Parashath Va-Yëhi (Genesis XLVII,28-L,26) 1/6/12

A.

In this last parasha of Genesis, the patriarch Yisra’él is nearing his death, and calls to his sons: האספו ואגידה לכם את אשר יקרא לכם באחרית הימים (“...Come together and I shall tell you what will happen to you at the end of days”; XLIX, 1). He then proceeds to describe each of the shëvatim which would arise from them. Concerning Yëhuda he said, inter alia: לא יסור שבט מיהודה ומחוקק מבין רגליו עד כי יבוא שילה ולו יקהת עמים (“The staff will not pass from Yëhuda, and legislators from between his legs, until Shilo will come; and his is the allegiance of [the other tribes]”; ibid., 10).

Commenting on the first clause in this verse, Ramban cites the Yërushalmi as saying that Kohanim should not be appointed kings. To the best of my knowledge, this occurs in two places in the Yërushalmi (הוריות פ"ג ה"ב וסוטה פ"ח ה"ג). Rather than quoting Ramban’s paraphrase, this is the language of the Yërushalmi (both citations are essentially the same): אין מושחין כהנים מלכים אמר רבי יודן ענתונדרי' על שם "לא יסור שבט מיהודה". אמר ר' חיי' בר אדא על שם "למען יאריך ימים על ממלכתו הוא ובניו בקרב ישראל". מה כתי' בתרי'? "לא יהי' לכהנים הלויים." (“One does not anoint kohanim kings. Said Rabbi Yudan, 'Its explanation is according to "The staff shall not depart from Yëhuda...."’ Said Rabbi Hiyya bar Ada, 'According to "...in order that he and his sons have length of days over his kingdom amongst Israel" [Deuteronomy XVII, 20]. What is written after it? "The kohanim, Lëviyyim shall not have...." [ibid., XVIII, 1]'”). In order to remove all doubt concerning the meaning of the passage, both the Pënei Moshe and the Qorban ha-‘Éda, the two major commentaries on the Yërushalmi, tell us that it means (in the Pënei Moshe’s words): אין מעמידין מהם מלכים (“One does not raise up from them kings”).

Which would seem to call into question the whole Hashmona’i enterprise which we have just finished memorialising over Hannukka.

B.

If we peruse the Mishna carefully, particularly Séder Mo‘ed, which deals with the Sabbath and all of the Jewish holidays, we notice a rather glaring lack: There is no Massecheth Hannukka. Moreover, there is not a single mishna (save one brief mention, which will be dealt with infra) anywhere which deals with any aspect of this most quintessentially rabbinic of all holidays (since even Purim is mentioned in the Book of Esther).

There is a well-known explanation of this omission which is attributed to the Hatham Sofér. So far as I know, this explanation does not occur anywhere in the voluminous writings of the Hatham Sofér himself, but is known from secondary sources, in particular a rather controversial biography published by one of his grandsons fifty-odd years after his death (which was sharply criticized by the Minhath El‘azar, the Munkácser rebbe, shortly after it came out), then somewhat later, encyclopædic Séfer Ta‘amei ha-Minhagim u-Mëqorei ha-Dinum, first published in 1891 by Rabbi Avraham Yitzhaq Sperling ז"ל, and in a responsum written by Rabbi Yëhoshua‘ Aharon Tzëvi Weinberger (ספר שו"ת מהריא"ץ סי' ע"ח), a student of the Hatham Sofér’s in his famous yëshiva in Pressburg (modern Bratislava, Slovakia). In complete fairness to Rabbi Weinberger ז"ל, he does not attribute it directly to his rebbe, but he does defend it.

For the sake of brevity, let us quote Rabbi Sperling’s language: טעם שנס חנוכה לא נזכר כלל במשנה, לפי שרבינו הקדוש מסדר המשנה הי' מזרע דוד המלך ע"ה, ונס חנוכה נעשה ע"י בית החשמונאים שתפסו המלוכה ולא היו מזרע דוד, וזה הרע לרבינו הקדוש. ובכתבו המשנה ע"פ רוח הקדש נשמט הנס מחיבורו(“The reason why the miracle of Hannukka is not mentioned in the Mishna, is because our holy teacher [Rabbi Yëhuda ha-Nasi’] was of the line of King David, upon him peace, and the miracle of Hannukka was done through the House of the Hashmo-na’im who seized the kingship, and were not of the line of David, and this seemed bad to our holy teacher. And when he wrote down the Mishna with the [aid of] the spirit of sanc-tity, the miracle was left out of his composition” (ספר טעמי המנהגים ומקורי הדינים עניני חנוכה סי' תתמ"ז).

There are numerous problems with this thesis, as a bit of reflection will reveal:

If the Hashmona’i state which resulted from the events celebrated on Hannukka was in fact a violation of halacha, what would Rabbi Yëhuda ha-Nasi’s ancestry have to do with the omission? The whole incident would simply be illegitimate, and that surely would be reason enough to leave it out of the Mishna.

