc. all helped to convince the brothers that this was no charade, but that it was indeed their long lost brother who stood before them. The opening phrase of the Midrash quoting Solomon about the superiority of using wit against naked force, is thus explained. (20) The satisfaction felt in Pharaoh's palace and the Egyptian establishment about the turn of events was very considerable. First of all, Joseph was very popular, and for that reason his family would be made welcome as an act of esteem towards him. Secondly, any negative feelings that might have been rampant about the rise of a lowly alien slave to the position of economic Czar, could now be parried, when it could be shown that Joseph had been born into a most prestigious family in Canaan. Pharaoh himself had to authorize the despatch of wagons, since those were not allowed to leave the country without his special permission. He emphasized that they should bring their families, not to worry about leaving behind belongings, since Pharaoh could easily recompense them for anything they might have to leave behind. Chapter 45,21 then tells us that the sons of Israel complied with Pharaoh's generous offer. Joseph wanted his brothers to put on clothing befitting their new station in life, just as he himself had changed his mode of dress when he came out of the dungeon to interpret Pharaoh's dream. The larger gifts for Benjamin represented his special needs, since presumably Benjamin did not return to Canaan and needed changes of clothing for a prolonged stay in Egypt. He also needed extra funds, whereas the ten brothers took food supplies home to Canaan. (18) The description of his power and glory in Egypt was appended to help convince Jacob that once in Egypt, he could look forward to a dignified lifestyle, did not have to view himself as an immigrant without rights.
_.31.1.2
"JOSEPH IS STILL ALIVE, AND EVEN RULER."
_.31.1.3
Midrash Shocher Tov on Psalms 105 quotes Rabbi Yehudah as saying that Jacob should have been brought down to Egypt in chains, but that the Almighty resorted to a variety of stratagems to ensure that Jacob would descend to Egypt of his own free will. This is the meaning of the verse (Psalms 105,17), "Joseph was sold as a slave...He called forth famine all over the earth...Jacob came to Egypt." Rabbi Pinchas said, "Compare this to a cow which the owners wanted to drag to the slaughter house, and which refused to be dragged. What did the owners do? They took its calf first; after that, the mother cow followed willingly. This is what G-d did in order to get Jacob down to Egypt, as we read in Hoseah 11,4, "I drag them by the ropes of man, I pull them with strong ropes of love."
_.31.1.4
The following is based on the theories prevalent in the author's time, namely that there are seven planets which revolve around the earth, the earth being the center of the universe. Similarly, it was thought that there were only four basic elements. Since these concepts are outdated, only a very brief summary of the author's comments is given here. There are two ways of controlling the universe. One is the natural way, by means of laws of nature as we all know them. The other is by means of Personal Providence by the Creator. Each of the seven planets has a specific function, and influences certain aspects of both human and nature's behavior. Each of the planets is supervised by an agent of G-d, an abstract spiritual being, i.e. an angel. The rank of the angel corresponds to the importance of the respective planet in the scheme of the cosmos. When David says in Psalms 108,5, "For Your kindness is great unto the Heavens, and Your truth unto the skies," he refers to the advantages of having one's fate governed by Divine Providence rather than by the alternate and far more common method of natural law. Nature, of course, is subject to the Almighty's overall plan, and to that end each of the seven planets is presided over by an angel assigned the task of making that particular planet function in the manner planned by G-d. The providential guidance of man's destiny is in the first instance confined to the Jewish people, the descendants of Abraham. In order to qualify for continued guidance by Divine Providence, we were given the Torah, which personifies the revealed will of the Creator, which alone enables us to live our lives in harmony with His will and expectations. Ultimately, through the leadership of Israel, it is hoped that the fate of all of mankind will be governed by Divine Providence rather than by the somewhat indiscrimante method employed by a combination of celestial constellations. The seven days of creation are presided over respectively by the seven planets of the system, and the twelve horoscopes correspond to the twelve hours the day and night respectively are divided into, each planet being assigned certain hours. The combination of these factors accounts for the divergence in individual fates when such fate is not presided over by the guiding hand of Divine Providence. When subject merely to natural law, all men are equal in the degree of exposure to the influence exerted by each planet. Nature does not distinguish between the good and the wicked, although by dint of composition, some people may succumb to forces unleashed by certain planets more easily than others. If, say, the planet Mars is concerned with warfare, and during the period of its reign, at predetermined intervals, peoples' lives are in danger, then the apparent immunity of one person to conditions which prove fatal to others is due to that person having a different constitution, not to the amount of moral or ethical merit possessed by the afflicted vis a vis the apparently immune. The second method of governing the world is through personal guidance of man's fate by the Creator Himself. When He uses His Providence, everything is possible, nothing needs to be despaired of. The latter method is invoked for the benefit of the righteous people. The universe was conceived of (see Britannica page 644 under the heading of astronomy) with an axis protruding from the earth's center, supporting the shell like heavens, around which the fixed stars are set. Earth is central to that system, revolves around its own axis, is flat, and of the seven planets the sun describes the middle (4th) orbit, in line with its creation on the fourth day of creation (the middle one of the seven days of creation). The moon, by reason of its closeness and therefore fastest orbit around the earth, is the brightest, notwithstanding the fact that it gives only reflected light.
_.31.1.11
Some problems in the text: 1) Assuming that Jacob's prophetic vision had departed from him after Joseph had been kidnapped and that it had not been restored till Joseph's whereabouts had become known, how do we understand 45,26, "They told him saying Joseph is still alive, and he is even ruler in the whole land of Egypt; his heart fainted because he did not believe them?" If it was because he did not believe the news, why do we read immediately afterwards "Jacob's spirits revived?" How can disbelief of good news translate into happiness? 2) The meaning of the line, "It is plenty that my son is still alive, I will go and see him before I die," is hard to understand. It appears that the word od, still, is the cause for the word rav. This sounds as if Jacob was surprised that Joseph had survived for so long. Why would Jacob feel that way? 3) Why did Jacob fall around Joseph's neck at the reunion? Why did he add the words "This time I can die?" Why does the Torah repeat (46,30), "He still wept around his neck?" 4) The words (46,36) "So that you may dwell in the land of Goshen, for every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians" requires clarification. Is the fact that the Egyptians feel abomination for shepherds a reason to assign the most fertile part of the country to the Jews? 5) What did Jacob mean when he had told Pharaoh that his days of sojourn on earth were few and poorly (47,9)? Why did he not simply say "my life?" 6) Why did the Egyptians say to Joseph in the second year of the famine, "We will not hide from you that both our money and our livestock are gone?" Who had suspected them of hiding either their money or their livestock (47,18)? 7) Why is the comment "There was no bread in the whole land" (47,13) interposed in the middle of the description of the famine, rather than at the beginning or the end of the story? 8) Why did Joseph underline (47,23) "Here I have bought you today as well as your lands for Pharaoh?" This seems to add to their feeling of despondency and embarass them even more. Furthermore, how could they have reached such a desperate stage so soon that they needed handouts already at the beginning of the second year? If, on the other hand, the Rambam is correct, and the sale to serfdom occurred only in the seventh year of the famine, how did Jacob's blessing help Pharaoh at all? 9) Why is the whole internal legislation Joseph introduced reported in the written Torah? The redistribution of the Egyptian population seems a more appropriate subject for Egyptian historians!
_.31.1.12
(1) When the brothers arrived back in Canaan in their splendid looking new outfits, their father was overjoyed to see that they had returned safely. However, when they mentioned Joseph's name, they reopened old wounds that had never healed completely, and Jacob's joy quickly turned into disbelief. He had, after all, trained himself to cope with bad news, but was psychologically unprepared for good news. Having listened to the brothers' detailed report, however, and having inspected the gifts Joseph had sent as proof of his being alive and in an exalted position, he returned to his original frame of mind and said, "It is enough. I do believe now that my son Joseph is still alive." (2) No doubt the brothers had held forth at length about the splendor in which Joseph lived and the honor he enjoyed. Jacob exclaimed simply, "It is enough that my son Joseph is alive, I will go and see him; never mind all this business about his glory. Even if he were merely alive, not powerful, I would go to see him before my death." Israel began the journey towards Egypt, but stopped at Beer Sheva to offer thanksgiving and to seek guidance, because he was troubled on two accounts. 1) Would this descent result in the family becoming assimilated in Egypt? 2) Would he forfeit the right to burial in the cave of Machpelah? He hoped to receive Divine guidance to both questions when he prayed at the place that both his father and grandfather had prayed at, and had had confrontations with temporal rulers. G-d did indeed appear to him, reassuring him on both counts. The promise that he would become a nation in Egypt, meant that his descendants would retain their specific characteristics, as testified to later in Deuteronomy. When the Sifri explains the verse, "And became a great nation there" (Deut 26,5), this meant that they were most distinguishable from the Egyptians, had not assimilated. Concerning the burial, he is reassured by G-d who promises that Jacob will indeed survive the journey and see Joseph who would be present at his eventual death and burial, and that G-d at that time would bring him out of Egypt again so that he could rest in peace with his ancestors. Jacob is given an assurance that his future fate would be governed by Divine Providence, not by any other method; therefore, he had no cause to worry.
_.31.1.14
From here on in, Jacob travelled with peace of mind. As befitting the honor of a ruling monarch, he sent the outstanding one of his sons as an ambassador to Joseph in the meantime. (3) As soon as they met, they fell on each other's neck and wept. This was to show that Jacob had indeed recognized Joseph, his royal attire notwithstanding. Having fully savored this remarkable reunion, Jacob indicated that he was now prepared to die. On the other hand, he may simply have repeated what he had told Joseph's brothers on hearing the wonderful news of the impending reunion. (4) If we do not follow Rashi who explains that the Egyptians despised shepherds, but follow the view that to-evah, abomination, is a term for a deity (compare Exodus 8,22, "How can we slaughter an Egyptian deity before their very eyes and not be stoned to death by them?" as well as other examples for the meaning of this word), then guardians of their deities would be considered as following a most respectable vocation indeed. Such people would easily qualify for residence in the best part of the country, land suitable for the sheep to be tended. Joseph wanted the king to make that decision; therefore, he instructed the brothers to answer in such a manner that it would lead to such a decision. He did not wish to use his own authority to settle them in Goshen so as not to be accused of nepotism. (5) The unusual inquiry by Pharaoh after Jacob's age, may have been prompted by Jacob looking extremely aged, something which could have been caused by his having lived in different countries under varying and extreme climatic conditions. He thus appeared much older than his ancestors who had lived to a much older age than that which he had attained thus far. (6+7) The report of the total bankruptcy of the Egyptian population and their offer to sell their bodies, in the middle of the story, was to underline how G-d’s Providence was at work. A whole population could be sold into slavery, lose their land, all that at the mere suggestion of a foreign born ruler. All that, and not a single voice was raised in protest. More likely however, the course of events was different. With the descent of caravans from the surrounding nations, all anxious to buy grain in Egypt, the price of food had risen dramatically. The Egyptians themselves spent all their money during that period buying up food and fodder, driving up prices to astronomical levels, hoping to make a killing from the foreigners. After less than two years, those foreigners had run out of money and stopped sending caravans. The Egyptians who had sold all that they had stashed away at exorbitant prices, now turned to Pharaoh for food. The latter referred them to Joseph. Joseph was now in an unassailable position to treat the prices charged by the population to outsiders as market prices. At those prices, Pharaoh's treasury, through Joseph, soon collected all the Egyptians' money in return for food rations. (8) Thus, in short order, both the Egyptians' hoard and their money had become depleted. Joseph's offer to accept their cattle in payment seemed very generous, since it relieved them of the need to buy fodder also. The cattle now became a liability to the state. When there was no more cattle to be traded, the next step, naturally, was to offer their own labor services to Pharaoh. The end of the year referred to in 47,18 is the end of the third year, it being the first of the remaining five years during which they had to buy food from state granaries administered by Joseph. The Egyptians' statement that they would not hide their cattle from Joseph, was meant as an acknowledgement of Joseph's sympathetic attitude towards them until then. They added that though they could have expected to be fed by him without payment, in view of Joseph's past generosity, they were even prepared to become slaves in order to earn their keep. Joseph had been astute enough to have this suggestion originate with the population, and not to impose such legislation from above, arousing resentment. After that it is likely that G-d allowed Jacob's blessing to take hold and the Nile once more overflowed its banks. (9) The whole episode is reported to remind us that from the moment the Jews became a nation, they were used to see the caste of priests provided for at the national expense, and that the population had to pay twenty percent of their produce to the state, without even owning the land they farmed. In the future, when the Torah would ask Jewish farmers to contribute ten percent of their harvest for the maintenance of the religious elite, there could be no grounds to grumble. As distinct from Egypt, the Priests and Levites of Israel were not even landowners, whereas in Egypt the Priests though landowners were looked after by other farmers who had to toil also for them. The Almighty, in His wisdom, arranged for this historic precedent to prepare the ground for the acceptance of Torah by the Jewish people in the future. In addition, we have the promise of the prophet Maleachi 3,10 that compliance with the regulations about tithing legislated by the Torah will actually enrich them further.
_.32.1.2
The Talmud in Taanit 5 relates the following conversation between Rabbi Nachman and Rabbi Yitzchak. Both were at a meal, when the former asked the latter to say a word of Torah. Rabbi Yitzchak replied that Rabbi Yochanan had said that one must not talk during the meal, lest some food enter the windpipe instead of the gullet. At the conclusion of the meal, Rabbi Yitzchak said, "Rabbi Yochanan has said that our father Jacob did not die." Rabbi Nachman countered, "In that case, why was he eulogized and embalmed?" Rabbi Yitzchak replied that Rabbi Yochanan had been explaining a verse from scripture (Jeremiah 30,10), "And you My servant Jacob, do not fear, do not be scared Israel, for I will redeem you from afar and your seed from the land of their captivity." In this verse, Jacob's descendants are lumped together with Jacob himself, proving that Jacob, too, is subject to the same salvation.
_.32.1.3
Research has shown that man's soul grows stronger while feeding on the same foods as the body. The soul eventually assumes an almost independent identity if it remains true to its task. Eventually, it gains the kind of independence from the body which enables it to survive the body as an abstract spiritual entity. We have discussed all this in connection with the verse "He blew into him a spirit of life." In spite of all this, the fact that the soul absorbs the same kind of nourishment as the body has led some people to deny the very possibility of immortality. Since we can observe that the decay of the body is unstoppable, begins in fact almost on the day the baby is born, belief in the independent existence of the soul becomes difficult to accept. The process of gradual death can be understood in this way. If you have a glass of wine that is not quite full, and you add a little water to it in order to fill the glass to the rim, the water added becomes wine. However, in the process, the wine loses a little of its potency. If this process is repeated each time some wine has been sipped from the glass, eventually, the wine will have lost all its potency, and we will wind up with a large quantity of water. Life is a somewhat similar process. The life force gradually spends itself in assimilating the very food that is body building, until finally, having no more reserves, the body dies. Tragically, many have made the error of assuming that the soul dies with the body. If true, this would reduce the stature of man to something inferior to any other creature, since despite man's additional faculties, he alone of all creatures would be the one who labors in vain. Kohelet 6,7, "All man's toil is for the sake of the mouth, yet he cannot satisfy his soul," (appetite) would describe this futility. Based on such misconceptions, man turned to the acquisition of gold etc., objects that are enduring by comparison to himself; he made himself the slave of money, worshipping it as his master. Since we have demonstrated in Chapter twenty-four, that the pursuit of these illusory and transient values is utterly foolish, it follows that the immortality of the thinking part of man is a fact, or man's very creation would not make sense. When Rabbi Yochanan said that Jacob did not die, he merely used Jacob as an example of a maxim that applies to anyone whose immortality has not been forfeited. The reason Jacob served as an example for this lesson, is that he was the third in the line of our ancestors and, as explained in Tanchuma Parshat Mikeytz, "Confidence in one's harvest is not attained when plowing, nor when sowing, but only when the sheaves are ready to be taken into the barn" (Compare also Chapter twenty-five). For this reason, Jeremiah 2,3 describes Israel as G-d’s first "harvest."
_.32.1.4
The Midrash, discussing the danger of talking during the intake of food, may now be understood. The windpipe leads to the part of the body that supplies the air, so that the seat of the brain can function; in other words, it ensures the continuity of the mind as such. The gullet is the duct leading to the stomach, i.e. the seat ensuring survival of the body. In the first instance, we are told by a hint that idle conversation during the meal may help confuse the distinction between body and soul respectively. If one loses sight of the relative position of mind and body, one could easily err about the significance of food altogether, and assume that it serves both parts of man equally, and that there is no basic difference between the quality of life of body and that of the soul. Since apparently the hint was not fully understood, Rabbi Yitzchak elaborated on the same theme after the meal in a different manner. The message was that even the part of Jacob that normally needed regular food to sustain it, did not die. When challenged, he quoted scripture to prove that the "Do not be afraid" was addressed not only to the exalted spiritual part of "Israel," but even to the more mundane human being known as "Jacob." The great lesson was that not only the spiritual part of the soul originally supplied by G-d is immortal, but that the contributions made by the brain, mind, in short, the human personality, also will not die.
_.32.1.5
When a person sits down to a se-udat mitzvah, a meal serving a religious purpose, he consumes a meal that does more than merely nourish his body. The more tangible the food, the more it serves to strengthen the body; the more refined, almost intangible, the more it nourishes the soul. When the Torah tells us that the Almighty derives satisfaction from our sacrifices, and this satisfaction is described as reyach nichau-ach ishe lashem, the sweet smelling fragrance of the fire offerings for the Lord, the idea is not that the smell of the fat and blood constitute spiritual nourishment for G-d, but rather that man submitted to the will of G-d. He was anxious to fulfil His wishes. The sacrifice serves as a prop to evoke that feeling of good will that keeps the Shechinah in our world. Similarly, participation in a meal with a Talmid Chacham, a Torah scholar, is equated with participating in a meal with the Shechinah, since the Torah scholar represents the immortality of the mind and spirit of man and their independent and enduring nature. Conversely, a meal at which several people partake without their exchanging words of Torah to lend it some spiritual significance, is rejected by the Shechinah and considered a table full of vomit (Avot 3,4). The above demonstrated that man does not live merely by bread, but that compliance with the revealed will of G-d contributes to man's physical as well as his spititual well being. The gist of the comment "one does not talk during the meal" then would be, "Do not be fooled by the fact that the soul appears to feed on physical food, thereby proving that it is as mortal as the body it inhabits." We know that even "Jacob" did not die, and that there is more to consumption of a meal than merely the absorption of calories.
_.32.1.6
At this point, the author gives a complete commentary on Psalm 49, supporting the view he has just expressed.
_.32.1.8
There are some more difficulties in the aggadah quoted at the outset of this chapter:
_.32.1.9
1) Since all righteous people are considered chayim, alive, after they have "died," what is so special about Jacob not having died? 2) Why, is Jacob not called by his rightful title in that aggadah, i.e. Israel? If what is meant is an immortality of his personality, at least he might have been referred to by both his names as is the case in Jeremiah 30,10 (compare our quote above)! 3) Why does the questioner refer to eulogies as proving Jacob's death? Does not the Torah say explicitly, "The brothers saw that their father had died?" Besides, he himself had said "I am about to die?" 4) The answer "I am using scripture as proof" seems rather weak when we have explicit statements of scripture to the contrary!
_.32.1.10
The distinction between such terms as nefesh, ruach, and neshamah respectively is found already in Zohar on Parshat Acharey. We have discussed it in detail in Chapter six, where we described nefesh as equivalent to a primeval life force, an outgrowth of the body, yet abstract in nature. What is meant is man's ability to think, feel, perceive in a cognitive manner. Ruach, on the other hand is the spiritual force supplied by G-d. Neshamah is the synthesis created by nefesh and ruach together, through a righteous mode of life. Nefesh has then attached itself ever more firmly to ruach. It thus loses its erstwhile subservience to its physical master, its body. When Abigail said to David (Samuel I 25,29), "May the life force of my master be bound in the bundle of immortal life with the Lord your G-d," she did not use the term neshamah, but she said nefesh. This bears out our interpretation of the word nefesh and its loftiest destiny. In Jacob we find for the first time someone among the patriarchs who had achieved all three stages. He achieved the attachment of nefesh to ruach that results in neshamah. He became a spiritual personality that had absorbed and completely sublimated the purely physical nefesh. This is why we find Jacob called by three different names on three different occasions: 1) Jacob 2) Israel 3) Eyl (compare Genesis 33,20). The latter term is the name for his neshamah. This is a spiritual state achieved only by a select few in our national history. Rabbi Yochanan said wisely, "Our father Jacob did not die, since he had been able to convert even that which had an exclusively physical base into a spiritual force. The derivation from the verse "Do not fear My servant Jacob, do not be afraid Israel," then uses the first two names of Jacob to tell us that just as his descendants are alive, so is he himself alive. This, of course, is something that can be achieved by the masses, and they can thus assure themselves of immortality. This is the normal way with tzaddikim. Their prime life force is welded to their ruach so that it survives the demise of the body it once inhabited. Frequently such a synthethis is not achieved and demonstrated until the body does indeed decay. Rare indeed is the person of whom it can be said during his lifetime on earth that he has already achieved this degree of saintliness. When G-d gave Jacob the appellation Eyl on his return to the holy land, this was one of these few occasions. Because the listener had understood the gist of Rabbi Yochanan's remarks, he asked, "If so, what was the purpose of the eulogy and the elaborate embalming which seem to demonstrate that Jacob's death was no different from any other death?" On the contrary, instead of eulogizing him they should have composed hymns of thanksgiving! Concerning this problem, Aristotle already has stated that anything repeated often enough by enough people assumes a dimension of truth that is impossible to uproot. This is why King Saul was so upset about the praises sung about David, "Saul slew thousands, but David tens of thousands" (Samuel I 18,7). Therefore, Rabbi Yitzchak stated that he could prove from scripture something which for psychological reasons could not be demonstrated by human behavior. This verse is more authoritative concerning what happened to Jacob than the report about how his survivors treated his body after it had ceased to function. The manifestation of death observed by Joseph's brothers is not surprising, since the death of the bodies of even the most saintly people is a phenomenon that is inescapable, due to four basic causes. When the Talmud in Sukkah 29 describes four causes for the eclipse of the sun, it may refer not to the sun in our solar system, but may describe four reasons that cause the death of the bodies of those people whose spiritual light illuminates our lives just as the sun illuminates and gives warmth to the earth. The Talmud describes people as suns on several occasions, such as in Yuma 38, when the verse "And the sun shines and the sun sets," in Kohelet 1,5, is applied to the birth of potential Jewish leaders preceding the death of the existing Jewish leaders of the last generation. So, for instance, the prophet Samuel's light began to shine before the light of the High Priest Eli was eclipsed. Death itself is hinted as being due to the following four causes: 1) Failure to adequately eulogize leading Torah scholars. This is considered equivalent to removing vital juices from the body. This cause of death is the most serious one, since one does not relate the effect to the cause, not noticing the absence of the vital juices until it is too late. 2) The practice of sodomy. This shows that a person whose function in life is to be active, to initiate, is instead content to remain merely passive. When man becomes merely an object rather than a subject, the functions of his body have been usurped; therefore, death of such a person will not be long delayed. 3) Failure of the digestive system, something beyond man's control once he has ingested the food. The fact that this food is not converted into life sustaining energy, additions to the bloodstream etc., causes death. 4) The natural tendency of the soul to return to its father in Heaven, and to escape imprisonment in a body. This is expressed symbolically as being like a betrothed girl who is raped in broad daylight, and whose cries for help have gone unanswered. The body is helpless to resist the soul's efforts to return to Heaven. The prophet Elijah, who did not die a natural death, and the significance of stories in the Talmud about Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi, are discussed in Chapter 105.
_.32.1.11
Some problems in the text of this Parshah: 1) Why are the seventeen years of Jacob's life mentioned separately, seeing they are part of the one hundred and forty-seven years, and we had been told that he was one hundred and thirty years old when he arrived in Egypt? 2) Why does Jacob mention his wish not to be buried in Egypt separately, seeing he later repeats "Carry me out of Egypt?" Why was the whole matter of burial of such great importance to him? 3) What exactly is the significance of the shechem echad blessing that Jacob bestowed on Joseph as an additional blessing? 4) Why did Jacob, who had prophetic vision, speak of future issue of Joseph, when in fact there was not going to be any such future issue? Does this not seem like a cruel hoax? 5) Why did Jacob bother to explain at this time why he had buried Rachel where he did? 6) When the Torah reports that "Jacob saw the sons of Joseph," but that his eyes "were heavy with old age and he could not see well," the order seems reversed; Jacob's difficulty should have been reported first. It would then have provided the rationale for the question, "Who are these?" Why did Jacob feel compelled again to act contrary to the rules of natural birthright? Granted, there had been reason to deprive Reuben of the privilege of birthright, but what had Menashe done to forfeit his claim? 7) The whole line about Jacob crossing his hands does not seem right. Why did he not make the boys change their positions? 8) The repeated references about "the G-d who looks after me etc.," seems extraneous. 9) Why was Joseph so concerned about which one of his sons received the blessing due to a firstborn? 10) Jacob's answer, "I know my son, I know, he too will become a great nation," is strange. Why did he not simply say "I know he is the firstborn?" What is the meaning of the words, "Which I have conquered with my bow and sword? When was Jacob ever reported as having used either bow or sword?
_.32.1.12
(1) The seventeen years in Egypt were also part of the years under the special Providence of G-d; although Joseph did provide for his father, he did so as an instrument of G-d’s Providence, as he had said himself, "Not you have sent me here, but G-d." The line, "Who has been my shepherd until this day," refers to G-d’s Providence during those last seventeen years. The word hazeh, this, equals seventeen in numerical value. (2) "Do not bury me in Egypt!" Since we have pointed out earlier that during one's lifetime an ever increasing bond is forged between body and soul, and that this bond is not completely dissolved at death, but takes twelve months until it is completely severed, Jacob did not want the remains of his soul to be connected with Egypt for any part of this period. Compare Shabbat 152, "The soul ascends and descends during the twelve months after the body ceases to function." The importance of the place of burial and how it facilitates the ascent of the acquired spiritual qualities of man, has been discussed in Chapter twenty-two. Jacob did not even want to be interred in Egypt temporarily, being afraid that re-interment would be postponed indefinitely; therefore, he said, "As soon as I die, I want to lie with my fathers; carry me out of Egypt and bury me in my father's grave." By replying, "I will do as you say," Joseph implied that his father's wish was more compelling than any oath. Jacob insisted on an oath however, to enable Joseph to tell Pharaoh that he had sworn an oath, should the latter make any difficulties. The fact that Joseph had to tell Pharaoh, "My father has made me swear an oath" shows that Jacob's fears were well founded. When Jacob recalled the vision he had had at Looz, he tells Joseph that he had learned two things on that occasion. Firstly, that there is a connection between the blessing and residence in the land of Israel. Secondly, that at least part of that blessing applied to him personally, not only to his future issue (vayevarech oti, He blessed me). Therefore, the promise of possession of the land applied only to the future. For this reason, Jacob starts once more "He said to me" as a separate communication from G-d (48,34). Jacob realized that the meaning of the second part of the blessing was that just as his children would remain "alive," so would he remain "alive," which is part of the meaning of our sages' statement that "Jacob did not die." (4) On that occasion, at Bet El, we find that G-d blessed Jacob by saying, "Nation and community of nations will stem from you" (35,9-13). Apparently, this referred to children as yet unborn. Since only Benjamin had not been born yet at that time, Jacob was entitled to apply the second part of that blessing to himself having been promised more children. Joseph's two sons therefore could rightfully be considered as belonging to Jacob. Although they had been born in Egypt, the promise to Jacob had been made while he was in the land of Israel. Future events which dictated that the tribe of Levi would be separated into a separate unit with special functions, thus depriving the encampment of the children of Israel of one of their twelve armies, necessitated that Levi be replaced. Since Jacob allocated a double portion to the firstborn in the inheritance, he thus appointed Menashe and Ephrayim to represent the share of Joseph. Jacob did not discuss future children of Joseph then, but the words "And your offspring," refer to his grandchildren and his great grandchildren. We find the latter being counted as heads of tribal families in Numbers Chapter twenty-six. This shows that Menashe and Ephrayim, though belonging to a later generation, are given the same status as Reuben and Shimon. There cannot, therefore, be a question of non-fulfilment of a promise of future children for Joseph. (5) The fact that Rachel died almost immediately after Jacob had received that blessing, made it clear to him that this blessing could not have referred to his having any more children. The line, "When I came from Padan Aram, Rachel died etc.," is introduced as justification for appointing Menashe and Ephrayim as sons in the forthcoming distribution of the land of Israel. (6) Jacob saw a number of people around his bedside, not recognizing them. The Torah reports that they were Joseph's sons, but Jacob had not realized this until told by Joseph "these are my sons,” the ones born to him in Egypt, prior to Jacob's arrival. He had now brought them so that they could receive the blessing discussed previously. Jacob asked that they come closer so that perhaps he could recognize them despite his failing eyesight. The kissing and embracing substituted for his inability to see, just as in the case of his father Isaac, when Jacob had received the blessing (Genesis Chapter 27). Jacob expressed his satisfaction at having been granted not only reunion with his son Joseph, but at having seen his children also. When Joseph saw his father like this, in a happy frame of mind, he removed the children from his father's knees to position them so that they could receive the blessing in order of their seniority. (7) After Joseph had already heard his father give Ephrayim precedence when he compared his position to that of Reuben, although Ephrayim was the younger, Joseph, thinking his father had erred, placed Ephrayim on his right side. When, despite the way Joseph had positioned the children, Jacob crossed his hands, it became clear that Jacob could not have erred previously when he mentioned Ephrayim ahead of Menashe. The words of the Torah "And he was the younger," in describing Ephrayim, are not to be understood as "although he was the younger," but rather as "because he was the younger." It is clear that G-d did not intend for Jacob's left hand to come to rest on the head of Ephrayim. Jacob was presumably inspired by the order in which G-d had blessed him at Looz "be fruitful and multiply; the "be fruiful" came first. Since the name "Ephrayim" is derived from the same root as the word "fruitful," Jacob took this as his cue. The fact that the right hand represents the more important activities and achievements is well known and already documented in Proverbs 3,16, "Long life from its right, wealth and honor from its left." The word sikel seems the same as we find in connection with Achitofel (Samuel II 15,31), "Please make foolish the advice of Achitofel." It does not seem to matter whether the word is spelled with the letter sin or samech. The Torah tells us that the fact that he crossed his hands indicated that Jacob himself had not known who the firstborn was. He blessed Joseph." Being blessed in the name of G-d is a three-stage process: 1) The wish for successful spiritual development. 2) The wish for the material blessings which enable one to devote oneself to one's spiritual progress. 3) Protection against negative influences that stand in the way of one's achieving one's spiritual objectives. (8) Concerning the first portion of the blessing, Jacob said, "The G-d before whom my fathers have walked." Concerning the second portion of the blessing, he said, "The G-d who has been my shepherd." Concerning the third portion of the blessing, he said, "The angel who has acted as my redeemer etc." The line, "May my name be proclaimed through them in the name of my fathers," is confirmation that Ephrayim and Menashe are going to be treated like the other tribes. (9+10) "My name will attach to them." Joseph's objections were not based on begrudging Ephrayim the blessing; rather, he believed his father had erred in placing his right hand on Ephrayim, and that if so, the blessings might not be fulfilled since they had been given based on a mistaken premise. He felt that just as his father had remained unaware of what the brothers had done to him, so he might be unaware now as to which of the sons standing in front of him was the firstborn. Jacob's answer, stressing twice, "I know, my son, I know," reassures Joseph on both counts, tells him that his father is well aware of what the brothers had done to him. He also tells him that he is aware that Menashe would become a tribe on account of his being the firstborn, however the younger one would achieve even greater status, though not at the expense of the older one. (3) Apparently, Joseph was mollified, and when Jacob said, "With you Israel will bless," this indicates that Joseph joined in that blessing. Jacob's saying to Joseph, "I will give you one Shechem additional to your brothers," refers to the city that had been conquered by Shimon and Levi. When the Almighty gives territory to Israel, no one can claim it as his own, since they have not conquered it. Shechem, however, had not been given, but had been conquered. It, therefore, became the property of the conqueror and his to dispose of as he saw fit, seeing it was not part of the land promised to the children of Israel as a whole, as a gift from G-d. When David mourned Saul, he mourned the fact that it had become necessary to fight against Israel's enemies militarily, i.e. "to teach the sons of Yehudah the use of the bow" (Samuel II 1,18). This need had first manifested itself when Israel had been attacked by Amalek, and Moses had to tell Joshua to go and select fighting men. When at the end of that episode, the victory is described as, "He weakened Amalek by the sword;" the reference is to all conquests based on merely military superiority. Human conquest, by definition, is "weak," as compared to territory that is acquired by the direct intervention of Providence on our behalf.
_.33.1.2
"JACOB CALLED IN HIS SONS."
_.33.1.3
The Midrash Tanchuma on Parshat Vayechi states that Jacob was prevented from disclosing part of the future to his sons, because when he called them in he failed to call on G-d’s Presence at the same time. A trusted servant who had the complete run of the king's household once determined to give his sons the status of free men and to tell them where the documents confirming this status could be obtained. The king, divining the servant's intention, positioned himself above the servant. Thereupon, the servant, fearful of being caught in an act of disloyalty, began to exhort his sons to promise continued loyal service to the king. Similarly, Jacob called in his sons to tell them about the time their exile would come to an end. Immediately, G-d appeared, wanting to know, "Why have you invited them without inviting Me?" This is the meaning of Isaiah 43,22, "And Me you have not called, Jacob!" As soon as Jacob realized this, he began to tell his sons that they should declare that they would serve the Lord just as their fathers had done, i.e. "the Lord before whom my fathers have walked" (48,15). The sons responded saying, "We know what is in your heart. As you are true to only one Master, so we too will serve only one Master" (shema yisrael). When Jacob heard this, he responded by saying, "Blessed be the name of His glorious Majesty, forever."
_.33.1.4
Since G-d has seen fit to grant reward in return for performance of His commandments, it is axiomatic that such reward is shared by every party who performs such commandments. Since man is both physical and spiritual, the reward will be shared by both his physical part and his spiritual part, i.e. his personality. The same is true, of course, when punishment for non observance of G-d’s commandments is called for. Faith in G-d’s ability to excercise Personal Providence, fear of the Lord, the will to serve Him, etc., are not the result of the mind's own initiative, but are responses formulated by the intellect in answer to G-d’s imperatives. When Solomon tells us in Kohelet, 12,13, "In the final analysis when all is said and done, fear the Lord and observe His commandments, because these imperatives comprise the whole human being," he expresses that very sentiment. The highest development of the mind is not the acquisition of the most comprehensive knowledge and profound wisdom man is capable of, but compliance with G-d’s commandments which are expressions of His will.
_.33.1.5
The truth that faith constitutes an objective to be attained by our mental faculties is expressed in Exodus 19,9, "And also in you they will believe forever." The commandments which we perform because of our faith in G-d, His superior wisdom, rather than because our intellect has persuaded us of their usefulness and value, are the ones which entitle us to be called human beings. The true human being submits to the imperatives of His Creator. We are superior to the animals by doing not only what is functional, sensible. Were we to do only those things, even though on a more sophisticated level, we would not be superior to animals. It is precisely they that are programmed with instincts to do what is good for them in the context of their lives. This is what Solomon had in mind when he said, "For this is the whole human being," i.e. the whole advantage of a human being over the animals is his ability to demonstrate such faith in the Creator that one keeps the type of commandments which one's reason neither dictates nor is able to justify. The reward for the physical part of us performing mitzvot is spelled out in Deut. 6,24, "To perform these commandments...to keep us alive and well on this day." Similarly, reference is made to the reward for the souls which participated in the performance of these mitzvot when the same verse speaks about, "It will be good for us for all times." Clearly, this refers to a reward in another world. The nature of the reward in that world is not spelled out, since our comprehension of that world is limited to a very general knowledge of its existence. As long as man is in a physical shell, he cannot really understand the true nature of such a world.