But if this is so, why should it occur later in the Talmud (שבת כ"א:) at all, and why should we engage in reciting the ‘Al ha-Nissim, whose words relate solely to the miraculous victory won by the Hashmona’im, over the Græco-Syrian forces, or kindle the lights and say Ha-Néroth Halalu in commemoration of the miracle of the oil? To quote the Ram-bam: בבית שני כשמלכי יון גזרו גזרות על ישראל ובטלו דתם ולא הניחו אותם לעסוק בתורה ובמצות כו' עד שריחם עליהם אלקי אבותינו והושיעם מידם והצילם וגברו בני חשמונאי הכהנים הגדולים והרגום והושיעו מידם כו' וכשגברו ישראל על אויביהם ואבדום בחמישה ועשרים בחדש כסלו הי' ונכנסו להיכל ולא מצאו שמן טהור במקדש אלא פך אחד ולא הי' בו להדליק אלא יום אחד בלבד והדליקו ממנו נרות המערכה שמונה ימים כו' ומפני זה התקינו חכמים שבאותו הדור שיהיו שמונת הימים האלו כו' ימי שמחה והלל וגו' (“During the Second Temple, when the kings of Greece decreed decrees upon Israel and nullified their religion and did not allow them to be occupied in Torah and mitzvoth...until the G-d of our fathers had mercy on them and saved them from their hands and rescued them, and the Hashmona’im, the great kohanim, overcame [them] and killed them and rescued [Israel] from their hands....When Israel overcame their enemies and destroyed them it was the 25^th of the month of Kislév, and they entered the Temple and did not find pure oil in the Sanctuary save one can, and there was only enough in it to light one day, and they lit from it the lights of the array eight days....And because of this, the Rabbis of that gene-ration established that these eight days would be...days of rejoicing and praise....”; הלכות חנוכה פ"ג ה"א-ג). The Hashmona’im did not establish the holiday, the Rabbis (surely stick-lers for halacha) did; why did they raise no objection?

Indeed, even if someone thought that there was a halachic reason to object to the Hash-mona’i state, does not the miraculous event in the Temple, all by itself, merit celebration? Does it not validate the equally miraculous victory of the few and the weak against the many and the strong (as the ‘Al ha-Nissim has it) which made it possible?

I submit that we have here a case in which somebody misunderstood a point made by the Hatham Sofér, one of the greatest and subtlest thinkers of modern Jewry. Is it possible to find what he might really have meant, in noting the obvious and otherwise inexplicable omission of Hannukka from the Mishna?

C.

I believe that we can, by reference to the voluminous writings mentioned above.

In his novellæ on the Talmud, the Hatham Sofér takes note of the Mishna’s total omission of all of the halachically valid expressions to be used in granting a divorce, and says: ואל תתמה שהרי בשום מקום במשנה לא נזכר שיניח אדם תפילין ושבגד של ד' כנפות חייב בציצית כו' ולא תנן חייב אדם להדליק נר חנוכה אלא גץ שיצא [וכו' הניח חנוני נרו מבחוץ החנוני חייב] ר' יהודה אומר בנר חנוכה פטור ונר חנוכה גופא היכי הוזכר במשנה אלא רגילים היו בכך וגו' (“And be not surprised, for in no place in the Mishna is it mentioned that a man should lay tëfillin, or that a garment with four corners requires tzitzith... And we do not learn that a person is required to light the Hannukka light, but rather ‘[if] a spark has gone out [from a blacksmith’s shop and started a load of flax on fire...[or] a shopkeeper placed his candle outside, the shopkeeper is liable], Rabbi Yëhuda says, "Concerning a Hannukka light he is exempt" [since the one transporting the flax should have known it would be there; בבא קמא ס"ב: במשנה הראשונה],' but [the obligation] of the Hannukka light itself, where is it mentioned in the Mishna? Rather [everyone] was thoroughly familiar with the matter....” חדושי חתם סופר, גטין ע"ח. דה"מ ואל, וע"ע רמב"ם פירוש המשניות למנחות פ"ד שגם הוא כתב כעין זה גבי כמה ענינים וקצת תמוה שלא הביא חתם סופר את דברי הרמב"ם בחבורו).

Here we see the actual reasoning of the Hatham Sofér regarding the omission of Hannukka from the Mishna, an explanation which applies to many other things which ought to be second nature to any normal Jewish person raised in a Jewish community, and are therefore not explicitly discussed in the Mishna. Indeed, Rambam himself seems to hint at this view when he writes later on in Hilchoth Hannukka: מצות נר חנוכה מצות חביבה היא מאד וגו' (“The mitzva of the Hannukka light is a very beloved mitzva....”; פ"ד הי"ב), and as such should be thoroughly familiar to everyone and stringently observed.

D.

We have, however, not yet dealt with the matter of that puzzling Yërushalmi prohibiting kohanim from being kings and the Hashmona’im. To understand it, we need a bit of background.