_.33.1.6
Man's life is lived on two planes. He lives privately within the circle of his family, and he lives as a member of society, and must interact with such society in greater or lesser measure. The good he does must be divided then between the good he does within the family circle, and the good he does by contributing to the well being of the community he lives in. He will receive rewards for both his good deeds within the family circle and for the good deeds performed as part of society. To the extent that the good performed as part of society benefits everyone in that society equally, the reward can be collective. Since every member of that society benefitted equally by the input of good, so the reward is the kind that lets everyone benefit equally. Output is commensurate with input. The promise of the Jewish people living together in security, enjoying economic prosperity etc., is a reward for such good deeds performed by dint of being part of a certain society. It is a reward for the physical part of man, but it is allocated on a collective basis. Reward for the spiritual part of the input of everyone involved, is based on the degree of dedication that each person's contribution represents. It is in the nature of things that every individual brings a different degree of kavanah, intent, dedication to the performance of his mitzvoth. That is why our sages say that in the world to come everyone will occupy a level of his own. Since there are many commandments which can be fulfilled only collectively, the building of the temple for instance, the reward for such mitzvot, spiritual though it may be, will be collective. The time for receiving a reward for such mitzvot performed collectively, but not because such mitzvot benefit society (called by our sages yishuv ha-olam), is in the post-messianic era, but on this earth when ideal conditions for physical life will exist. In all cases however, the reward for the degree of the spiritual input by each individual into each mitzvah, regardless if it is of the kind that can only be fulfilled collectively or if it is fulfilled individually, is in olam haba.
_.33.1.7
In the opening Midrash, the point made is that Jacob wanted to tell his children that at the end of the exile, redemption will come regardless of the quantity or quality of mitzvah input. This was to serve as consolation for all the hardship in store for the Jewish people. G-d’s objection, expressed by the words, "You have not invited Me," is based on the fact that such revelations will result in decreased motivation of the Jewish people to serve G-d in the interval, the time prior to redemption, seeing that redemption is a foregone conclusion anyways. When Jacob realized the nature of G-d’s objection, he hastened to make his sons take the oath of loyalty, so that there could no longer be a question of the willingness or obligation of his descendants to remain loyal to G-d in the time preceding the redemption.
_.33.1.8
Some problems in the text: 1) Why does Jacob seem to commence with the blessing twice, once with the words "Gather so I may tell you what will befall you in the end of days" (Genesis 49,1) and again in the next verse "Assemble and hear sons of Jacob, listen to Israel your father?" 2) When Jacob exclaims regarding Shimon and Levi, "I will divide them in Jacob and disperse them in Israel," we do observe that the tribe of Levi was dispersed forthwith. We do not however, read anywhere about the dispersal of Shimon. Why is this? 3) The blessing of Yehudah becoming the hereditary carrier of the monarchy, seems limited to the arrival of "Shilo." Why? 4) Why are the names of the sons of Zilpah positioned between those of the sons of Bilhah in these blessings? 5) Issachar's blessing in verse 14 and 15 seems contradictory. "He saw that repose was good, so he inclined his shoulder to carry heavy burdens." Surely this sounds illogical! 6) The blessing for Dan seems puzzling; "Like a serpent...biting the horse's heel" on the one hand, and on the other "in Your salvation, O G-d, I trust?" 7) Who are the owners of arrows "who hated Joseph?" In what way were the blessings Joseph received more generous than the ones received by his father? 8) Why are so many details recited about the cave of Machpelah? 9) In Chapter 50,1, we hear about assipha and geviyah. The normal word for death, i.e. meetah is missing. Why? 10) Why does the Torah have to tell us that when the brothers went to Canaan to bury their father, they left their livestock in Egypt? Whoever has heard of livestock being part of a funeral procession? 11) Why do we need to be told that the Canaanites appreciated that Jacob's passing was a cause of national mourning in Egypt? 12) The word loo normally means "who would give that." When the brothers voice concern that, now that their father is dead, Joseph might display hostility towards them, the choice of this word in verse 15 seems quite misplaced. 13) Why do the brothers beg for forgiveness twice? 14) When Joseph says to them in an attempt to calm their fears, "Am I in place of G-d?" this suggests that only his fear of G-d prevented him from taking his revenge. This surely was not the best way to reassure his brothers? 15) Why do we need to know that Joseph's grandchildren, resp. great-grandchildren were born on his knees?
_.33.1.9
(1) When calling in his sons concerning the events in the distant future, Jacob had in mind what happens to the souls after death. The second call concerned happenings during Messianic times, on this earth. Concerning Reuben, the statement yeter se-eyt refers to additional responsibilities which Reuben should have shouldered being a firstborn, instead of assuming an additional portion of negative virtues. Since the nature of his error was such that it could not be undone, like water which, if it has once hit the ground, cannot be retrieved, Reuben's sin of entering his father's bedroom constituted an irreversible desecration. This deprived him of the birthright, which was transferred to Joseph. Possibly, the hastiness and lack of mature judgment criticized here in Reuben's character may account for the equally hasty decision of the tribe of Reuben later in claiming their part of the ancestral inheritance in the territory formerly belonging to Sichon. It was the tribe of Reuben who was the first to experience exile and dispersion in later years. (2) Shimon and Levi are bracketed together because of the similarity of their actions. Their error was the opposite of that of Reuben. Reuben had acted hastily, without mature judgment. Shimon and Levi's action against Shechem was reprehensible precisely because it was preceded by careful planning. Aristo in Ethics 7, Section 9, already discusses the relative merit of impetuosity versus the person who is in perfect control of his actions who, though carrying out carefully planned deeds, has given no thought to the possibility that he may be wrong. At Shechem, Shimon and Levi sinned because they had planned. When it came to the violence done to Joseph, they could not even claim that their action had been thoroughly thought out. Concerning the first action, Jacob condemns an anger of the aph variety, something that would not evaporate until they had taken collective revenge. In the case of their treatment of Joseph, their action was the result of ratzon, free will, impetuous behavior. When both of these characteristics are found side by side, they spell too much danger for society. Jacob did not want to be associated with this. Therefore, the two have to be separated to reduce their potential for causing harm. Although anger is a negative virtue, it can on occasion be most helpful, since it awakens people to their duty who would otherwise have remained inactive, on the sidelines. Having Levi scattered throughout Israel would ensure that when the occasion would demand it, there would be people that would galvanize the rest of the population into taking action. When Isaiah (63,5) says, "My arm brought me salvation, and my fury upheld me," he refers to exactly such instances of the usefulness of fury. Similarly, the Talmud in Ketuvot 103 reports how Rabbi Yehudah taught his son Rabbi Gamliel how to conduct himself in the office of the President. He told him, "Conduct your office among the exalted and strike fear into the students." (3) Yehudah is the first of the sons whose heroic deeds did not manifest themselves in turning against his own flesh and blood when angered; rather, "Your hand was against the neck of your enemy." Therefore, it is fitting that his brothers pay homage to him. "A young lion;" subsequently he is described as a fully grown lion (both in verse 9). This suggests that Yehudah's personality development proceeded according to accepted norms. He develops from strength to strength, unlike other crowned heads, many of whom experience their greatest moment of glory at the moment they are crowned and ascend the throne. Miteref beni aleeta, you overcame, surmounted the confused thinking of my other sons. Even though you were young in years, you showed mature judgment at the moment it was called for ("What profit is there in killing our brother" 37,26). Jacob proceeds to assure Yehudah that royalty will be hereditary in his descendants throughout the ages. However, just as the lion may crouch ready to pounce, but lacks the power, so the royal descendants of Yehudah will similarly be found lacking in strength on occasion. Such weakness will reflect Yehudah's lack of religious observance during such periods. The Talmud (in Sanhedrin 5) tells us that the term "king" is not used here for Yehudah to convey the idea that in the long years of exile when there will be no Jewish king, leadership functions will still devolve upon the descendants of Yehudah; "The sceptre will not depart," "the lawgiver," refer to such men as the Exilarch, i.e. the leader of the Jews in the Babylonian exile who were members of the tribe of Yehudah, often in a direct line from David. Once the era of Shilo commences, the condition of Yehudah being merely kore-a, crouching, will be over, and the whole world will pay homage to him. The reference then is to Yehudah's restricted leadership role in the interval, not the cessation of such status. The reason that Zevulun in this blessing is mentioned ahead of Issachar is that since the former provides the funding for the latter's sacred vocation, that of devoting himself to Torah, the former is the prime mover, and deserves to be recognized first. Issachar who is like a beast of burden weighed down under its load, represents the qualities without which Torah study devoid of ulterior motives cannot be undertaken successfully. A donkey accepts ever greater burdens without protest, is undemanding in manner, and modest in upkeep. (4) The reason that both sons of Zilpah are mentioned in between the sons of Bilhah, is to prove that Zilpah really was supposed to have become pregnant before Bilhah. Only Laban's trickery had prevented this at the time he tricked Jacob into marrying the wrong girl. (5) Issachar realized the kind of menuchah, rest, that is "good." The reference is to the serenity attainable only through the diligent study of Torah, which ensures that one will reap the ultimate "good" at the end of one's endeavours. (6) After having mentioned the sons of Leah in the order of their birth, Jacob addresses himself to the oldest son of the maids. Samson, descendant of Dan would achieve the position of leader amongst his people, and become the first one to begin and shake off the yoke of the Philistines. Samson's activities were not accompanied by the glory and pomp of a royal Court, but like a snake, a loner, were simply acts of revenge perpetrated as acts of terror from ambush. This is just like the action of a snake which always seems unconcerned about its own fate. Samson died at the site of his greatest triumph, just as a snake presumably gets killed when the horse and rider it has bitten fatally kills the snake near the site of their own death. Since a victory in which the pursuer dies himself is hardly a true victory, the victor not surviving to enjoy the fruits of his deed, Jacob adds the words, "In Your help I trust," expressing the hope that the defender of his people will be spared by Divine intervention. "Gad will form units of troops," even though Gad will be the first of the tribes to be led into captivity (Kings II 10,33), he will eventually re-emerge at the time of redemption. Asher is blessed by being promised material blessings that are rarely found side by side, namely both grain and fruit. Perhaps during the reign of Solomon, he was called upon to supply the royal palace. "He will supply the delicacies for the king." The comparison of Naftali to "a hind let loose," i.e. fleet-footedness, may hint at the climatic conditions in his territory giving rise to earlier harvests than elsewhere in Israel. Possibly, Naftali had silver-tongued men, bearers of good tidings who would lead Israel in thanksgiving to the Lord. (7) Because Joseph was like a beautiful fruit, flourishing by a fountain, attracting admiration from all sides, he also attracted jealousy and envy. As a result, he was quarrelled with and persecuted. He himself, however, kept his ammunition in check instead of fighting back. Thus, he proved himself stronger than his adversaries. His hands were strengthened by the same G-d who had proven His might when aiding Jacob. Therefore, he possessed the merit to become the provider (ro-eh) for his family, his clan. "May you receive your reward from the G-d of your father, may it be stored with the G-d Shadday, and may you receive the bountiful blessings from the heavens above and the depths that lie below, which are typified by the blessings of the breasts and the womb. The blessings of your father (Jacob) are greater than those of my parents (Isaac) in that I may select one of my sons for a special blessing, though all of them deserve blessings.” Each one of the sons of Jacob had a morally justifiable claim to givaut olam, high positions in the world; Joseph, however, had proven outstanding. Therefore, "on his skull more than on that of his brothers," the special blessing. Since the tribe of Levi had not yet been given its special designation replacing the firstborn, and the number of tribes was not to exceed twelve, the blessings for Menashe and Ephrayim are here incorporated in the blessings pronounced on their father Joseph. At the time when Moses blessed the nation, singling out Levi for its share of recognition, Ephrayim and Menashe are once again not mentioned separately, to avoid exceeding the number twelve. Moses therefore only alludes to them by stating that bechor shoro, the firstborn, his ox, are the tens of thousands of Ephrayim and the thousands of Menashe. The importance of Benjamin is alluded to by the fact that he rates the opening of a new paragraph (the paragraph could easily have ended at verse twenty-nine). Just as the word "Yehudah" is usually found at the beginning of a "page," so both of the brothers in whose territory the holy temple was to stand later, share the distinctive treatment in the manner in which their blessings are recorded in the Torah. Since the Priests and Levites will constantly be found in Jerusalem, it is reasonable to expect the members of those tribes to pursue the wisdom obtainable by keeping company with the priests, like wolves that rob in the morning and share the booty at night. Benjaminites will share in the knowledge obtained through close association with the tribe of Levi, and will teach others. Since in this manner they will both learn and teach, they are privy to the essence of all blessings. After all, success in any endeavor is based on study and dissemination of knowledge. The verse "the tribes of Israel are twelve," means that "although Joseph was divided into two tribes, the total still does not exceed twelve tribes, rather Levi is to be regarded as in a class by himself." This is what is meant by the words (verse 28), "Which their father said to them" (perhaps for this reason the scattering of Levi's cities was of quite a different nature than the dispersal of Shimon who had contiguous tribal territory, though it was an enclave within Yehudah). Since seventeen years had elapsed since Jacob and his family had left Canaan, Jacob was concerned lest any claim against the burial place of Abraham should have been registered during the family's absence from the country. Therefore, Jacob repeated all the details of his justified claim to the lands in question. Should any claim originate with the Canaanites, the fact that Ephron had sold to Abraham was essential; should the descendants of Ishmael claim the cave as theirs, the fact that Isaac had been buried there would prove that they had no valid claim thereto. To forestall any claim of Esau to be buried there, the fact that Leah had already been buried there, would attest to its ownership by the family of Jacob. Should the argument be used that the sale by an individual such as Ephron was invalid, since he was merely an individual and it was not in the national interest to sell off land to outsiders, the fact that the beney chet, a national group had approved the sale to Abraham, would invalidate any such claim in the future. (4) We have explained when Abraham died, that geviyah is the failure of one's faculties to function (clinical death), whereas meetah is the destruction and decay of the body's whole structure. Assiphah refers to the return of the soul to its hidden origin. Meetah is not mentioned in connection with Jacob. The reason our Rabbis may not have quoted this passage when they made the statement that "Jacob did not die," is so as not to allow the misconception that the elaborate measures taken to embalm Jacob's body were what is meant by the absence of the term meetah. The impression could easily have been formed that preventing decay of the body is equivalent to preventing meetah, i.e. death. Joseph appears to have had his own royal embalmers, and instead of the standard thirty-day procedure, Jacob was given the royal treatment, i.e. seventy days. This made the removal of the intestines and brain unnecessary (possibly). It appears that during the mourning Joseph observed for his father for seventy days, he did not permit himself to communicate with anyone at the royal court, and spoke to Pharaoh only through intermediaries (50,4). (5) It seems that as soon as Jacob had passed on, his sons were ready to return to the land of Canaan with their families and livestock, but were prevented by the Egyptians who were already planning to eventually enslave Jacob's entire offspring (Midrash Rabbah Tzav). We are told therefore, that the reason the Parshah dealing with Jacob's "death" is closed, i.e. is not separated from the preceding Parshah by a paragraph or line, is to indicate that true independence was lost as soon as Jacob closed his eyes for the last time. The Jews already felt that their freedom of movement had become subject to restrictions, and that is why even a Joseph on his deathbed had to invoke the time when G-d would lead the Jews out of Egypt as the time when his own remains should be transferred to the holy land (50,24). (6) The words va-ya-al immo in 50,9 may refer to the Shechinah leaving Egypt, having accompanied Jacob on his journey to Egypt seventeen years earlier (compare "I will go up with you," 46,4). The Canaanites saw a bad omen in all of this; they emphasized to their deities that this was an Egyptian affair, no business of theirs, and that any harmful fallout should befall Egypt. From then on, the brothers carried Jacob on their shoulders, just as their father had instructed. (7) The brothers had convinced themselves by and by that Joseph's rise to greatness was due entirely to their own action against him, and that because of that he owed them good treatment (as compensation). Their reasoning ran thus: "If only Joseph would hate us and pay us back for the kind of harm (may it happen so to all Jewish children) we have done him." They hoped to receive good in return for evil as a matter of right, not as a gesture of generosity. (8) When speaking in the name of Jacob then, they referred to their treatment of Joseph as evil (50,17), but they referred to themselves as "servants of the G-d of your father," who had acted presumably in consonance with G-d’s will, hence such eminently successful outcome of their actions. (9) Joseph realized that all this convoluted reasoning was the result of his brothers' fear, and he wept at their fear and discomfort. However, Joseph, answering his brothers along the line of their own argument, said, "I am not in place of G-d, so you need no forgiveness from me since your intention was indeed wicked. However, it was G-d who arranged for the outcome to be good not just for me alone but for everyone concerned. Despite your moral guilt however, do not worry, I will look after your needs.” (10) Joseph's raising Ephrayim's grandchildren on his knees is reported to show that Jacob's blessing concerning such grandchildren had been fulfilled. Since Joseph died at a younger age than his brothers, his reassuring remarks on his deathbed concerning the Providence of the Lord are of prime importance. Since his embalming was different from the method employed for his father, his physical death is mentioned. Since his remains were going to be interred in Egypt immediately, the treatment described would be quite adequate.
_.34.1.2
"Now these are the names"
_.34.1.3
Midrash Tanchuma on Parshat Nasso as well as on Parshat Pekudey quotes Rabbi Shimon ben Nachman as saying that at the time G-d created the universe, He wished to have a place of abode on earth, just as He has a place of abode in Heaven. He created man, commanded him "from every tree in the garden you may eat, but from the tree of knowledge of good and evil you must not eat" (Genesis 2,16). Man violated this commandment. G-d said, "I wanted an abode on earth, but man did not even observe the one commandment I gave him." Thereupon, G-d removed His presence to the lowest of the Heavens. When the generation of Enosh began to worship idols (see chapter 4,26), "then man began to call by the name of G-d," He withdrew to the third heaven, having moved to the second Heaven when Cain slew his brother. During the generation of the deluge, G-d moved to the fourth Heaven, and when the tower of Babel was built, He moved to the fifth Heaven. G-d continued withdrawing further and further from earth till at the destruction of Sodom, He had already moved to the sixth Heaven. When Amrafel and his companions waged war in the world, subjugating nations, G-d withdrew to the seventh and last heaven. According to Psalm 94,16, this was the time G-d exclaimed, "Who will arise on My behalf against the doers of evil, who will stand up for Me against the perpetrators of sin?" What did G-d do? He "folded" all the preceding generations together and let Abraham arise, whose deeds prompted G-d to descend from the seventh Heaven back to the sixth. When Isaac offered himself as a sacrifice on the altar, G-d descended from the sixth Heaven to the fifth. When Jacob arose, He descended from the fifth to the fourth level, and when Levi arose He descended to the third level. The lifestyles of Amram and Kehot were such that G-d descended to the second and first level successively. With the advent of Moses, G-d was able to return to earth since we read, "The Lord descended on Mount Sinai" (Exodus 19,18). In Song of Songs, this thought is expressed in the words, "I have come to the garden of My bride" (Song of Songs 5,1).