The miracles of Hannukka occurred in 3622, according to our calendar; in quick succession, each of the three surviving Hashmona’i brothers became head of state: Yëhuda (3622-3628), Yonathan (3628-3634), and Shim‘on (3634-3642), followed by Shim‘on’s son, Yohanan Hyrkanós (usually called in the Talmud Yohanan kohén gadol), who ruled from 3642-3668. His title tells the story: None of them called themselves kings. They ran the government, to be sure, and were anointed, but they were each anointed in turn as kohén gadol, a post for which, of course, they were perfectly suited by their ancestry.

It was Yohanan kohén gadol’s son, Alexander Yannai, under the baleful influence of the heterodox Tzëduqi sect, who became the first of the Hashmona’im to call himself a king (as Josephus testifies in the Jewish Antiquities).

And so the Torah Tëmima comments on this Yërushalmi: ביאור הענין, כי לכתחילה אין ממנים לעולם מלך בישראל אלא מזרע בית דוד, שכן נאמר בו "כסאך יהי' נכון עד עולם", ורק כשאין לשעתו מלך ראוי מזרע בית דוד כו' אז ממנין משאר השבטים וגו' (“The clarification of the matter is that à priori one may never name a king in Israel save from the line of the House of David, for so is it said of him, ‘Your throne will be established forever’ [II Samuel VII, 16], and only when there is at the moment no proper king of the line of the House of David... then may one appoint from the rest of the tribes”; פרשתנו סי' י"ג).

For most of the last 50 years of the Hashmona’i state, things did not go well; the last of the Hashmona’i rulers, Mattithyahu Antígonos, who ousted his uncle Hyrkanós II in 3721, again claimed only the title kohén gadol (to judge from the coins which he issued during his brief rule, at least), but it was by then too late; the Romans replaced him with the infamous foreigner Herod in 3724.

For only the line of the House of David, father to son, lineal descendants of Yëhuda, can reign in Israel forever.

Parshath Va-Yëhi (Genesis XLVII,28-L,26) 12/17/10

A.

Our parasha’s topic is the last days of Ya‘aqov Avinu: ויקרבו ימי ישראל למות וכו' (“And the days of Yisra’él approached to die [la-muth]....”; XLVII, 29). Accordingly, from his bed, he called to his sons, who gathered about him to hear his last instructions.

ויכל יעקב לצות את בניו ויאסף רגליו אל המטה ויגוע ויאסף אל עמיו: (“And Ya‘aqov finished commanding his sons, and he gathered his legs into the bed, and perished [va-yigva‘] and was gathered to his peoples”; XLIX, 33). Rashi notes that this is not quite what was advertised at the beginning of the parasha: ומיתה לא נאמרה בו ואמרו רז"ל יעקב אבינו לא מת (“And death [mitha] is not said of him, and Hazal said, 'Ya‘aqov Avinu did not die'”).

Certainly the language of our verse differs from what is written of Ya‘aqov’s illustrious forebears. Concerning his grandfather, for instance, we read: ויגוע וימת אברהם בשיבה טובה זקן ושבע ויאסף אל עמיו: (“And Avraham perished and died [va-yigva‘ va-yamoth] at a good old age, elderly and satisfied, and was gathered to his people”; XXV, 8), and of his father: ויגוע יצחק וימת ויאסף אל עמיו זקן ושבע ימים וכו (“And Yitzhaq perished and died [va-yamoth], and he was gathered to his peoples, elderly and sated of days....”; XXXV, 29).

What, then, was different about Ya‘aqov? Why does the Torah not mention “death” concerning him, as it does with regard to the other Patriarchs? How can it be said that Ya‘aqov did not die?

B.

Rashi’s source is the Talmud, where we learn: רב נחמן ורב יצחק הוו יתבי בסעודתא א"ל רב נחמן לרב יצחק לימא מר מילתא א"ל הכי א"ר יוחנן אין מסיחין בסעודה שמא יקדים קנה לושט ויבא לידי סכנה בתר דסעוד א"ל הכי א"ר יוחנן יעקב אבינו לא מת. א"ל וכי בכדי ספדו ספדנייא וחנטו חנטייא וקברו קברייא?! א"ל מקרא אני דורש שנאמר "אל תירא עבדי יעקב נאם ד' ואל תחת ישראל כי הנני מושיעך מרחוק ואת זרעך מארץ שבים". מקיש הוא לזרעו מה זרעו בחיים אף הוא בחיים (“Rav Nahman and Rav Yitzhaq were sitting at a dinner. Rav Nahman asked Rav Yitzhaq, 'Will you say something?' [Rav Yitzhaq] told him, 'Thus said Rabbi Yohanan, "One should not engage in conversation during a meal, lest one put the windpipe before the esophagus and come into danger."' After the dinner, [Rav Yitzhaq] told him, 'Thus said Rabbi Yohanan, "Ya‘aqov Avinu did not die."' Said [Rav Nahman] to him: 'Then did the eulogizers eulogize, the embalmers embalm, and the grave diggers bury for nothing?!' Said [Rav Yitzhaq] to him, 'It is Scripture I am expounding, as it is said, "'Fear not, My servant Ya‘aqov,' says Ha-Shem, 'and be not afraid, Yisra’él, for behold, I am saving you from afar, and your seed from the land of their captivity....’" [Jeremiah XXX, 10]. [The prophet] equates him to his seed: Just as his seed are alive, so is he alive'”; תענית ה).

Rashi explains that G-d is saying through His prophet: שיביאנו כדי לגאול את בניו לעיניו כמו שמצינו במצרים "וירא ישראל וגו'" ודרשינן ישראל סבא ודחנטו חנטייא נדמה להם שמת אבל חי הי' (“that He will bring him into exile to redeem his sons before his eyes, just as we find concerning [the Exodus from] Egypt: ‘And Yisra’él saw...’[Exodus XIV, 31], and we expound it as referring to Grandfather Yisra’él; and that the embalmers embalmed? It seemed to them that he was dead, but he was alive” שם ד"ה אף ). And Tosafoth add: וכן משמע מדכתיב "ויגוע" ולא כתיב "וימת" וגו' “And so do we hear from that va-yigva‘ is written but va-yamoth is not written....”; שם ד"ה יעקב).

Bur Rav Nahman was right: Whilst one might suggest that the eulogizers could eulogize somebody who was still alive, how do we explain the embalming and burial, since our parasha tells us quite explicitly: וישאו אתו בניו ארצה כנען ןיקברו אתו במערת שדה המכפלה וגו' (“And his sons elevated him to the land of Këna‘an and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpéla....”; L, 13)?

The Hochmath Manoah suggests of Rabbi Yohanan and Rav Yitzhaq שרומזים שיעקב אבינו לא מת מיד במצרים אלא בארץ ישראל וזה רמז "הנה אנכי מת בקברי" וגו' (“that they are hinting that Ya‘aqov Avinu did not die immediately in Egypt, but rather in Eretz Yisra’él, and this allusion is found in ‘Behold I am dead in my grave....’ [L, 8]”), i.e., that Ya‘aqov was not yet dead, but lingered on until he was brought to Hevron for burial. Indeed, Tosafoth (op. cit.) go on to cite another Talmudic source wherein we learn of a dramatic encounter at Hevron with ‘Ésav. Another name for Hevron is Qiryath Arba‘, “City of Four,” which is an allusion that there was room for the burial of four couples in the Cave of Machpéla. These were: the First Man and his wife; Avraham and Sara; Yitzhaq and Rivqa; and (as our parasha informs us) Ya‘aqov had already laid Lé’a to rest there (XLIX, 31). Yet, ‘Ésav sought to be buried in the ancestral tomb, and during the altercation, the Talmud tells us, Ya‘aqov opened his eyes (סוטה י"ג.). Hence, he was at that stage still alive.

Yet, the prophet Yirmëyahu is clearly addressing “Grandfather Ya‘aqov,” since the verse is couched in the second person singular; so what does he mean? Says the Hochmath Manoah, כמו שהייתי מושיעך מרחוק כלומר בהיותך במצרים רחוק מא"י הושעתיך "ואעלך גם עלה" כמו שהבטחתיך כן אושיע את זרעך כו' והנה ע"כ צ"ל שיושיע לזרעו להביאם לא"י בעודם בחיים וגו' (“Just as I was rescuing you from far away, i.e., from Egypt; far from Eretz Yisra’él I saved you ‘and surely raised you up’ [cf. XLVI, 4], as I promised you. So will I save your seed.... And it has to be that He would rescue [Ya‘aqov’s] seed to bring them to Eretz Yisra’él while they were yet alive....”). So, Ya‘aqov had been brought out of Egypt alive.

So the Hochmath Manoah shows us a way to reconcile Rabbi Yohanan’s otherwise startling statement with the text of our parasha. This, it seems, is also what Tosafoth mean; whatever va-yigva‘ actually refers to, it is not the final severing of the ties of nëshama to guf expressed by va-yamoth. By leaving out the latter verb, our parasha is in fact telling us that Ya‘aqov may have been in a deep coma, perhaps, such that the embalmers (who surely were engaged only in some external treatments with unguents and oils of various sorts, not what we usually think of as “embalming” which is, after all, the only sort of “embalming” which might be halachically permissible) were fooled, as Rashi wrote.

But what does Rashi mean when he implies that Ya‘aqov witnessed the Exodus, and will yet witness Yisra’él’s final redemption?

C.

Enter the Torah Tëmima.