_.34.1.4
Our intelligence dictates, and our observations support the theory that G-d "supports" and "carries" the universe. Isaiah 46,4 puts it in these words: "I will suffer it for I have made it, I will carry it, and I will suffer (tolerate) and I will provide escape." It is evident that these statements do not refer to G-d supporting the universe physically, seeing that He is not a physical Being, is purely spiritual. The term "carry" when applied to G-d, can be understood in either of two ways. Since G-d is the Cause of the universe, He carries it, morally speaking. He decides the extent to which He wants to back up the creatures He has created. This is not unlike saying that the rider "carries" his carriage. Although, physically speaking, the carriage transports, i.e. carries the rider, since it is the rider who gives it direction, it is he in the last analysis who "carries" it, because he controls it. When the Jewish people crossed the Jordan, and the priests "carried" the holy ark, the latter are described as being transported by the ark, i.e. "carried" by the holy ark (Joshua Chapter 4). This is another instance of the physical carrier not being the one in charge. It was the spirit which resided in the ark that was the mainstay of its physical bearers. The second aspect of "carry" is that "to carry something," is the same as "to tolerate something." We read of Abraham and Lot (Genesis 13,6) that "the land could not carry them anymore to live together." This means that the land could not support their joint tenure. "Tolerance" of something implies a reciprocal relationship. It means that one puts up with other people's behavior in some form or other. G-d, being the Supreme Being, has a reciprocal relationship with everybody and everything, i.e. He puts up with everybody and everything in some form or other. Again, this is not something physical, but the term "suffer" is used in a moral, spiritual sense.
_.34.1.5
The kind of tolerance G-d displays depends on who He needs to relate to. In the first instance there are the spiritual, completely disembodied beings inhabiting the "upper" world, who are closest to Him. Since these beings by their very nature are close to perfection, tolerating them does not require a major effort on G-d’s part. Also the bodies in outer space whose regular and constant orbit represent service of G-d on a non-stop basis, do not require a great deal of tolerance on the part of G-d. These heavenly bodies, which provide the four basic raw materials for our physical universe, in a sense support this earth. At the time of the garden of Eden being at man's disposal, G-d had a home in the material universe because His spirit was present within man. This was the connection between the worlds above the rakiyah, firmament, and the world "below." Both harbored the Divine spirit. The commandment, "Do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil," meant "do not become engrossed in the material world except to the extent of doing good. Engrossing yourself in evil will make you part of this finite world, make you mortal." Since we have defined mavet, death, as being equal to ra, evil, and chayim, life, as being equal to tov, good, it is quite clear that contact with ra is contact with death (Deut. 30,15, compare our Chapter 7). Breaking this commandment, then, had to result in the Shechinah, G-d’s Presence withdrawing. Shechinah cannot associate with death; since there did not remain any immortal human beings on earth, there was no alternative but to withdraw to a level further removed from earth. At this point, the author describes successive withdrawals of G-d from different planets in outer space as being connected with the individual functions of these planets in our world. Abraham made up for the commandment that Adam had transgressed, by taking upon himself to command his offspring to observe the commandments of the Lord. G-d acknowledged this when He said, "As a result of Abraham having listened to My voice etc." (Genesis 26,5). Isaac repaired the damage done by Cain who had committed murder, when he voluntarily submitted to the command of His Creator, in contrast to Cain who had acted as if there were no judge or judgment in the world. His deed was acknowledged when the angel instructed Abraham, "Do not lay a hand on the lad, do not touch him" (Genesis 22,12). Jacob, who had been able to prevail on all his children to remain loyal to G-d and to proclaim His Unity when they said, "Hear O Israel, the Lord our G-d is One," enabled G-d to return His Presence still closer to earth. Jacob had thus repaired the damage done by Enosh who had been the first to introduce the concept of G-d not being One. When Levi appeared, risking his life to avenge the shame of the rape of his sister Dinah, he repaired the damage done by the generation of the deluge, who had practiced immorality, incest etc. Kehot was the leader of the Jewish people when the latter were forced to commence performing slave labor for the Egyptians. The Jews who had been singled out for this cruel treatment, because they had failed to assimilate to the Egyptians, maintained a profile of being different by keeping their Hebrew names, language, and religion in spite of persecution suffered. This fact enabled G-d to move still closer to earth, as the damage done by the collective insubordination of the generation that built the tower of Babel had now been repaired. Amram in turn repaired the damage done by the people of Sodom, who through lack of concern for their fellow man, had driven the Shechinah still further away. Amram demonstrated his concern for the future of his nation when he responded to the admonition of his daughter not to stop having children, even at the risk of a baby boy being drowned by the Egyptians. When Moses finally made his appearance, and instead of persecuting the just, stood up against terror, injustice, and "might is right," he repaired what Nimrad/Amrafel had destroyed when he made war against the weak who had not provoked him. G-d was thus able to feel at home again on earth since the counterweight to everything the serpent had helped ruin had appeared on earth, and had made its impact. The Talmud Yevamot 112 says that when Israel stood at Mount Sinai, their "filth" departed from them. What is meant is that they reverted to the state of innocence that existed when Adam had just been created. The book of Exodus deserves to be called the book of redemption, since it tells of the redemption of the Jewish people from a cruel and barbaric fate at the hands of a cruel and barbaric nation. Apart from the physical redemption from slavery, the promise of being given the land of Israel with all its abundant natural wealth, would enable the Jewish people to live a life of ease and to be tested if they would indeed prove obedient to G-d, so that He could allow His Presence to dwell amongst them. Moses’ss accomplishment in restoring G-d’s Presence to earth, made him the intermediary between G-d and His people. To be a good intermediary requires that the intermediary himself feels in harmony with the objectives and methods of the one who has made him intermediary. Such rapport can exist either naturally, or in spite of one's natural inclinations. When Moses was shown a kind of wood that sweetens the waters at Marah (Ex. 15,25), our sages are in two minds about the nature of this wood. Some say that it was sweet wood, and that the resultant sweetening of the waters was a natural process. Others maintain that the wood itself was bitter, in which case the transformation of the waters was miraculous (Mechilta Beshalach). We find that G-d employs both kinds of agents as leaders of the Jewish people at different times. Gideon, who abandoned his preoccupation with salvaging his harvest, and who challenged the angel about G-ds apparent abandonment of His people, demonstrated selflessness and lack of concern with his private business to such an extent that the angel could say to him "go forth with this strength of yours and save the Jewish people." (Judges 6,14) He succeeded because he possessed the major ingredient needed for leadership. The reverse may be the case when the emissary of G-d is motivated by a feeling of obedience to G-d, but lacks the characteristics that put him in harmony with the purpose of his Sender. When attacking Amalek, Saul allowed considerations of economic gain to persuade him not to kill the best of the herds; he also displayed pity just when G-d had forbidden pity. This led to tragic results for his dynasty (Samuel I Chapter 15). His downfall can be traced not to lack of basic obedience, but to internal conflict between his own aims and methods, and G-ds aims and methods. Therefore, G-d looked for another man, David, who would be in tune with His objectives heart and soul, and who is held up as a model human being whose inner strivings coincide with G-d’s. When Jerobam is chastised by Achyah (Kings I 14,8-9), the point emphasized is that he failed to be with G-d "like My servant David, who observed My commandments, who followed Me with his whole heart to do only what is right in My eyes." This same David describes his own world outlook in Psalms 139,20 in the following words, "Those who hate You O G-d, I hate, and those who rebel against You, I quarrel with." When the Messiah is described, three characteristics are described as essential (Psalms 72,12-14). "For he will deliver the defenseless man who cries, and the poor who has no helper; he will care for those who have been brought low." "He will redeem their souls from malice and violence, and their blood will be precious to him." Our Parshah tells us that Moses possessed the qualities enumerated in Psalms and that therefore he was the ideal intermediary and saviour for Israel. When Moses, on his first outing to his brethren, saw an Egyptian torture a Jew, he could not stand this and he slew the Egytian. This corresponds to the line, "He will deliver the defenseless man who cries out." On the second day, when he observed injustice being perpetrated among his Jewish brethren, he stood up for the victim, the defenseless, as he did when he helped the daughters of Yitro at the well. In each case he risked his life or safety. Despite his disappointing experiences, he continued to involve himself in other peoples' problems. It is clear then that with the advent of Moses, G-d had found the person who was likely to lead the Jewish people successfully.
_.34.1.6
Problems in the text: 1) Why have the names of the tribes been repeated, since they have been listed in greater detail at the time of their descent to Egypt? This is especially puzzling, since people who have long been dead are mentioned, whereas the more recent leaders of the nation could have been named. Why is Joseph's death mentioned directly next to the Jewish population explosion at that time? The proper order would seem to be a) Joseph died; b) a new king arose; c) the Jews multiplied; d) the king told his subjects that the Jewish population explosion represented a security risk for the Egyptian nation.
_.34.1.7
2) If, as described, the Jewish population explosion had already taken place, why did Pharaoh talk about "forestalling" it? Why did the Egyptians fear the Jews only in case of war? If it was their sheer numbers that bothered them, this fear should have preyed on their minds also during peacetime.
_.34.1.8
3) What great intelligence is demonstrated by the appointment of taskmasters who applied ruthless force? Surely this is not an example of "outsmarting the Jews?" 4) Since the astrologers had agreed to the legislation banning the survival of Jewish male babies, why was Pharaoh's daughter permitted to raise the Jewish infant? 5) Why is the statement about the midwives not doing as Pharaoh had commanded repeated? Why did Pharaoh repeat the question why they had permitted the Jewish baby boys to survive? What sense did the midwives' answer make? If the Jewish women gave birth so quickly, why would any midwives be assigned to them at all? 6) The decree to kill all male babies seems so absurd that even Onkelos felt compelled to add the word "Jewish" in his commentary. Why was special emphasis given to the statement that the Jewish girls should survive? Why not just let nature take its course? 7) Why is "man from the house of Levi" not named (2,1)? Why does the Torah not mention where this man went? 8) "She saw him that he was good" seems banal. Which mother is not prejudiced in favor of her baby? (2,2) 9) Why were the attendants of Pharaoh's daughter mentioned? 10) Since Moses had killed the Egyptian in the presence of his intended victim, how could he have been surprised on the morrow that the story had leaked out? What is the point in Moses looking hither and thither if there were witnesses, when in fact a witness was standing right next to him (2,12)? On the other hand, if we assume that Moses killed the Egyptian only after the witness had left the scene, how did the rasha get to hear about it? 11) The expression used by the rasha i.e. "Will you say to kill me?" is strange. Do words kill? 12) Why did the shepherds of Midian maltreat the daughters of Yitro? 13) Why did Moses not call his firstborn son Eliezer, since G-d had helped him and such help had preceded his settling in Midian? 14) The reference to the king's death as occurring "during many days" (2,23) seems imprecise; death occurs at a certain moment, not during "many days!" Why would the Jewish people mourn the death of such a man? Why the repeated use of the word avodah, service, in that sentence?
_.34.1.9
Before answering any of the questions raised, it is important to realize that the exile in Egypt did not come about accidentally, nor did it come about because of the misdeeds of some great men during that era. Rather, it was the result of a profound plan of G-d to set in motion the realization of His promise to Abraham. It was Abraham's seed that was destined to enjoy the great privilege of practicing the laws and teachings of the Almighty, something that had not been entrusted to any other nation. It would have been impossible to get the Jewish people to accept the yoke of Heaven, had they not first been subjected to the cruelest rule of man. Only this experience would make them see the yoke of Heaven as a relatively easy burden to bear, and they could be induced to shoulder it voluntarily, enthusiastically. Just as we find in Chronicles II 12,5-9 that the prophet Shemayahoo induced King Rechavam to humble himself before G-d so that he would not have to meet a much harsher fate at the hands of Shishak, King of Egypt, so the exile in Egypt was excellent preparation for Sinai. This is also what G-d had told Moses explicitly when the latter had questioned the Jewish people's claim to redemption (at least at that stage). Compare Exodus 3,11-12. Since the bondage was to serve as preparation for worshipping G-d at Mount Sinai, no other justification for redemption was needed. For this reason, the prophet Jeremiah is able to speak about the loving kindness the Jewish people performed for G-d when they were willing to follow Him into the desert etc. (Jeremiah 2). The reference is to G-d’s statutes as explained in Midrash Tanchuma on Parshat Vayeshev. The idea that on account of the extra pound of wool woven into Joseph's coat, Jewish history should have made such a detour for close to four hundred years, is too shallow for the Midrash. All this suffering which had been imposed upon millions of people for such a long period, needed a better explanation. The explanation was that the exile served as the pretext to bring about the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham, without interfering with the free choice of the people, or any other party concerned. When explaining Psalms 10,5, Rabbi Yoshua ben Korcha said that the verse "See how even the terrifying acts of G-d are planned with intelligence," (Psalms 66,5) refers to the verse mentioned before. Our freedom of choice is not interfered with, and still G-d manages to set in motion chains of events that culminate in His purpose being fulfilled. Since the immediate cause of the Jewish exile was the population explosion, the Torah sketches in the history of events.
_.34.1.10
"Now these are the names of the sons of Israel"
_.34.1.11
(1) All the Jews in Egypt at that time were descended from only twelve ancestors; at the time they arrived in Egypt they numbered seventy. Now that Joseph and his brothers had died, they started multiplying at such a rate that they posed a physical problem for the Egyptians due to their prowess. (2) To prevent the Jews from also outnumbering the Egyptians, called for the combined wisdom and talents of the whole nation. They hoped to compensate for their numerical inferiority, or at least for their physical inferiority at that stage, by superior intelligence. The original intent of the Egyptians may have been to enslave the Jews permanently and sell them on the slave markets to foreign countries. It seems that Egypt was exporting horses in this manner (at least female horses). (3) They were afraid that if war broke out, the additional burden of keeping a hostile population under control inside the country would prove to be too much for them. To fight invaders at the same time might be more than they could handle. As a result, the Jews might take advantage of that situation to escape their owners by emigrating. They might even join the enemy by acting as a fifth column inside the country and revolt. Therefore, they planned to assign demeaning work to the Jews, and to aquire them as physical slaves only gradually. The cities to be built by Jewish labor were well fortified border towns positioned at opposite ends of the country to ward off invaders. However, the Jews, loyal by nature, far from feeling humiliated, reinforced their efforts to procreate and provide manpower against possible enemies of Egypt. The Egyptians now felt so frustrated that the Jews appeared a thorn in their sides wherever they turned, i.e. vayakutzu (1,12). They proceeded to re-evaluate their policy and employed the Jews both for building and for work in the fields. They made sure that all work performed was under constantly tense conditions. After that they decided to reduce the male Jewish population by "accidentally" killing boys, but at the same time making sure that a good supply of female slaves would be raised from them. They did not fear that female slaves would revolt or join potential enemies. (5) They were again frustrated in their efforts when the midwives turned out to be G-d-fearing, shunning participation in child murder. These midwives, though G-d-fearing, did not want to contravene the king's order either, a perfectly legitimate desire, as demonstrated by the prophet Samuel when the latter questioned G-d’s orders which endangered his life (Samuel I 16,2). The midwives ignored the part of the orders dealing with murder, but concentrated on giving post natal care, something that did not contradict the instructions they hade received. The Torah therefore first describes what the midwives did not do, and subsequently tells us what they did do. The king, unaware of the technical innocence of the midwives, accused them of helping the babies to be born alive. The widwives in their defence made the point that the Jewish women usually had already given birth by the time a midwife arrived on the scene, and that therefore they had not had a chance to carry out the king's instructions. As a result, the only thing left for them to do once they had arrived at the home of a Jewish mother without arousing suspicion, was to administer post-natal care. Of course, this was something the king did not want. "G-d was good to the midwives," i.e. Pharaoh accepted their defense, and the people kept on increasing, again thwarting the plans of the Egyptians. Even normal baby mortality or deformity did not occur, in order that it could not be blamed on the activities of the midwives. "He made houses for them," may well refer to Pharaoh. (1,21.) He made sure the midwives would live in places whence their coming and going could be observed, so that if a newborn baby boy was found by those trailing the midwives, it could be drowned. In other words, instead of unobtrusive killing at birth, things had now reached a stage where open murder was the Egyptians' only recourse. (6) The anonymity implied in the formation of the decree "every son," was to create the fiction that not only Jewish babies were to be drowned but all baby boys. This would keep the Jews from thinking that the law was discriminatory. By this stratagem, Jews would not be encouraged to practice continence and thereby deprive the Egyptians of a supply of female slaves. (7) It is normal for any man who wants to get married to choose a partner who is socially his equal or his inferior. In this case, a distant descendant of Levi married a direct descendant of Levi, i.e. the husband's social position would be inferior to that of his wife. The unusual nature of this match deserved mentioning. Since Amram had not attained the position of leadership until his children had reached the status of being prophets, he is not yet mentioned by name. This view is supported by the fact that when his wife was engaged by the daughter of Pharaoh to nurse the baby Moses, she is also treated as an anonymous lady, her status not yet having become public knowledge amongst the Egyptians. (8) The fact that the Torah states that Yocheved described Moses as "good," proves that he was born prematurely. Other Jewish mothers giving birth to babies after full pregnancies would consider such babies as "doomed" rather than as "good." It is the very fact that Moses seemed perfectly normal and healthy, in spite of being premature, that gave rise to the plan to hide him, something that could be done with relative safety until the end of the ninth month of Yocheved's pregnancy. During those three months, Yocheved dressed as if she were still pregnant, thus allaying any suspicions. After that, either because of suspicious neighbors or the increasingly loud voice of the baby, such stratagems could no longer be applied successfully. Yocheved hid Moses in exactly the place where Egyptian child murderers would normally cast out the babies they had murdered. Perhaps Yocheved felt that if a special fate was in store for her baby, this exposure might trigger the events leading to such a special fate. This is the reason Moses’ss sister stood nearby waiting to see what would happen. The Midrash suggests that placing the potential savior of Israel in the Nile, would mislead Egyptian astrologers into concluding that the dreaded danger to Egypt had already passed, and that therefore the decree concerning indiscriminate child murder could be revoked (Midrash Rabbah). (9) The fact that the princess's attendants walked elsewhere along the river, explains why the princess herself who was accompanied only by a single attendant sworn to loyalty, did not need to fear that her act of mercy would be reported. It was this fact that enabled Moses’ss sister to approach and suggest that the princess might wish to employ a Jewish nurse to tend the baby. Because of the decree, and the probable search if she would be seen bringing home a baby, the princess agreed to have the baby raised amongst his own people, initially. (4) When the child was eventually brought to Pharaoh's palace, the decree against baby boys had already been lifted. Moreover, we see the marvellous ways of the Lord, who arranges for the arch enemy of the Jewish people to raise their savior in his very own palace. (10) The Egyptian whom Moses slew was one who used to strike his Jewish victim habitually, and Moses had awaited an opportunity to find him when no other witnesses were present. That is why he looked in all directions. The fact that unbeknown to him someone did see his deed, was what caused his surprise on the following day. Moses’s deed was one of the qualifications that fitted him for a role of leadership amongst his people. The second such qualification was his urge to see that social justice should prevail. This is why he involved himself in the quarrel between Jews on the morrow of his having slain the Egyptian thug. (11) Permission to kill a pursuer in self defense is contingent upon such pursuer not having killed his intended victim as yet. Once an act of murder had already been committed, the regular procedure involving a trial of the murderer has to be followed. The rasha, wicked person, believed that Moses’s use of the words "Why are you going to kill your fellowman?" was designed to give Moses the pretext to kill him as a rodeph, pursuer. He therefore said, "Are you saying this in order to establish a right to kill me?" (2,14). The reason for Moses’s fear was either that he had been unaware that the killing of the Egyptian had been witnessed, or that his real identity of being a Jew rather than an Egyptian prince had become known. Either way the "so the matter has indeed become known," does not need aggadic interpretation. (12) The daughters of Yitro may have been in the habit of watering their flocks before the arrival of the male shepherds for reasons of modesty, so as not to have to spend long hours in the company of the male shepherds. The latter misinterpreted the motivation of those girls, thinking they wanted to demonstrate their superior social position as daughters of the presiding priest and claim special privileges. Therefore, on that particular day, the male shepherds decided not to acknowledge such privileged status of Yitro's daughters. They did this by using water drawn by the girls to water their own flocks, rather than the flock of Yitro. Moses assisted the girls on that day, and explained to the male shepherds the true motivation of the girls, thus restoring a harmonious relationship. This was evidence of a third qualification of Moses as a leader. He stepped into the breach when he observed injustice being perpetrated on the weak and downtrodden. (13) The first son was not called "Eliezer," signifying that G-d had saved him from his pursuers, since at the time his pursuers were still very much alive and had not abandoned their efforts to apprehend Moses. On the contrary, Moses wanted to indicate that the fact that he lived in a country other than his birthplace was quite involuntary. The letters in the name "Gershom" when re-arranged spell megurash, expelled. Before Moses’s return to Egypt, when G-d had told him that all those who had wanted to kill him had died (4,19), he called his second son, born around that time, Eliezer, to acknowledge gratefully that events had taken such a favorable turn.