The Torah Tëmima points out that, were it not for Rashi and, arguably, Tosafoth, we would have no trouble in understanding Rav Yitzhaq’s exposition of Yirmëyahu as לשון מליצי, a metaphoric usage, Various other ma’amarei Hazal already point us in that direction. For instance, elsewhere in the Talmud we learn: דרש רבי פנחס בן חמא מאי דכתיב "והדד שמע במצרים כי שכב דוד עם אבותיו וכי מת יואב שר הצבא" מפני מה בדוד נאמרה בו שכיבה וביואב נאמרה בו מיתה כו' דוד שהניח בן כמותו נאמרה בו שכיבה ויואב שלא הניח בן כמותו נאמרה בו מיתה (“Rabbi Pinhas ben Hama expounded, "What is meant, that it is written, ‘And Hadad heard in Egypt that David lay with his fathers and that Yoav was dead’ [I Kings XI, 21]? Why is it said of David shëchiva [“lying down”] whilst of Yo’av it is said mitha [“death”]? ... David, who left a son like himself [i.e., Shëlomo], it is said of him shëchiva, and about Yo’av, who did not leave a son like himself, it is said mitha”; בבא בתרא קט"ז. ).

Similarly, in the midrash we find: רשב"י אומר כל מי שיש לו בן שהוא יגע בתורה כאלו לא מת (“Rabbi Shim‘on ben Yohai says, 'Anyone who has a son laboring in Torah, it is as though he is not dead'”; בראשית רבה פמ"ט סי' ח).

So the Torah Tëmima calls our attention Rav Yitzhaq’s first pronouncement, and notes that he cannot be speaking simply of talking and eating at the same time, since if he were, he would have quoted Rabbi Yohanan as saying, Éyn sahin, “one does not converse,” instead of éyn mésihin, which has a causative force; i.e., one should not make others talk whilst eating (presumably, one knows well enough not to speak with a mouthful). It is only after the meal that he delivers himself of Rabbi Yohanan’s comment on Ya‘aqov, which sounds so shocking on its face, and indeed, Rav Nahman rises to the bait with his sudden exclamation: Did they not eulogize him, embalm him, bury him?! It was precisely Rav Yitzhaq’s point, concludes the Torah Tëmima, to make it sound as controversial as possible, in order to illustrate the genuine danger which had prompted Rabbi Yohanan to rule against provoking such an outburst – “making someone else talk” – during the meal.

This, then, explains Rav Yitzhaq’s intent in saying what he did, just as the Hochmath Manoah explains Rabbi Yohanan’s intent in the original statement, and leaves us free, therefore, to understand the rest as לשון מלוצו.

Which brings us to the Maharal mi-Prag.

D.

In his Gur Aryeh, the Maharal also takes aim at explaining Rashi’s laconic citation of our first gëmara, and explains that the organic relationship between a father and a son, such that the son owes not only his physical existence, but also the nature and texture of his life, in so great a degree to his father that the tie cannot be nullified even by death, and so it is quite natural to say that so long as the son lives, so, too, does the father.

However, he goes on to say, how much more so is this true when we are speaking of a דבר שיש לו חיות בעצמו כמו שהם זרע ישראל והם חיים קיימים תמידים וכדכתיב "ואתם הדבקים בד' אלקיכם חיים כלכם היום" ודבר זה חיות בעצם. ולפיכך יעקב שהוא אב להם ונקראו בני ישראל במה שהוא מתיחס להם כמו האב והבן ראוי שיהי' בחיים וגו' (“a thing which has vitality in itself, such as the seed of Israel living and flourishing continuously, as it is written: ‘And you who cling to Ha-Shem your G-d, are all of you alive today [Deuteronomy IV, 4]’, and this thing is vitality in itself. And therefore Ya‘aqov, who is a father to them such that they are called bënei Yisra’él in that he relates to them like the father and the son, it is fit that he be alive....”).

This, too, is the thrust of the other ma’amarei Hazal cited supra. If a man makes the effort to learn with his son, to inculcate in him the love of Torah and the sense of its overriding importance, such that his son follows in his footsteps, cherishing Torah, learning and laboring in words of Torah כי הם חיינו ואורך ימינו (“for they are our lives and the length of our days”), as we pray every night, gives his son not mere existence, mere accidental life, but כמה שהתורה היא חיים גם אינו דבר מקרה שיוסר ממנו ואינו כמו החיים האלו שהן חיים מקריים (“just as the Torah is life, it is also not an accidental thing which can be snatched from him, and it is not like this [physical] life which is purely accidental....”).

Such a father, in transmitting his values, is a direct conduit back to Yisra’él sabba, and is a true ben Yisra’él. Our patriarch Yisra’él lives, so long as such Jews live.

Parshath Va-Yechi (Genesis XLVII,28-L,26) 1/7/09

A.

On his deathbed, Ya‘aqov delivers prophetic comments concerning his sons: שמעון ולוי אחים כלי חמס מכרתיהם: כו' כי באפמ הרגו איש וברצונם עקרו שור: ארור אפם כי עז עברתם כי קשתה וגו' (“Shim‘on and Levi are brothers, instruments of violence are their swords.… For in their anger they killed a man and in their willfulness they uprooted an ox. Cursed is their anger, for it is strong, their wrath for it is hard….;" XLVIII, 5-7). Rashi tells us that the word ish, “man” refers to Chamor and the men of Shchem whom Shim‘on and Levi killed in rescuing their sister Dina (cf. XXXIV), and that shor refers to his son Yosef, שנקרא שור שנאמר בכור שורו הגר לו (“who is called an ox, as it is said, ‘First-born, his ox is his glory’ [Deuteronomy XXXIII, 17]”).

It seems a bit surprising that Ya‘aqov, the man of truth (Micha VII, 20) should use the word ish to refer to the evildoers of Shchem, whilst calling his great son a shor, an animal, especially in light of the fact that the term ish is often a term of exaltation and greatness when it refers to the Patriarchs, or mal’achim or even ha-Shem Himself (עיי' למשל ירושלמי סנהדרין פ"י ה"א). Granted the midrashic implications of calling Yosef a shor, it still seems to beg explanation why he should be so called in the same verse which calls resha‘im by the term ish.

B.

In order to answer this question, I intend to expand upon something I wrote two years ago concerning this passage. A short summary of the original dvar Torah follows.

The brothers’ attempt, in Ya‘aqov’s words, to “uproot the ox” was the sale of their brother Yosef into Egyptian slavery: וימכרו את יוסף לישמעאלים בעשרים כסף (“and they sold Yosef to the Yishm‘elim for twenty [pieces of] silver”; XXXVII, 28). If we turn to the Talmud, we find that if one says that he owes a sacrificial animal to the Béyth ha-Miqdash, הרי עלי שור יביא הוא ונכסיו מנהת עגל יביא הוא ונכסיו חמש (“‘I owe an ox’, he brings one which, with its libations, is worth a maneh; a calf, he bring one which with its libations is worth five [sla‘im; Rashi]”; מנחות ק"ז: במשנה ). Elsewhere (בכורות נ. ד"ה קולבון לפרוטרוט) Rashi explains that the Talmudic sela is equivalent to four Biblical pieces of silver (called in Talmudic times dinarin or zuzim). We therefore see that the value of a calf, i.e. a young ox, is 4x5 or 20 pieces of silver, in Biblical terms.

If we now turn to the Rambam we find that a young ox is defined as one between the ages of eight days and one year, whilst an ox aged more than three years is called a zaqén, “elderly” (הל' מעשה הקרבנות פ"א הי"א). That is, a young ox or calf was at most about a third the age of an old one.

Concerning human beings, the mishna tells us בן ששים לזקנה, that one enters into the period of old age at sixty. This means, it seems, that a young man is, at most, a third of sixty, or twenty years old. Note that at the time he was sold, Yosef was seventeen years old (XXXVII, 2), less than a third of ziqna, the human equivalent of a young ox.

This, I suggested, was the real sting of Ya‘aqov’s rebuke: וברצונם עקרו שור,; the brothers had sought to “uproot” their brother by selling him casually and disdainfully at the price of a young animal. The men of Shchem, on the other hand, had been sentenced justifiably, both for the assault on Dina, and then for failing to fulfill their duty as bnei Noach to bring the assailant to justice (עיי' רמב"ם הל' מלכים פ"ט ה"ט וי"ג). They had been treated as human beings.

But there is more.

C.

That Shim‘on and Levi rescued Dina is clear and obvious from the Torah’s text. The same Torah tells us that nine of the brothers were complicit in the plot against Yosef. Why, then. Are Shim‘on and Levi singled out?

The Targum Yonathan to XXXVII, 19-20, tells us that Shim‘on was the instigator of the plot. Although I could find no direct reference to this, I suggested that Levi had been Shim‘on’s partner and confidant, the person whom he addressed before the other brothers became involved.

We established above that ish is sometimes used as a term of exaltation and greatness. What, precisely, does it mean in this application?

We can glean a hint from the mishna, which asserts ובמקום שאין אנשים השתדל להיות איש (‘and in a place where there are no men, try to be an ish” אבוץ פ"ב מ"ה), and Rabbi ‘Ovadya mi-Bartenura clarifies exactly what the function of an ish is in this instance: לישב בראש ולהורות הוראות (“to sit at the headissue rulings”). We see, therefore, that such people as Antigonos ish Socho, Yossi ben Yo‘ezer ish Tzreida, Yossi ben Yochanan ish Yerushalayim, and Rabbi El‘azar ish Bartotha (all mentioned in Avoth) were not merely men from those places, but the rabbinical leaders there.

This was precisely the capacity in which Shim‘on and Levi had acted with regard to the men of Shchem; and what does the Torah say in the verse which the Targum Yonathan picks to tell us of their role in the sale of Yosef? יאמרו איש אל אחיו (“And they said, ish to his brother….”).

D.