_.34.1.12
(14) The passage about "these many days," refers back to the extended period starting with the death of "the good old Pharaoh." Ever since, Jews had sighed, i.e. complained about their suffering, but had not called out to G-d for salvation. Once they did appeal for salvation, i.e. vayitzaku, their prayer found an echo in G-d’s ears, especially so since it was min ha-avodah, because of the enslavement. They had ample justification for appealing to G-d to save them from such persecution. We find similar flashbacks in Genesis 39,1 (also Genesis 28,10, when the Torah reverts back to events previously discussed). The meaning of the word avodah the second time in our verse is "worshipping," not bondage. Once the relationship with G-d becomes one involving worship, then "G-d knew, G-d saw etc.", G-d will respond to entreaties.
_.35.1.2
"MOSES WAS TENDING THE FLOCK"
_.35.1.3
Midrash Rabbah Shemot 2, interprets Proverbs 30,5, "Every utterance of G-d is refined and pure," to mean that G-d does not grant man elevated status until such man has been examined in trivial matters and has passed such examination. So it was, for instance, with David, who let his sheep graze in the desert so as not to benefit from robbery, i.e grass owned by some individual. His brother Eliav had said to him, "Why did you abandon the few sheep in the desert?" (Samuel I 17,28). G-d said to David, "Since you have been faithful concerning the sheep, come and be in charge of My sheep" (Psalms 68). We also find that Moses led the sheep behind the desert to remove himself from suspicion of stealing. Subsequently, G-d took Moses to tend His people. See Psalms 77, "You have guided Your people like sheep at the hands of Moses and Aaron."
_.35.1.4
Maimonides, in his Moreh Nevuchim Chapter 32, Section 4, points out that the attitude of people to the institution of prophecy is similar to their attitude to creation ex nihilo. Those who cannot accept the latter, cannot accept the former either. They cannot accept that G-d is free to grant the status of prophet to whom He wants. The believers in creation ex nihilo, however, face no such difficulty and can accept that the gift of prophecy is bestowed by G-d on whom He chooses whenever He chooses. According to the Greek philosophers, if the necessary moral and other qualifications are present, prophecy status follows automatically. According to Jewish belief, G-d’s freedom to grant prophecy to a person who possesses the proper qualifications remains unimpaired. It is a little difficult to understand Maimonides who says that the failure of a person with the right qualifications to be elevated to the status of a prophet is a rare occurrence. Let us accept the premise then that prophecy is something most exquisite, unique, and belongs to the wonderful endowments that are beyond natural law. It is granted by G-d as a reward for the highest degree of closeness to G-d, which the person selected as a prophet had attempted to establish. This is the reason why original Adam already needed to observe commandments, by means of which he could attain that relationship with his Creator both qualitatively and quantitatively. We find this in increased measure with Noach, and in still greater measure with Abraham, of whom G-d said "for I know him, so that he will command his sons and his household to observe the ways of the Lord and to practice righteousness and justice" (Genesis 18,19). G-d related to Abraham via the institution of prophecy not because of his superior mental faculties, but because "Abraham listened to My voice" (Genesis 26,5). This is why we find the same characteristic amongst Israel and not other nations. As we say in Psalms 147, "He has not done so for any other nation." However, the prophet and his stature is interdependent with the people amongst whom he lives. The people influence his own stature either positively or negatively. The Talmud Sukkah 25 tells that all the students of Hillel deserved the same degree of Divine inspiration as had been granted Moses, but since their peers did not deserve it, it was withheld from them. The presence of a prophet in a given society is itself a gift for that generation. G-d explained to Jeremiah, when the latter was despondent because his prayer for rain had not been answered, that if he could lead his people to prayer before the Lord, he himself could prevail also. Under the existing conditions however, even the intercession of a Moses or Samuel would be quite ineffective, (compare chapter 15 in Jeremiah) As a concession to Jeremiah, G-d lowered the ante, saying that if Jeremiah could at least separate the relatively good people from the thoroughly rotten and corrupt ones, he would have some degree of success. “you will be My mouthpiece." (Jeremiah 15,19) All this means that the people amongst whom Jeremiah laboured, had an impact on his ability to be close to G-d. At the same time, G-d exhorts Jeremiah not to slacken in his efforts and to persevere in his mission. The point made is that as long as Jeremiah is seen to be involved with the people, there is a chance that they will turn to him; should he allow himself to become remote however, there would be no chance whatsoever. For these reasons, prophets throughout the ages have not been of equal stature, each having operated in a different environment from that of his colleagues. Each respective environment left its imprint on the respective prophet's personality. Many of the qualities and attributes that a person lacks, can be compensated for by devotion and dedication, which in turn leads to the gift of prophecy from G-d. This is proven conclusively by the experience of the Jewish people when they stood at the foot of Mount Sinai and said the famous words "we shall do and we shall listen." (Exodus 24,7) The Talmud in Nedarim 38, says that prophecy does not reside within a person who is not strong, wise, wealthy, etc., which suggests that G-d confers the gift of prophecy only on those who demonstrate their eagerness to translate theory into practice, either by way of their minds or their physical endowments. "Wisdom" helps to create wholesomeness of form in matters requiring study and contemplation of religious truths. In the words of Kohelet 7,12, "wisdom makes its owners come truly alive." Without this "wisdom," everyone is like a corpse, and it is not the corpse who can sing the praises of the Lord, (compare Pslams 115) Once man has achieved this relative level of perfection, he can go on ascending by degrees and will become endowed with prophetic powers as a reward for and result of his own efforts. Daniel chapter 8 from verse 15 onwards, describes this process. "When I, Daniel had seen the vision and I sought understanding, then, behold there stood before me the likeness of a man." He explains that because of his intense desire to gain greater insights, the vision was granted to him. The word "man" implying an intermediary, refers to the angel Gabriel whom Daniel mentions first of all. The Talmud Berachot 25, explains that G-d grants wisdom to those who are intelligent already. This is illustrated by a parable in Kohelet Rabbah I, about the wealthy merchant who would display his wares only before the well to do, not before those who would not squander their money. Similarly, G-d does not bestow the gift of prophecy on shallow minded individuals on whom such a gift would be wasted. Therefore, we find in Exodus 31,6, "and in the heart of every wise-hearted person have I given wisdom." Divinely inspired wisdom would be paired with natural intelligence to help in constructing the materials needed for building the tabernacle in the desert. The Mechilta tells that anyone who lacked sight on one eye could not experience giluy shechinah, the revelation at Mount Sinai. This is what Daniel meant (chapter 10,7) when he said: "I, Daniel alone saw the vision; the people who were with me did not see the vision, but a great fear overcame them and they fled into hiding." Although Ralbag describes all this as being part of the vision, no one else having in fact been present with Daniel at the time, he does not cite any proof in support of his thesis. We will therefore assume that the verse is to be understood literally, i.e. as an actual occurrence. Daniel describes the progress of how prophets receive direct communication from G-d. First, it is received by the brain alone; it does not spread to the other faculties. On the contrary, it confuses them so that Daniel says "I had no strength left," standing on hands and knees. Later he stood on his feet but trembled; still later he stood on his feet but was dumbfounded. Finally, he was told chazak vechazak, grow stronger and stronger! (verse 19) At that point Daniel was able to reply and invite verbal communication. All this proves that proper prophetic insight and communication from G-d, requires physical strength and health. The relationship between body and mind is described like the relationship between the brain and the men who were with Daniel at that time. The latter symbolise the physical attributes. Wealth also belongs to the matters that help prepare perfection in one's external needs. Food, drink, clothing are all prerequisites for study and contemplation in an atmosphere of serenity. In Deuteronomy chapter 29, Moses stresses that during all the forty years Israel had been in the desert, G-d had not only provided food and water, but ensured that the people had adequate clothing, shoes etc. This proves that the provision of one's physical needs is a prerequisite for the successful pursuit of spiritual attainments. These three points were appreciated by the king of Babylon when he ordered to have Jewish children of aristocratic parentage brought to his Court, children who had no physical blemish, were intelligent and able to absorb the most intensive training in the Chaldean language. The king ordered these children to be given daily rations of food. He mentioned two specific physical attributes that were required in order that these children would qualify for that program, but stressed three additional mental attributes. The words va-yeman hamelech, the king provided, sound very similar to the word man, the food the Israelites ate in the desert. (Daniel 1, 3-6) In this connection it is interesting to note the instructions given to king Saul by the prophet Samuel immediately after he had anointed Saul. We read in Samuel I 10,2-6, "when you depart from me this day, you will meet two men at the grave of Rachel, in the territory of Benjamin, at a place called Tzeltach. They will say to you... the she asses you have come to search for, have been found. Your father has stopped worrying about the matter of the she asses and worries instead about you, saying "what can I do about my son?" Go from there quickly, you will come to Elon Tabor where three men seeking the Lord at Bet El will meet you. One of them carries three young goats, one of them carries three loaves of bread, and one of them carries a hose filled with wine. They will greet you and give you two loaves of bread which you should accept from them. After that, you will come to the hill of G-d where the Philistine representatives are stationed. When you arrive at the town, a band of prophets will encounter you from the altar. They are carrying musical instruments and prophesy. The spirit of the Lord will come over you also, and you will join them in prophesying. You will be turned into a different person." The reference to the she asses symbolises material wealth. (Jacob had said "I have acquired oxen and donkeys," Genesis 32,6) The second symbol, physical well being, is represented by the two loaves of bread Saul was to accept and consume. This was in order to give him physical strength. The third sign, that of the musical instruments, is symbolic of the medium that would enable him to receive Divine inspiration. We see this point confirmed in Kings II 3,15, when the music put the prophet Elisha in the mood to receive Divine communication. These three otot, signs, enable a person who is so equipped to become capable of receiving Divine inspiration. A causal relationship definitely exists here. Once one has received such Divine inspiration, definitely exists here. Once one has received such Divine inspiration, one becomes a person of different stature. The prophet Samuel had told Saul something of great importance when he said to him "do for yourself whatever you think yourself capable of, for the Lord is with you." (verse 7) The message is that Saul should not be satisfied with what he had achieved up to that point, but see it as a link in a chain to still greater achievements he should strive for. Jeremiah expresses a similar thought (Jeremiah 9,23) when he calls out "let not the wise man boast of his wisdom, nor the wealthy of his riches etc., but if he must boast, let him boast about the degree of closeness to Me he has attained." The lesson is that we are never to consider the possession of any attribute as an end in itself, but only as an aid towards realising our task in life. Another interpretation of that verse in Jeremiah could be that G-d says "I, the Lord, find the performance of deeds of loving kindness, justice etc. appealing, as distinct fom the splendid isolation in which philosophers like to wrap themselves, ignoring the supposedly "lower" masses." When Elijah departed this world and Elisha was consecrated as his successor, the former describes three journeys he had to undertake. A great deal can be learned from that. (Kings II chapter 2) It is worthwhile noting that the destinations of the three journeys are progressively further away from the center of the land of Israel. Since the Shechinah resides in Israel, one would have expected these journeys to focus progressively on sites nearer the heart of Israel, the holy Temple etc. It appears that Elijah was desirous of matching the stature of Moses. Therefore, G-d sent him to the area where Moses had been buried. His first journey to Bet El was to signal that he should not use his physical attributes to traverse the length and breadth of the country and to enjoy such a trip physically, but he should go to Bet El and benefit from the wisdom of Torah and Avodah. Just as the physical exuberance and strength of children tends to be sapped in school when they apply all their energies to their studies, so the concentration on spiritual values would sap the physique of Elijah. He hinted to Elisha that his mission was merely to walk to Bet El, to the presence of the Shechinah, and to remain on the threshold of the house of G-d. He asked Elisha to consider seriously if he was able to subjugate his whole body so that it would be employed only in pursuit of spiritual values. Elisha's reply, of course was "by your life, I will not abandon your path." Afterwards Elijah said to Elisha that G-d had ordered him to go to Jericho. We know from the book of Joshua that all the captured loot from the captured city of Jericho had been declared "holy to the Lord," the metal going to the temple treasury, the balance being burned. (Joshua chapter 6) This was a hint to Elisha that all material wealth is useful and permitted only when it is put in the service of the Lord, if such a person wants to attain the perfect character that leads to the gift of prophecy. Here too, Elisha responded that he would remain at Elijah's side, and he accompanied him to Jericho. After that, Elijah said to Elisha that G-d had sent him to the river Jordan, which must be symbolic of the intense longing for wisdom. Our sages paraphrase the thought by saying "eyn mayim ela Torah", the only water that really quenches thirst is true Torah knowledge. Solomon expresses it in Proverbs by saying "drink water from your true fountain," i.e. your Creator. (Proverbs 5,15) Elijah impresses upon Elisha the importance of clinging to wisdom with the utmost tenacity, never to be satisfied with what had already been achieved. Elisha was tested to see if indeed he could walk on the waters of the river, thereby displaying an achievement surpassing that of Elijah's other disciples. Elijah gave of his spirit to him and not to the others, some of whom had not even reached the level of going to Bet El. Whereas Bileam is a prime example of the misuse of natural endowments and wealth, Moses is an example of someone who was endowed with all the attributes mentioned, employing them all exclusively in the service of G-d and his great mission. For this reason, he merited to rise to the highest level of prophecy possible. G-d explained this when Miriam and Aaron discussed Moses in a disparaging manner. (Numbers chapter 17, see details on this in chapter 76). It is this subject matter that our sages had in mind when they quote Rabbi Samuel son of Nachman in Vayikra Rabbah 1, as saying that the eighteen commandments involving erection of the tabernacle corresponded to (a) the eighteen vertebrae in our spine, (b) the eighteen benedictions in our central prayer the amidah, (c) the eighteen remembrances in the keriyat shema and the eighteen remembrances in Psalm 29. We need to understand why the number eighteen is so central to this statement. It will be demonstrated that all eighteen relate to the physical and material attributes needed to achieve the goal of perfection. None are to be used except in the service of G-d given directives. The attributes of physical beauty, strength, health and dignity of bearing, are symbolised by the eighteen spinal cords which are the backbone of all that is important physically, without which even upright posture is impossible for man. The eighteen commandments involving the erection of the tabernacle mean that we must serve the Lord by employing all our physical endowments when constructing the tabernacle, the prefabricated equivalent of the Temple. Concerning the use of one's health in an approved manner, this is expressed by prayer, seeing that all these matters are the subjects of the requests we make in our central prayer the amidah. As the Mishnah in Avot expresses it, "we temporarily abandon eternal life in favour of the prerequisites of life on this planet." This statement was made concerning those who indulge in unduly long prayers, stressing their requests for material blessings. Concerning attributes of mind and spirit, all of which are subsumed under the heading "wisdom," our sages say that these are symbolised by the eighteen remembrances contained in the Keriyat Shema. It is obvious that all paragraphs deal with aspects of faith in one way or another, as well as knowledge of, love and reverence for G-d. The ultimate perfection, the goal of which is understanding of G-d to the maximum extent that it is given to humans to achieve, is found symbolised in the eighteen remembrances contained in Psalm 29. This Psalm beautifully describes both maasseh merkavah and ma-asseh bereshit, i.e. esoterics and the story of Creation. As we discussed in the previous chapter, perfect praise can be bestowed only by one who is himself perfect to the extent that such perfection is attainable by his species. Anyone who conducts himself perfectly in these four areas, (the 4-times 18) and leads a saintly life, qualifies for being called upon by G-d, is called EL, an elevated being. After having completed the tabernacle, G-d called Moses EL, i.e. "vayikra el Moshe (Leviticus 1,1). This was in reward for having performed "ka-asher tzivah hashem et Moshe,” exactly as G-d had commanded Moses. After Moses had built the palace for the King, as it were, he was invited to come into the palace. From all the foregoing we have potent proof that prophecy resides only within those who possess the qualifications discussed, and who use those qualifications properly. If a Moses who had been endowed with outstanding natural attributes, required all these preparations to achieve his highest stature, how much more so must others not so generously endowed at birth labour before they can qualify! The Midrash Shocher Tov on Psalm 19, goes to some length to explain how Moses, while he was in Heaven "for forty days and forty nights," could distinguish between day and night. The point, of course, is to make us aware that even a man who had risen to the level of Moses, could never become completely oblivious to conditions of life as they are on earth. The Torah needed to tell us only that Moses remained on or above Mount Sinai for forty days, and we would have concluded that the nights were included. The emphasis on the word "nights" then suggests that he remained aware of the difference even when in a world where such differences do not exist. (Jonah's having remained inside the whale for three days and nights is a different situation).