The Netziv points out, in his Ha‘améq Davar on our passage (ד"ה כי באפם הרגו איש), that anger (for which the generic term in Hevrew is ka‘as) comes in two varieties, af and ‘evra, both of which find mention in our last verse. Af, he tells us, is sudden blast of temper; though terrible things can result, and one must try to control it, nonetheless it is quickly over, quickly satiated, and usually replaced by shame. ‘Evra, he explains, is the nursed grudge, which goes on long after the initial heat of anger is over. בשעה שנשקע כעסו, אך עבתו שמורה על אותו איש לעשות לו רעה בעת מצוא (“at the time when his anger has died down, but his ‘evra is preserved against that man, to do him harm at an opportune time”). This, Ya‘aqov asserts, is what they had done to Yosef.

It remains to be emphasized that Shim‘on and levi, as well as the others, did complete t’shuva for what they had done to Yosef; demonstrating this was, at least in part, the purpose behind the psychodrama in which Yosef engaged with them, described in the last few parashoth.

What concerned Ya‘aqov, however, was the tendency to act in an angry fashion, whether precipitous in a burst of af, or with premeditation, in ‘evra. The sifrei mussar tell us that even this, generally negative, quality has its uses; as the Netziv continues: בקרב חסידי ישראל נדרש כו' אבל מעט מעט יפה (“amongst the pious of Israel [this quality] is necessary… but a very, very small amount is good”).

For this reason, he decreed, the descendants of Shim‘on and Levi should be scattered amongst the other tribes of Israel, that this quality not be concentrated.

Parshath Va-Yechi (Genesis XLVII,28-L,26) 12/21/07

A.

On his deathbed, Ya’aqov, gripped by the spirit of prophecy, addresses his sons for the last time: שמעון ולוי אחים כו' כי באפם הרגו איש וברצונם עקרו שור (“Shim’on and Levi are brothers... For in their rage they killed men and in their willfullness they uprooted an ox”; XLIX, 5-6).
Rashi interprets the poetic, prophetic mode of speech, telling us that the first indictment concerns the vengeance taken by these two brothers on the prince and citizens of the city of Shchem for the rape of their sister, Dina, and the citizens’ subsequent failure to bring the rapist to justice (cf. Genesis XXXIV), and the second because רצו לעקור את יוסף שנקרא שור, שנאמר "בכור שורו הדר לו" (“they wished to uproot Yosef who was called ‘ox’, as it is said, 'First-born, his ox is a splendour to him;’” Deuteronomy, XXXIII, 17).

However, a little reflection reveals the difference between these two events: In the case of Shchem, Shim;on and Levi really did kill every male citizen of the town for their transgressions, whereas (as Rashi himself brings out) they merely wished to be rid of Yosef; as we have seen over the past few weeks, Divine Providence had other plans, and Yosef came out on top, as the ruler of Egypt. It is a well-established principle that מחשבה רעה אין הקדוש ברוך הוא מצרפה למעשה (“The Holy One, Blessed is He, does not consider an evil thought as the deed;” קידושין מ.); one actually has to do something in order to be judged and punished for it.

So, in what way did they “uproot’ their brother? And why is this laid particularly at the door of Shim’on and Levi?

B.

How does one “uproot” a human being?

If we consider the root of the Hebrew verb which we have translated “uproot,” îqqér, we encounter the word âqar, “barren, childless;” for instance, in Genesis XXV, 21, Yitzchaq prays in the presence of his wife, Rivqa, ki âqara hi, “because she [was] childless.” Hence, one can presumably translate the verb îqqér in connection with a human being as “render childless.”
But wait! The sharp-eyed reader who has been paying attention the last few weeks will note that Yosef married Osnath in Egypt, who bore him two fine sons, Menashe and Efrayim, fit to be counted themselves as tribes of Israel. In what way, then, was Yosef rendered childless?

In our discussion of parshath Va-Yéshev, we noted that Ya’aqov showed his great affection for Yosef by appointing him his bechor, his “first-born.” Aside from his father’s approbation, Yosef was vouchsafed prophetic dreams in which his brothers were seen to bow down to him (cf. XXXVII, 5-11), clearly an indication of Yosef’s superior status in Divine eyes.

The Talmud tells us how deep this superiority ran: הי' ראוי יוסף לצאת ממנו י"ב שבטים כדרך שיצאו מיעקב אביו שנאמר "אלה תולדת יעקב יוסף" (“Yosef was fit to have twelve tribes descended from him, as descended from his father Ya’aqov, as it is said, ‘And these are the offspring of Ya’aqov, Yosef' [Genesis XXXVII, 1];” סוטה ל"ו:). Yet, as we know, this did not happen; Yosef had only the two “tribes,” Menashe and Efrayim. Why?

The gmara explains by referring us to the incident of the degenerate wife of the Egyptian priest, Potifar, who had purchased Yosef from the Yishm’elim when they arrived in Egypt. Yosef quickly rose to a position of trust, responsible for all the affairs of his master, but his master’s wife could not keep her eyes off him, and pursued him relentlessly.