_.35.1.5
One of the basic characteristics of a prophet's personality is "humility." The Talmud in Avodah Zara 20, enumerates a list of personality traits, the highest of which "humility" is the one which leads one to "holy spirit," ruach hakodesh. The need for a prophet to possess first and foremost the normal attributes of man, can be understood simply. If someone were not familiar with natural laws, he would not realise that the heat of fire burns most materials. He would thus not be impressed if he saw Chananya and companions not being burned to a crisp in the fiery heat of Nebuchadnezzar's furnace. Such a phenomenon (miracle) would thus not lead such onlooker to acknowledge that a power greater than nature was at work here. Similarly, anyone unfamiliar with the laws of gravity would not be astounded when he observed the hail G-d brought upon the Egyptians being halted and suspended in mid air. The need to recognise cause and effect relationships extends equally into the merit/reward, or sin/punishment relationship one observes. This is why Moses was given several "signs" at the beginning of his mission. They were to impress both Pharaoh and Israel. Ordinary wisdom is the first step leading to recognition of the gevurot hashem; the mighty deeds of the Creator. Ordinary people tend to recognise the extent of a miracle when they observe something affecting a multitude of people such as the splitting of the sea, the Nile turning into blood etc. They are less impressed when they see a staff turning into a snake, a hand becoming leprous on command etc. Wise people, i.e. the elders, will recognise that it is not the size or the length of time of a supernatural occurrence that reflects the power of its perpetrator, but rather to what extent natural law is being defied. For that reason many nissim nisstarim, hidden miracles, testify to G-ds power in equal measure, but it requires a degree of insight to comprehend this. G-d told Moses to demonstrate two miracles (the staff turning into a serpent and the arm turning leprous). In the event that the Israelites would fail to be suitably impressed, He held in reserve the third miracle, that of converting water into blood. (Exodus 4, 1-9) G-d taught this lesson to Saul when Jonathan said to his adjutant that "the Lord will help whether it involves the few or the many." (Samuel I 14,6) Numbers do not impede the ability of G-d to grant success to an enterprise. From this we deduce that whenever a small group defeats a large group,- other factors being equal, -this is a manifestation of a ness nisstar, a hidden miracle, since natural law dictates that the many conquer the few. Experts in natural law make projections based on known factors. When these projections are not borne out, it reflects interference by hashgachah peratit, G-ds personal intervention in history. This in turn must alert a person to the reward and punishment factors that may underly the fact that G-d allowed natural law to be upset. In the words of Isaiah 46,10, "G-d has known the results ever since the beginnings, just as He has been aware since early on what will not materialise." Whatever happens or does not happen reflects the knowledge and active or passive planning of the Lord.
_.35.1.6
When the Midrash we quoted at the outset talked about prophets first having been tested in trivial matters, the trivial matters are the conduct of those people within the framework of natural law. The word imrah is to be understood as in "et hashem he-emarta hayom,"(Deut 26,18) you have let G-d be the one whose authority you have accepted. In colloquial terms "let Him have His say." Once this part of the man/G-d relationship has been established, a still closer G-d/man relationship can develop. Two great men were examined for their respective leadership qualities as shepherds, and when found trustworthy in their dealings with sheep, were elevated to greatness, became leaders of men. Proper care of sheep requires two dimensions of knowledge and concern. 1) Proper supervision, provision of the needs of the animals under one's care, individual attention to the needs of the strong and weak respectively; 2) knowledge of their ability to procreate and how to create the optimum conditions for such. We know about the latter point from Jacob. He, the expert, learned that the greatest amount of planning does not guarantee success unless the hand of G-d is on one's side. See his dream, Genesis chapter 31. Moses’s first encounter with the Divine follows closely on the heels of his pre-occupation with the needs of his father-in-law's sheep. (Exodus 3,1) This teaches that Moses had already graduated spiritually from being a leader of sheep, to becoming a leader of forms of life endowed with the power of speech, before he arrived at the mountain of G-d. The vision occurred prior to communication from G-d. Again, at a later stage of his development, we read first "and Moses went up to G-d," (Exodus 19,3) and later "G-d called to him." (Leviticus 1,1)
_.35.1.7
Although we have said that in order to prepare for supernatural knowledge, sound knowledge of natural law is a prerequisite, we find on occasion that this very familiarity with natural law acts as a hindrance to recognising when supernatural events are being invoked in history. Abraham and Sarah both laughed at the prediction of the angel that Sarah would give birth to a son at the age of ninety. They had to be reminded that "hayippaleh me-hashem davar" is anything too wonderful for G-d to accomplish? (Genesis 18,14) Similarly, even the prophet Jeremiah had to be reminded of this very fact when he doubted that the purchase of the field from his uncle was decreed by G-d, seeing that at first glance this ran counter to all that seemed logical. (Jeremiah 32,27). Also, when Moses observed the obstinacy of Pharaoh and the additional burdens imposed upon the Jewish people, (being at the beginning of his career) he turned to G-d asking "why did You cause things to become worse?" Moses had assumed that even when Hashgachah Peratit is at work there has to be logic, i.e. natural law has to be operative side by side. G-d corrected him saying "now you will see,” meaning once the supernatural is at work the very opposite of what natural law dictates may occur.
_.35.1.8
Some problems in the text of our story. 1) Why does the Torah make it appear that Moses arrived at Mount Chorev merely by coincidence? How did this mountain come to be called "the Mountain of G-d?" 2) Why does the verse read "why will the bush not burn," when we had already been told that the bush was already burning? (3,2-3) 3) Why was Moses told to take off both shoes, whereas Joshua at a similar occurrence was told to remove only one shoe? 4) Why all the repetitions in verse 7? 5) Why would Moses describe himself with the words "who am I,” as if insignificant, when in fact he had been a leading figure, not subject to the demeaning experience of bondage, had been educated as a prince, came of superior parentage etc? Why would he take a chance on delaying the redemption of the people by making G-d wait till He would find someone even more suitable? 6) The sign that G-d told Moses as proof that the redemption of the Jewish people would indeed take place and be justified, should have occurred prior to Moses consenting to assume his function as leader! Especially when the sign was to identify the leader, not the One who appointed him! 7) Why did Moses assume and anticipate the reaction of the Jewish people, if he were to appear and claim to be the redeemer? He had said to G-d they would ask him "what is His name"? G-d had not yet even asked him to say one word to the Israelites! Compare verses 7-13. Had Moses waited until he had received G-ds instructions, no question would have been necessary at all! 8) Why does the sequence of the two instructions "when you will say to the children of Israel,” and "go and assemble the people," appear in the reverse order of the events? 9) Why did Moses employ subterfuge, asking for a leave of absence for three days? How could such lack of forthrightness reflect glory on the name of the Lord? Again, the instruction to borrow valuables from the Egyptians at the time the Israelites left Egypt, seems dishonest, since there obviously was no intention to return these valuables? 10) Why did G-d tell Moses in advance that Pharaoh would refuse the request made of him? 11) How could Moses have the effrontery to say to G-d "they will not believe me nor listen to me," when G-d had already said "they will obey you?!" (verse 18) 12) Since Moses had already tacitly agreed to accept the mission by saying "here when I come to the children of Israel etc., how could he say afterwards "I am not a man of words etc.?" 13) How did G-ds reply to Moses "Who gave man a mouth?", help answer Moses’ss question implying that he had obviously not been equipped for such a mission? Why do our sages read into G-ds reply an expression of anger, when in fact the words appear most civil and conciliatory? 14) Why did the angel want to kill Moses? Do we not have a rule that anyone on a mission of a mitzvah will not be harmed either on the way to his destination or on his return? The mitzvah of circumcision did not apply during the journeys of the Israelites for forty years, so why kill Moses for being remiss in the same way? 15) What exactly did Tzipporah mean by her statement? Why is the line "when you go back to Egypt" (4,21) inserted at that point in the story? It seems totally out of place there! 16) Why did Pharaoh say to Moses "I do not know G-d that I should listen to Him and send off the Israelites?" He had already denied G-ds existence! Why did Moses harp on a vision from that very G-d to legitimize his request, when Pharaoh had already denied that such a G-d exists? ‘ 17) What is the meaning of such terms as shotrim, nogssim, shotrey beney yisrael? 18) Why did Moses complain? G"d after all, had told him in advance that Pharaoh would refuse to release the Israelites! 19) Why did G-d say that His name hashem had not yet been made known, when in fact He had identified Himself in this fashion already to Abraham at the first covenant in Genesis 15,1-6? 20) What was the logic in Moses’s argument that if his own people would not respond to him, surely neither would Pharaoh? His own people were under a great strain, forced labour etc.; they had an excuse not to listen to Moses. What excuse did Pharaoh have? 21) Why did the Torah list the ancestry of only the first three tribes in chapter 6,14-27?
_.35.1.9
(1) Leading one's sheep in the best manner possible, utilising all that knowledge of natural law, brings one to the threshold of engaging higher norms, the supernatural. Mount Chorev is described by the Torah as the next step a person achieves, after all preparatory steps for such an encounter had been completed. Encountering such a mountain appears to be the gateway to attaining higher knowledge. The encounter was certainly not accidental. The vision of the burning bush alerted Moses to the fact that there are phenomena which cannot be explained rationally. To gain an insight into the significance of such phenomena, he stepped closer to examine the spectacle. He wanted to know if the fact that the bush was not being consumed was due to its fire being only apparent fire, or whether it was real fire and there was something strange about the composition of the bush itself. (2) Moses then became dubious whether his first assessment about this being a burning bush had been correct, and he wanted to know why such a bush would not be consumed by the fire. The term "burning" in the present tense, reflected only his original impression. He wanted to know what it is that looks like fire and yet does not "burn" i.e. disintegrate, become consumed. (3) When G-d saw Moses approach, He called to him as elokim, i.e. the midat hadin, attribute of justice, telling him that this was not the moment to step closer. First he had to remove his shoes. As long as natural law operates, the shoe has to be fitted to the size of the foot. Once on holy ground, Moses was taught that effect no longer represents the result of cause as it does in natural law. The removal of both shoes was necessary, one representing the ability to defeat enemies by supernatural means, the other to provide sustenance for the Jewish people by supernatural means. Joshua, whose people did not receive their sustenance by supernatural means, had to remove only one shoe, to signify that his enemies would be defeated by supernatural means. Another aspect of the lesson learned was that although Heavenly fire is more powerful than natural fire, as evident from Elijah at Mount Carmel, Gideon and the fire that consumed the sacrifices on the altar, the burning bush which represented such Heavenly fire was not destructive in nature as is the case with natural fire. Even if we accept the whole vision as a lesson teaching Moses that the acceptance of G-ds mission would not harm him, the lesson that once one is exposed to G-ds personal Providence no protective clothing is needed, is sufficient. Those who are close to G-d qualify for the promise "for He has commanded His angels to guard you, to carry you on hands so that your feet will not be hurt." (Psalms 9,11) The holiness of the site demonstrated that contact with holiness did not by itself cause harm to man. For this reason, we have a tradition that Jews used to walk barefoot on the Day of Atonement, just like angels. Before such a lesson has been learned, we find both Jacob and Moses afraid when they first realise that they are on holy ground. (Genesis 28,16;-17,Exodus 3,6) Once Moses had convinced himself of the illusory nature of at least some of the so called natural processes, he proceeded to investigate more closely, i.e. sar lirot. By repeating the call "Moses, Moses," he was reminded that there was a limit to what a human being can achieve in this direction, that he had to remain human after all, i.e. "Moses." (4) However, significantly, at this stage it is no longer elokim addressing Moses but hashem. In effect, G-d is saying that until now, though He had, of course, been aware of the sorry state of the Jewish nation, this had been so only in His capacity as elokim. His knowledge had not called for any action on His part. Now that Moses had gained deeper insights, these insights would also benefit Moses’s people. However, at this stage G-d did not refer to eventual entry into the land of Israel being part of Moses’s immediate mission. He seemed to separate Israel's eventual objective from Moses’s ultimate destiny. (5) Since Moses had had to flee for his life from Egypt, he could not see how his appointment would be of benefit to his people. This is not unlike the time the prophet Samuel could not see the point in anointing David, when he was afraid that Saul would kill him. (Samuel I ,chapter 17)
_.35.1.10
Besides, he asks "what good is my taking the Israelites out of Egypt when You are not telling me that I will bring them to the holy land?" G-d answered him in the order of his queries. A) "I shall be with you," do not worry about your life being in danger. B) "This is a sign for you", those who want to kill you are already dead. Concerning the purpose of redemption, the Jewish people will accept the Torah at this Mountain. Concerning their fitness for redemption, this has been discussed in the introduction to the book of Exodus. (6) When Moses seemed to have obtained confirmation of his fears that his mission did not include aliyah, entry into the holy land, he raised numerous objections suggesting that the ultimate redeemer, the one who would complete the task should take over this task immediately. All these objections were couched in diplomatic language, in order to sway G-d. However, Hashem, on His part persevered in trying to persuade Moses to accept the mission offered. Since G-d had identified Himself only in respect to Abraham, Isaac and jacob, not with the name hashem, Moses found reason to question in which way he should identify G-d to the people. So G-d said to him "you may identify Me as "Ehyeh,” the Eternal. This type of identification was to be reserved for the elders, who would understand the double meaning involved. (I exist, though I am not part of existence as commonly perceived) Moses admitted that this would suffice to identify the "sender," but felt that the "messenger" needed further identification to achieve credibility. He was told not to go beyond the identification offered. G-d refused to incorporate aliyah la-aretz, immigration to the holy land in the definition of "Sender." This was not to be revealed to the people at this stage, though it was part of G-ds plan. G-d said to Moses that He did not refuse to let him use the identification Of "G-d of Abraham etc.," but that He was right in that there should remain a mystique beyond that connected with His name. He instructed Moses to describe that mystique in the words "this is My name forever, and this is My memorial for all generations." (7) At this point, G-d turned to the nature of the mission. Since it is possible that the elders are aware that G-d exists and that redemption will occur, they would need to be convinced that Moses was the man who would be the instrument, that he was not a charlatan. They would need convincing that the encounter Moses claimed to have had with G-d, had indeed taken place. Therefore, Moses argued they will not believe me, but they will believe You, but they will argue that You did not appear to me. The elders do know that the gift of prophecy exists for those who are deserving, but how do they know that I am deserving? For this reason G-d gave Moses the miracles to establish his credibility with the elders of Israel. G-d then turns to Moses telling him that his request from Pharaoh should be only that the Israelites would leave Egypt. Although the whole redemption syndrome traditionally embraces also return to the land of Israel, Moses’s mission was restricted to the first part of that process, the departure from Egypt. In this way too, the obstinacy of Pharaoh would be demonstrated more dearly, since he refused even such a relatively minor request. The refusal to make any concession to Moses, in fact to enact new and harsher decrees, would serve as the legitimisation for subjecting Pharaoh to the plagues. (9) G-d implied that if Moses would ask Pharaoh, revealing the extent of his plans, Pharaoh would certainly not grant permission. Since even by using subterfuge, Pharaoh did not make the concession of allowing the people a brief holiday of three days duration, the penalty of the plagues would be more than justified. Had the Jewish people left Egypt for only a few days, as originally requested, borrowing valuable trinkets without arousing suspicions of the owners would hardly have been possible. Under the circumstances, however, the Egyptians would be happy to see the Israelites depart and would compensate them for the real estate they left behind by a few trinkets. This would not appear to them as a bad trade at all. The expression venitzaltem, commonly translated as "you will empty," can also mean "you will have ample excuse." In the event that anyone considers your taking these items as "stealing," let them remember what you left behind in Egypt. Alternatively, these trinkets can be considered as a goodwill offering on the part of the Egyptians, seeing that this is the spirit in which these items will be offered to you. (10) G-d tells Moses all this already at this stage, though the time for executing all these plans was still some time away; however, once knowing what had been planned, would give the Jewish people a chance to observe where the Egyptians kept their valuables. Since Moses still argued that the Jewish people would not believe him, G-d provided him with three miracles to help him identify himself. Miracles can come in three different forms: A) Something which seems impossible according to the laws of physics, such as turning iron into wool. B) Something that could conceivably be converted, given enough time, happening instead instantaneously; a piece of rotten wood will eventually disintegrate into dust; the dust may eventually serve as a breeding place for a serpent. Telescoping this process into something instantaneous, would be a miracle. C) The simultaneous existence side by side of two elements that are incompatible, such as ice and fire. The least impressive of these three kinds of miracles is number two. Turning wood into a serpent is remarkable only because of the instantaneous nature of the conversion. Should this kind of miracle not suffice to convince the elders, miracle number three, the more impressive one, would be produced. The existence side by side of normal tissue with tzo-ra-at, a form of leprosy, is against all known laws of physics and chemistry. Lastly, the completely unbelievable transformation of water into blood, would be convincing in the event the first two miracles failed to convince the onlookers. G-d was quite right then in emphasizing the progressive nature of these miracles. The Israelites would be impressed by the cumulative effect of what they were watching. Possibly, Moses had to prove three points to his people. A) G-d had chosen him as the instrument of their deliverance. This was proved by turning dead matter, wood, into living matter, a serpent. Who else but a prophet had such power? B) He had to prove that the people would be liberated; this was proved by healing that which was beyond known medical cures, i.e. the itzora-at. C) He had to prove that G-d would punish the Egyptians for their treatment of the Jewish people. This was demonstrated by smiting their source of life, their water supply. In this manner all three parts of the message Moses was to deliver to the people in the name of G-d became credible. (11) After it had become obvious to Moses that his mission would be lengthy, that it would encounter many obstacles, he said to G-d that his inadequacies in speech dated back to his birth already, but he had not mentioned same as long as he did not think that such an impediment would become relevant to discharging his mission successfully. Now that G-d Himself had revealed that Moses’s mission would be time consuming, extend over weeks or even months, he thought it was appropriate to mention this shortcoming of his. It could complicate the success of his mission further. (13) G-d answered Moses that if he had thought that his impediment was due to some other power, he should have appealed to that power. If, on the other hand, he was aware that his handicap emanated from G-d, it should be obvious that if G-d did not think the handicap was relevant to his being appointed, it should not really concern him either. Should Moses’s mission fail, on account of that defect, the blame would surely not be placed on Moses, but on G-d. Therefore, G-d would assist Moses in whatever he would say by providing a spokesman for him. In this way, everyone would be aware that all Moses’s utterances stemmed from G-d, since he himself did not possess the natural ability or fluency to present the case of the Jewish people. For this very reason, G-d did not remove Moses’s handicap. (12) Moses said "send the one who will be that intermediary." He had understood G-ds words "I shall be with your mouth," that not G-d Himself would assist him, but an intermediary. Since Moses himself was a shaliach, intermediary, he suggested that the other intermediary might as well carry out the whole assignment. Moses considered himself as only incidental to that other prophet, who he thought would also complete the part of the mission that called for the Jewish people to return to the land of their ancestors. (13) G-d became angry at hearing this, and He told Moses that the other prophet in question was Aaron, whose function would be to serve as Moses’s mouthpiece. Moses was reprimanded about feeling that the presence of another prophet would detract from his own glory. He was told that that very other prophet, his older brother, was already on the way to meet Moses, and would rejoice at the fact that Moses had been chosen as the redeemer. The unselfish nature of Aaron is stressed.
_.35.1.11
Midrash Shemot Rabbah 7, quoting Job 33,29, teaches that man is offered three opportunities to do teshuvah, penitence. Should he fail to take advantage of any of the three opportunities, he will cause himself to be punished for the first opportunity he had missed. This is demonstrated by Moses, who raised objections to his mission three times. After Moses had failed to accept G-ds proposal without reservation three times, G-d spoke to him strictly, and he had to share the revelation with Aaron, i.e. "G-d spoke to Moses and Aaron." (6,13) It seems that Moses had intended to conceal the nature of his mission from his father -in-law Yitro, saying only "I want to go to my brethren." When Yitro said "go in peace," thus giving his consent only for Moses himself, (not his family) Moses was forced to ask permission to take his family with him. (14) Moses took his wife,- a mistake. This is why the angel tried to kill him. The son should have been circumcised at home and on time, and he should have left both his wife and his son at home. Taking them along indicated that he put his love for his family ahead of his sense of urgency for the mission. This may be the opinion expressed in Nedarim 32, "that because he busied himself first at the inn," a euphemism for having marital relations. The doubts concerning the respective priority of circumcision and the resultant delay in his mission, or the urgency of the mission and the resultant delay in circumcision, arose only because of misplaced priorities in the first place. If it was alright to send his family back at the mere suggestion of Aaron, surely he had no business to have taken them along in the first place. (15) Tzipporah realised that Moses had failed in this respect, and proceeded with the help of hints from the angel to remedy her husband's error. (Rashi) When she saw her husband's life being endangered, she said- concerning her son- that his birth had been surrounded by blood and misfortune; when the angel desisted from attacking Moses, she called that blood the "blood of the covenant," a bridegroom whose “bloodiness” had turned into "blood of circumcision." This was in recognition of what had first seemed to be disaster, "you are a bridegroom of blood for me," turning into a source of joy. This shows that Tzipporah related the entire incident to her son from the beginning. The son had been born after G-d had told Moses that all the people who sought his death had already died. This is the reason Moses called him Eliezer, meaning that G-d had saved him from the sword of Pharaoh. From that moment on, Moses had complete confidence that no hostile force (Satan) would interfere with him, and that his mission would be successful. When Moses and Aaron came to the elders of the nation, they displayed the miracles in support of the claim of their mission. The elders believed; subsequently, the people believed also. After that, Pharaoh displayed obstinacy at the first interview, so that Moses would be able to display G-ds might against him. (16) Pharaoh's argument was that even assuming such a G-d as Moses had claimed had appeared to him, existed, such a G-d would certainly not have the right to demand that an entire nation would be given a holiday. Moses explained that this G-d was an ancestral G-d whose revealed instructions to His tribe dated back to the times of Abraham, and to serve whom Israel had a longstanding obligation. Failure to do so would result in their being punished by this G-d with pestilence, which in turn would prove more harmful for Pharaoh's economy than a mere three days' leave of absence. Moses and Aaron used an intelligent approach, which however, fell on deaf ears. Pharaoh was afraid that if he gave in to a relatively minor request, he would soon be faced with much more far reaching demands. Besides, he did not believe that the denial of Moses’s and Aaron's request would indeed result in the Jews having to suffer punishment at the hands of their G-d. He told Moses and Aaron to go about their business, fearing that when the people saw Moses and Aaron idle, they would themselves feel like idling. He told Moses and Aaron that since they did not have to perform any tasks for the Egyptians, they should at least attend to their personal affairs. The verse about the "for the people of the land are numerous and you want to make them idle from their work" (5,5), was not addressed to Moses and Aaron within their hearing. It is quoted merely to tell us what transpired in Pharaoh's mind, that he was motivated by the millions of working hours lost to the Egyptian economy if he permitted this vacation. Had there been a relatively small number of Jewish slaves, as had been the case earlier, he could have entertained the thought of such a work stoppage for a few days, but not now when such large numbers were involved. Besides, he reasoned, if it had been necessary to outwit the Jews when relatively small numbers of them posed a potential threat to us, how much greater is such a threat now when they have become so much more numerous. For all these reasons, Pharaoh decided to increase the workload. Since asking for production of a greater number of bricks was patently unrealistic in view of the already heavy quota, he decided to make the conditions for producing these bricks tougher. The means employed was to deny some of the raw materials, i.e. the straw, an essential part of the mudbricks. (17) By instructing the nogssim and shotrim not to supply the straw, but to let the people go to the fields and gather their own, he made it appear as if he was giving some relief, not having at first said anything about the daily brick quota to be delivered. He soon made it plain, however, that this gathering of straw could not be done at the expense of the number of bricks to be formed each day. The nogssim and shotrim were obliged to give the people the bad news that the work quota had not been reduced. (95,11-12) From the question of the nogssim to the shotrim why the latter had not delivered the agreed upon quantities yesterday or the previous day, it appears that the nogssim and the shotrim had to overlook the shortage during the first couple of days. This was in order to make it appear that they were not inhuman and wicked as had been assumed. When they suddenly demanded extra work to make up for the previous shortage, the shotrim began to comprehend the extent of the wickedness of the nogssim. (verse 19) The Jewish labourers could not imagine that such instructions had been issued from the palace, and they turned to Pharaoh for relief. They were bitterly disappointed to hear that these orders had indeed come from the highest authority in the land. Complaining to Pharaoh about the physical violence they had had to endure at the hands of the nogssim, they were told that this was due to their laziness. When they encountered Moses and Aaron, knowing that the latter meant well, they said that maybe G-d now would punish the Egyptians seeing that He had allowed "your mission" to backfire. They hoped that the shame that Moses and Aaron had brought upon themselves by their futile efforts, would galvanise G-d into action on their behalf. (Answers to questions 18-21 are part of Va-eyrah)
_.36.1.2
"G-D SAID TO MOSES, I WILL TOUGHEN THE HEART OF PHARAOH."
_.36.1.3
Rabbi Pinchas son of Chana explained the verse "He who announces the outcome at the outset, and beforehand things that have not yet occurred, says: "My counsel will prevail and I will carry out all My desires" (Isaiah 46,10). Anyone reading this verse might think that there are competing powers in Heaven; why else "all My desires I will carry out?" The meaning, however, is that G-d tries to find justification for all His creatures. He does not wish to find the wicked guilty, as we read, "You are not a G-d who takes pleasure in lawlessness." When G-d foretold Moses that Pharaoh would demand a miracle, He did not say "if Pharaoh will request a miracle," but "when Pharaoh will request a miracle." This is taken to mean that Pharaoh was within his rights to request such a miracle. If righteous people such as King Hezzekiah or Gideon requested signs from G-d, a lesser individual such as Pharaoh surely cannot be faulted for demanding that Moses prove both himself and his Sender, i.e. the One in whose name he claimed to speak (Tanchuma Parshat Nasso).
_.36.1.4
Every nation or society has a set of weights and measures which are the yardsticks for fair trade and commerce. If anyone tries to pervert the system, the original weights and measures can quickly be used as a means of comparison, and help re-establish the true measures etc.
_.36.1.5
The objective yardsticks of ethics and morality are the laws given by G-d. When David prayed "Grant, O Lord, to Solomon Your justice, to the king Your righteousness," it is as if David had prayed for Solomon to be granted that objective yardstick of justice which is reserved for the Lord Himself. Proof that this prayer was granted is found in Chronicles I 29,23, "Solomon sat on the throne of G-d as king, replacing his father David.” The first example of Solomon having been granted this Divine yardstick of justice, is the story of the two mothers who accused each other of having switched babies (Kings I Chapter 3). If human yardsticks were to be applied, the mother in possession of the surviving baby should have been awarded custody, since the other mother had no proof to offer. Solomon's initial decision to cut the living baby in half, and divide it between the two claimants, runs counter to Talmudic law, i.e. the example of two people each holding on to part of a garment, since in this case possession had not been shared. Obviously then, Solomon only used this to demonstrate that the ultimate decision was inspired by a superior logic, i.e. G-d’s. The idea of dividing the baby was so abhorrent to Rabbi Yehudah bar lla-i, that he says only a minor could have come up with a decision like that (Solomon at the time had not yet reached his thirteenth birthday). Rabbi Yehudah applied the verse in Kohelet 10,16, "Woe to the country that is ruled by a child." The same people who were aghast at a decision that would have resulted in the death of the surviving baby, hailed Solomon's eventual decision. This reflects the verse in Kohelet 10,17, "Hail to the country whose ruler is truly free." The Midrash stating that the words "she is his mother" were spoken by a Heavenly voice teaches that Solomon's decision was indeed the correct one. Solomon's initial verdict did not even correspond to the Talmudic principle of gud o agud (Baba Batra 13), which stipulates that in cases where physical division of disputed property would result in irreparable loss to either litigant, division of the disputed property is to be arranged in kind. It is clear that suspension of the Divine system of justice would result in perversion of justice, since our yardsticks of comparison would vanish. When only a small section of mankind indulges in false morality, the result, while damaging, might help to restore true morality elsewhere. To the Jew, Abraham's query "Shall the judge of the whole earth not do justice?" (Genesis 18,25) is not a question of "if," but a question of “how.” The fact that G-d’s morality is objectively true morality is axiomatic; our concern is only with attempting to comprehend some of its aspects. The premise is "the Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice" (Deuteronomy 32,4). Similar statements can be found throughout the Bible. If we become too perturbed when enquiring into apparently unjust occurrences and one forgets this premise, then the danger of heresy is very real, and one can no longer claim to be a searcher for truth, but becomes a doubter of truth. This is the lesson the prophet Chabakuk (2,4) teaches, "The righteous lives by his faith." We proclaim the truth of G-d both by day and by night immediately following the shema yisrael, "hear O Israel," prayer.
_.36.1.6
Yet one may strive to understand why the generation of Jews in Egypt was subjected to such a cruel fate at the hands of the Egyptians and Pharaoh. Especially, are we entitled to do so, since scripture does not offer a list of specific wrongdoings of the people? The author rejects many solutions offered by his predecessors as being inadequate. Most of those explanations would violate the principle of our freedom of choice in one form or another. The author insists that statements such as "he went down to Egypt," ((Deut. 26,5) or "and Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt," (Joshua 24,4) have to be understood at face value, and confirm that the move to Egypt was entirely voluntary, not preordained in any way. It is interesting that throughout the events leading up to the arrival of Jacob in Egypt, G-d ascribes all happenings to Himself, except this last one (compare Joshua 24,3): "I took your father, I multiplied his seed, I gave him Isaac. I gave Jacob to Isaac,” but "Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt."The statement G-d made to Jacob while the latter was on his way to Egypt (Genesis 46,3), "Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt," is to be understood as permission, as an assurance of G-d’s continued support. Just as the spies Moses had sent out to check out the land of Canaan were not prevented from setting out on their mission (Numbers Chapter 13), so Jacob was not prevented from going down to Egypt. According to all this, the statement on the occasion of the covenant between the pieces (Genesis 15,13), "Know that your seed will be a stranger in a land that is not theirs etc.," was simply a piece of information to Abraham, not an evil decree. The Torah, by not stating that this occurrence would be due to Divine intervention, as could have been implied by such statements as "I will make them strangers" or "I will bring them down to Egypt," draws our attention to the fact that this was merely an announcement of an event in the future, but was not a decree. The most difficult example in the series dealing with the apparent suspension of free will is the repeated statement by G-d, "I will harden the heart of Pharaoh" or "I have hardened the heart of Pharaoh," as found in the chapters dealing with the ten plagues (Exodus Chapters 4-10). On the other hand, we find that repentance by even the worst sinners is readily accepted, such as the repentance of Achav and Menashe, son of Chiskiyahu (compare Kings I 16 and Kings I 21, Kings II 21, Chronicles II 33,13). The Bible describes those two as being wicked par excellence; yet in the case of Pharaoh it seems that whenever he began to repent, obstacles were placed in his way to prevent him from repenting effectively. The author argues against Maimonides's view (Hilchot Teshuvah 6) that wickedness is cumulative, so that at some point the sinner forfeits his right to free will. The author feels that the repeated missions to Pharaoh by Moses would have been wasted, had they not been intended to produce a change of heart in Pharaoh. Also, since G-d had already told Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3, 19) that Pharaoh would not release the Israelites of his own accord, this had been prior to any mention having been made that "I will harden his heart."
_.36.1.7
Shemot Rabbah 7 states that G-d revealed the course of events to Moses so that the latter would not be dumbfounded by the apparently counterproductive results of his mission to Pharaoh. Even so, Moses was appalled, asking G-d: "Why have You caused things to get worse since I have come to Pharaoh?" This is what Solomon meant in Kohelet 7,7, "Oppression causes the wise to become foolish." Even a Moses can become confused in his faith when confronted by excessive oppression and apparent injustice. At any rate, G-d ascribes Pharaoh's obstinacy to Pharaoh himself, not to Divine interference. Maimonides's reason for Sichon King of the Emorites having been denied the exercise of free will when he denied the Israelites passage through his country seems inadequate. Why was his sin worse than that of the kings of Edom and Moab who did not have their freedom of choice interfered with according to Maimonides (compare Deuteronomy 2,30)? Most difficult however, is the thought frequently expressed in scriptures that the gates of repentance are never closed (Jeremiah 3, Psalms 25, to quote but a few).
_.36.1.8
The Ramban's approach that, having refused to repent during the first five plagues, Pharaoh was no longer entitled to repentance, is also not considered satisfactory, even though it is based on Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in Shemot Rabbah 17. The proof for that view, namely the changes in grammar describing Pharaoh's obstinacy during the first five plagues as being self-induced, and that during subsequent plagues as being induced by G-d, (distinctions such as vayechezak versus vayachazek- 7,15, 9,12) would force us to believe that Moses was told in advance that at some stage Pharaoh would no longer be a free agent, that because he only mouthed thoughts of repentance without meaning them, G-d would force him to act in accordance with his true feelings. This is also what Rashi meant in his commentary on Exodus 7,3. The problem with this approach is that if G-d knows that the sinner does not plan to repent, why interfere with his decisions? His actions would automatically expose him to further punitive action by G-d. Surely it would be viewed as a greater success for G-d if His creatures are forced by circumstances to comply with His wishes! If this is indeed what happened after the tenth plague, what reason do we have to assume that Pharaoh's last pronouncement was any more sincere than his earlier ones? In fact, G-d would have delayed the deliverance of the Israelites by having interfered with Pharaoh's free will! For this and other reasons, the author prefers an approach supported by many Midrashim which state clearly that there had been no interference with Pharaoh's free will. Any person guilty of a variety of crimes, deserves a number of penalties to square the account. Even a single act can be a multiple offense, punishable by several penalties, such as the consumption of a hornet (Makkot 16). Pharaoh, having committed a variety of crimes against the Jewish people, had to endure a string of chastisements. Intervals between administering these various punishments were needed, so that he did not escape the impact by being unconscious at the time some of the punishments were inflicted. When each stage of the punishment is not as severe as it could be, namely resulting in probable death, the victim is far less likely to really repent. The major incentive for repentance is fear and terror. When this incentive is absent, the psychological climate for remorse has not been created. When the Torah in Deut 13,12 says, "All of Israel shall listen and be afraid, and will not continue to do such in your midst," the objective is twofold: a) destruction of evil by destroying the perpetrator; b) to frighten the population out of imitating the wrongdoer. Were the wrongdoer to be welcomed as a repentant sinner, all the onlookers would lose all their restraint and proceed to sin and expect to escape the consequences. This is the reason Moses’ss and Aaron's repentance did not help when they had publicly desecrated G-d’s name by striking the rock instead of talking to it (Numbers 20,12). Our sages (Yuma 86) tell us that when a sin includes chilul hashem, public desecration of the holy name of G-d, all the conventional ways of repentance do not help without the addition of the sinner's death. Only in this manner can atonement become complete. In Pharaoh's case, a period of respite between the plagues was mandatory, as otherwise he would not have received all the chastisements due him. The crimes of maltreating a people whose founder had been the savior of Egypt and whose only crime against Egypt had been their high birthrate, is unforgivable. The progressively harsher measures enacted against this people called for strong punitive action by G-d. The "great judgments" of which G-d speaks to Moses at the burning bush are these acts of multiple retribution. The Egyptians had been aware that the Jewish people were loyal to their G-d. Their whole behavior then was a rebellion against G-d, and as such it was not likely to lead to repentance. Since it was G-d’s stated purpose to convince the Egyptians that He was (1) a deity, (2) a power controlling the earth, and (3) a deity the like of which did not exist on the whole earth, the torture visited upon Egypt had to be staggered in such a way as to allow the Egyptians to recover from blow after blow and to absorb their lesson in the end. All the references made in the Torah to G-d hardening the heart of Pharaoh etc. have to be understood as the recovery Pharaoh was allowed to make between the plagues, so he could be made to feel the full impact of the next instalment. The Talmud in Makkot 10 produces proof from all parts of the Bible that the path in life a person wishes to take he is allowed to travel, i.e. freedom of choice is absolute. An example is the prophet Bileam who was first told by G-d not to accompany the messengers of Balak, but who, once it had become clear that he had made up his mind to go with them, was permitted to proceed (Numbers 22,12-20). The reference of Avshalom preferring the advice of Chushai, (Samuel II 17,14) is another such example. The classic example would be the deliberate turnabout by the Jewish people in the desert when facing Baal Tzefon (Exodus 14,1-3). All these examples illustrate that G-d does indeed provide opportunities for sinners to err, to draw false conclusions which will enmesh them in further difficulties. At the sea of reeds also the Egyptians chose to interpret that a twelve hour wind that had dried out the bed of the sea was a natural phenomenon and that the bottom of the sea was as safe for them as it had proved to be for the Israelites. It was in this indirect manner that G-d encouraged the Egyptians to fall into the trap He had set for them.
_.36.1.9
The observation about G-d having hardened the spirit of Sichon King of the Emorites, which was referred to earlier, is to be understood in a similar vein. Sichon, who had observed that Israel seemed to have avoided battling the Moabites or the Edomites and had detoured around their respective countries, concluded that Israel's motive had been fear. Thus he felt encouraged to assume a militant posture. This resulted in his defeat and the conquest of his lands by the Israelites. But there had been no interference with his freedom of choice.
_.36.1.11
To return to the quotation of the Midrash, at the outset of our chapter: One cannot escape the feeling that the words "My counsel will prevail," suggest that there are at least other counsels than the one of which G-d says that it will prevail. The true meaning seems to be that it was G-d’s original plan to create man equipped with freedom of choice. The reason for this was that only in this manner would man attain the ultimate moral stature that he wished him to attain. What G-d is saying therefore, is that ultimately His plan will prevail, since it had not been His primary objective to foil the plans of the wicked, but to help man to achieve righteousness. "G-d was pleased because of His righteousness" (Isaiah 42,21). The idea then that G-d Himself would impede man in attaining his moral perfection by interfering with his opportunity to do the right thing would be intolerable. Rabbi Yehudah wants to make it clear that the request for a sign from G-d is not evidence of obstinacy or lack of freedom of choice, but is a method employed even by prophets and worthy people to assure themselves that they are doing the right thing. That is why Moses and Aaron were told at the outset that Pharaoh would ask for such signs before negotiations could enter the substantive stage. Isaiah 7,11-12 teaches that, on occasion, failure to ask for such a sign can even be accounted as sinful. The concept is that when such requests for signs from G-d are made at the beginning, G-d provides such signs; when repeated requests are made, however, that violates the commandment "Do not test the Lord your G-d." (Deut 6,16). Pharaoh should have listened the first time around, when Aaron's staff swallowed the staffs of all the magicians. Turning scoffer instead of repenting, he had only himself to blame if he misread future signs at one stage or another in his reflections. The very fact that each plague contained an element that a recalcitrant spirit could seize upon in order to draw faulty conclusions, is the midah keneged midah, punishment which fits the crime, principle in action. It is this aspect of G-d’s justice that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish has in mind when he said that as a result of Pharaoh's obstinacy, G-d gave him additional opportunities to be still more obstinate, so that it appeared as if G-d Himself had hardened Pharaoh's heart.
_.36.1.12
Some difficulties in the text of our story: 1) Chapter 7,3-4 seems to contain superfluous verbiage. If Pharaoh would not listen, he would obviously not release the Israelites. 2) Having produced the miracle of the reptile swallowing the staffs, why did G-d send other miracles that the magicians could duplicate? 3) An examination of the three groups of plagues suggests that each successive group was less miraculous than the previous one. The reverse would have been expected! 4) Pharaoh's reactions seem puzzling from a psychological point of view. Sometimes he reacts to the impact of a plague; other times he reacts to the impact of the relief from the plague. Why? 5) Why did G-d say on the occasion of the plague of hail, "This time I will send all My plagues against you" (9,13)? After all, hail is only one plague! If G-d wanted to kill the Egyptian's livestock, why suggest that they make them take shelter? 6) When Pharaoh asked Moses, "Who are those who want to go?" why did Moses not simply say, "The whole nation" instead of the cumbersome, "With our youngsters and with our old folk we will go"? 7) In Chapter 7,25-26, Moses states, "You too will give us offerings that we will present to the Lord our G-d, and also our cattle will go with us." The order seems inverted. Surely taking their cattle is the more important of the two statements! 8) What gave Pharaoh the courage to finally threaten Moses (10,28) when he had never done so previously?
_.36.1.13
(1) The reason the Torah lists the ages of Moses and Aaron at the time they began their mission in Egypt, is to show that at that time they had ceased to be merely important persons in their own right, but had become instruments of G-d’s will. When Aaron's staff swallowed those of the magicians, Pharaoh, in his obstinacy, chose to interpret this as merely a difference in the calibre of Moses’ss and Aaron's magic as compared to the magic of his own magicians. He refused to see in this the legitimization of Moses and Aaron as messengers of another deity. Thus, G-d demonstrated to Moses and Aaron the rigidity of Pharaoh's state of mind. (2) Subsequent plagues were designed to make him more responsive. The plague of blood had the avowed purpose of demonstrating "so that you know that I am G-d," the first principle Pharaoh had denied when Moses introduced himself as a messenger of G-d. At that time, Pharaoh's reaction had been "Who is G-d?" (5,2). This query was to be answered by the conversion of water into blood. The plague established then that Moses was indeed a messenger of someone who could command nature in this fashion. The first few plagues were designed to demonstrate to the magicians that Moses’ss source of power was the same as theirs, namely G-d. In addition, the fact that Moses was able to call off a plague, not just to bring it on, should have convinced them of his superior powers. The Egyptians' desire to keep the Jews enslaved, was, however, stronger than their newly gained insight into the powers of the G-d of the Israelites. They were aided in this rejectionist approach by having found ways to circumvent the effect of the plague by digging for new sources of water in the ground. During the second plague, though the magicians copied it, the inconvenience was such that they asked for the plague to be called off. This was Pharaoh's first concession. Pharaoh acknowledges the existence of G-d, since he asked Moses to pray to Him. He implied that if Moses could call off the plague, something his own magicians had been unable to do, then he, Pharaoh, would acknowledge the fact that the plague did originate with G-d. He would then let the Jewish people go. Since Moses realized that Pharaoh was trying to test G-d, he allowed himself to boast and let Pharaoh set the timetable. This was in order that there could be no doubt as to who had made the frogs die. When Moses accepted Pharaoh's timetable, he added the words "so that you will know that there is no G-d like our G-d." Moses emphasized that the frogs would remain only in the river, to make it plain that nature would resume its normal course, that frogs would not be removed except as a plague. Pharaoh reneged, perhaps since the magicians had not yet admitted their own inability to duplicate Moses’ss feat until the third plague. Because of Pharaoh's having reneged, the third plague arrived without prior warning. If Pharaoh would respond to this plague by acknowledging the existence of G-d as well as His uniqueness, then this phase of plagues could be considered as concluded. (3) Even though Pharaoh had acknowledged G-d’s uniqueness at the end of the third plague, he had not yet acknowledged that a special relationship existed between Israel and G-d, and that Moses therefore had the right to demand the freedom of the Israelites. The fact that Moses was commanded to give Pharaoh warning of the fourth plague, meeting Pharaoh at the river, shows that G-d wanted him to know that he was aware of Pharaoh's intention to avoid just such a meeting. The plague would show that G-d could act arbitrarily on earth and at the same time distinguish between the part of the earth inhabited by the Israelites (8,18). The fifth and sixth plagues demonstrate the same point in varying degrees. Even the livestock of the Israelites would enjoy special protection by their G-d. Even microbes, bacteria, in the case of the sixth plague, would not harm Jews. Precisely because this was the purpose of these plagues, no new and unknown phenomena could be used to demonstrate the power of G-d. The fact that these plagues had been predicted to occur within a certain time frame, demonstrated that G-d was their author. Pharaoh's reaction, suggesting that the Jews serve their G-d within the country, is his response to Moses’ss statement that G-d is master in the whole land. Moses’ss reply to Pharaoh's unspoken question, "Why do you have to leave the country to do your worshipping?" is that the attitude of the Egyptians poses a threat to the Israelites' safety, especially when the Egyptians would become aware of the nature of the sacrificial service intended. From an objective point of view, service to G-d in Egypt would be possible. Moses, careful not to refer to an eventual return to Egypt, phrases his demand very vaguely, stating only that they would get their instructions from G-d. Pharaoh agrees, adding that they should pray for him also. Moses agrees to call off the plague, warning Pharaoh not to default on his promise again, and he agrees to pray for Pharaoh immediately, not at a distance of three days' march (8,21-26). (4) Pharaoh remains unrepentant also after this awesome display of G-d’s power as demonstrated by the strange immunity of the Jewish people to the invasion of the wild beasts. As a result, this group of plagues has to run its full course to teach Pharaoh a further lesson. The immediate reason for Pharaoh's astounding reversal may be due to his rationalizing the absence of the wild beasts' invasion of the land of Goshen being due to the particular area rather than the people living in it. After all, Moses had stressed that the miracle would occur "in the land of Goshen" (8,18). To cure him of this misconception, the plague of pestilence would not be restricted to certain areas, but cattle belonging to Egyptians that were grazing in Goshen would be struck, whereas cattle owned by Jews grazing in Egypt proper would remain unharmed. This would debunk Pharaoh's theory that makom gorem mazzal, that a certain location can be lucky or unlucky. Pharaoh still had doubts, ascribing good luck to the owners of these cattle rather than to a deliberate act of Divine intervention. Therefore, the third in the series of these plagues found the magicians unable to protect even themselves against the impact, much less to offer relief to anyone else struck by it. Pharaoh still does not admit that G-d’s power is more than local, and the third series of plagues will disabuse him of that fallacy: "So that you will know that there is no one like Me on the whole earth" (9,14). It was necessary to include amongst these plagues both qualitative and quantitative phenomena that would place them outside previous human experience. Thus G-d would demonstrate that He could alter the laws of nature. These phenomena had to be predicted both as to when and as to how they would occur, in order to provide absolute credibility of both messenger and Author. (5) When the Torah states prior to the plague of hail (9,14), "This time I will send all My plagues," the message is to acquaint Pharaoh with the fact that G-d’s power extends way beyond the boundaries of Egypt. Since the prime object of the plague was to demonstrate power, an opportunity to escape the immediate consequences could be allowed. The result of this plague was that Pharaoh, for the first time, acknowledged his guilt and G-d’s righteousness (9,27). When Pharaoh, in 9,21, states that "there is no need for further thunder from G-d," he meant that there was no need for G-d to teach him any further lessons, that he had become adequately convinced. That was the reason he asked Moses to pray for him, and why he offered to dismiss the Jewish people. Moses was audacious enough to point out that in his personal opinion further lessons would prove necessary (9,30). By including Pharaoh's servants in his comments, Moses in his wisdom had hoped to galvanize Pharaoh's servants into some action, since their own destruction would result should Pharaoh continue in his obstinate attitude. This explains the servants' remonstrations during the eighth plague (10,7). Pharaoh's latest reversal may have been induced by the hope that the unheard-of phenomena pointed at an imminent worldwide cataclysmic event, after which his fortunes would change for the better (his interpretation of the horoscope).
_.36.1.14
Parashat Bo
_.36.1.15
(3) In Chapter 10,1-2, G-d explains to Moses that the very order in which the plagues occurred accounts for Pharaoh's continued obstinacy. This was not outside interference in Pharaoh and his servants' decision making process. Moses was commanded (10,3) to threaten the onset of yet another plague, explaining that this time there would not be a display of power originating in Heaven, but rather there would be a demonstration that G-d operates at will within nature. Since Pharaoh, in his desperate search for causes other than G-d’s deliberate actions, had fooled himself into believing in the imminent arrival of the millenium, he would be forced to concede his error. The unique nature of this occurrence then was stressed by Moses (10,14; 10,6). This kind of locust never had been seen, nor would it ever be seen again. During the plague of hail, mention had been made that it was new; no word had been said, however, about it not occurring ever again. This had lead to Pharaoh's error. This time, care is taken to predict the uniqueness of the event so that Pharaoh could not again pretend that it augured a new order in nature, such as after the deluge. Since the Exodus of the Jewish people was to follow shortly, it did not matter that the locust also invaded Goshen, since the Israelites would not be there by harvest time anyways. After announcing the plague as punishment for Pharaoh's continued rebelliousness, Moses leaves the presence of Pharaoh to give him and his servants time to reflect. After some discussion at Pharaoh's Court, Moses is brought back, and the release of the Israelites to worship their G-d is authorized. (8) The snag occurs this time when Pharaoh finds out that not only male adults would go (10,9). Moses is accused of bad faith, Pharaoh claiming that it had now become apparent that the whole negotiations from the start had had as their purpose the permanent departure of the Jewish people from Egypt ("For this is what you are seeking," 10,11). The newfound repentance evaporates quickly, and for the first time Pharaoh treats Moses with disrespect, believing himself to have been wronged. As a result, Moses brings on the locust. Since this plague arrived without preamble, Pharaoh immediately summons Moses and Aaron. This time he does not only admit wrongdoing, but apologizes to Moses for his behavior. Again he asks Moses to pray to remove "this death" from Egypt. Moses responds without waiting for the customary promise that his people would be released. The wind is reversed, the locusts disappear utterly, giving Pharaoh a chance to view the whole event as due to the operation of winds rather than ascribing the phenomenon to its true author, the prime mover of all winds. Darkness follows immediately, showing that the very atmosphere is the victim of G-d’s anger, and creating a physical barrier to the movement of the Egyptians for a period of three days (10,23). Pharaoh calls Moses, and for the first time volunteers to release all the people, barring only their livestock. Pharaoh has come a long way, seeing that he makes this offer without the threat of yet another plague overhanging him so far. Thus the aim of the third group of plagues, "so that you know there is no one like Me on the whole earth," has been achieved. Since the plague of darkness had ended without supplication by Pharaoh to Moses and by Moses to G-d, his new humility is indeed remarkable. (7) He cannot yet understand why the Israelites wish to take their livestock, even though Moses had mentioned on occasion that they would slaughter for G-d. Pharaoh felt that he had responded completely to G-d’s demands, and that the demand to take the livestock along must have come at Moses’ss own initiative. When David lists the ninth plague as the one in which Pharaoh did not rebel (Psalms 105,27-8), and lists it ahead of all the other plagues, it may well be that he wants to emphasize this very point. The reason for the omission of the plagues of pestilence and skin sores in the same Psalm may well be similar. In both instances, neither refusal nor obstinacy are mentioned in the Torah; therefore they did not fit the categories of rebellion cited in that psalm.
_.36.1.17
The lack of confirmation by the Torah that shortly after leaving Egypt the Israelites slaughtered sacrifices wholesale makes Pharaoh's incredulity at the statement that all the livestock would be demanded by the Jewish G-d appear more plausible. The Torah also does not report that Pharaoh did indeed supply animals of his own to be slaughtered on his behalf as predicted by Moses (10,25). To prove that Moses’ss demand that not a hoof would remain in Egypt was indeed a Divinely authorized demand and not merely a ploy by Moses to bait Pharaoh, a further plague had to be announced. On the one hand, feeling sure that Moses had overstepped the bounds of what was reasonable, Pharaoh threatened to kill him should he dare to appear before him again. He refers twice to previous statements by Moses such as "as you said" (12,31; 12,23). The first may refer to what he had perceived to be G-d’s instructions, the second to what he believed to have been Moses’ss own intiative. Moses announces the time and extent of the next plague to justify himself and announces that instead of his coming to Pharaoh's Court, the order will be reversed, and Pharaoh's ministers will come to the Jews pleading for them to leave. The final plague combined the three elements that have characterized the previous three groups, and this is the reason verse 13,15 refers to the obstinacy of Pharaoh causing him to suffer this plague. The creation of new criteria, i.e. the selection of only the first borns as victims, is suggestive of the "I am G-d" demonstrated during the first three plagues. The distinction between the houses having the blood of the Passover sacrifice on their doorposts, and those that did not, corresponds to the second group of plagues, when G-d left Jewish residential areas or Jewish property unharmed. The uniqueness of the event, never to be repeated is representative of the lesson contained in the third group of plagues.
_.37.1.1
LESSONS IN FAITH TO BE LEARNED FROM THE PRACTICE OF SANCTIFYING THE NEW MOON.
_.37.1.2
"This month shall be unto you the beginning of months"

Akeydat Yitzchak by Eliyahu Munk. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: http://www.urimpublications.com Licence: CC-BY. Source.