So relentlessly, continues the Talmud, that he nearly gave in: אותו היום יום חגם הי' והלכו כולם לבית עבודת כוכבים שלהם והיא אמרה להן חולה היא (“That day was [an Egyptian] religious holiday and all of them had gone to their temple, and [Potifar’s wife] had told them she was sick”). Thus, she was alone in the house with Yosef.

ותתפשהו בבגדו “and she seized him by his garment...” XXXIX, 12). באותה שעה באתה דיוקנו של אביו ונראתה לו בחלון, אמר לו, יוסף, עתידין אחיך שיכתבו באבני האפוד ואתה ביניהם. ברצונך שימחה שמך ותקרא רועה זונות, דכתיב "רועה זונות יאבד הון" (“At that moment the image of his father came and appeared to him in the window, and told him, Yosef, your brothers are destined to be inscribed on the stones of the breastplate [Exodus XXVIII, 6-21], and you among them. Is it your wish that your name be erased, and you be called a shepherd of harlots? For it is written, ‘A shepherd of harlots will lose wealth’ [Proverbs XXIX, 3]”)
.
Yosef’s resistance stiffened: מיד נעץ אצבעותיו בקרקע (“Immediately he dug his fingers into the ground”), until the passion passed. But it was already a little late, and the fatal attraction was at its height. As a consequence, Yosef lost ten of the twelve sons which he had been destined to sire (עשרה בנים פחתו לו ליוסף כנגד מעשה עשר אצבעותיו, ע"ע בגמרא וברש"י שם). Only Menashe and Efrayim would be born.

Now, when Ya’aqov beheld Yosef’s torn and bloody coat, he exclaimed חי' רעה אכלתהו (“An evil, wild animal has eaten him!” XXXVII, 33), and Rashi reveals that at that time נצנצה בו רוח הקדש, סופו שתתגרה בו אשת פוטיפר (“A spark of prophecy glimmered in [Ya’aqov] that eventually [Yosef] would be challenged by Potifar’s wife”). Ya’aqov was not permitted to see what was actually going on, but he knew that Yosef would face a potentially fatal challenge to his modesty, and that the challenge would be due to the actions of the brothers. Hence, in a very real sense, by placing Yosef unnecessarily in this compromising situation, they had rendered him an âqar, losing ten of the offspring which had been allotted him by Divine Providence.

But that was due to the actions of nine of the brothers; so why does the Torah pin it on Shim’on and Levi?

C.

When we examine Yosef’s ordeal and triumph through the lens of the Oral Torah, it becomes clear that Shim’on was the prime instigator of the brothers’ animosity. In a revealng comment on Genesis XLIX, 24, Rashi says of Shim’on: הוא השליכו לבור, הוא שאמר ללוי הנה בעל החלומות הלזה בא (“It was he who threw [Yosef] into the pit, he who said to Levi, 'Behold, that master of dreams is coming'”). Why should there have been bad blood particularly between Shim’on and Yosef?

It has already been noted that Ya’aqov appointed Yosef his bechor. Yet, in the end, Yosef’s bechora proved sharply limited and circumscribed. As Rashi says, Re’uven was Ya’aqov’s בכור לנחלה בכור לעבודה בכור למנין, ולא נתנה בכורה ליוסף אלא לענין שבטים, שנעשה לשני שבטים (“bechor for inheritance, for Divine service, and for the count, and bechora was given to Yosef only in the matter of ‘tribes’, for he was made into two tribes;” comment on XXXV, 23).

Now, talmudic sources tell us that Yosef’s wife, Osnath, was not, in fact, an ethnic Egyptian, but had been adopted by Potifar; she was in reality Dina’s daughter, product of the rape by Chamor ben Shchem עיי' סוף מסכת סופרים)). It is a matter of Talmudic principle that if one wishes his children to resemble him (in character, as well as physically), one should marry his niece; indeed, most sons tend to resemble their maternal uncles (עיי' יבמות ס"ב. תוספות שם ד"ה והנושא בת אחותו, ובבא בתרא ק"י., חתם סופר שם ד"ה רוב בנים). Thus, it was a foregone conclusion that Yosef’s sons would, in fact, tend to resemble himself and his brothers, and therefore be of the caliber of shivtei Qah.

But this was not only true of Yosef.

Commenting on XLVI, 10, Rashi informs us that, when Shim’on and Levi rescued their sister from Shchem, she was so mortified and shaken by her experience that לא היתה דינה רוצה לצאת עד שנשבע שמעון שישאנה (“Dina did not want to leave until Shim’on swore that he would marry her”).

If Yosef’s sons were of “tribal” calibre because he was married to his niece, then so were Shim’on’s, whose wife was Dina herself. Herein, I believe, lay the source of the rivalry between Shim’on and Yosef.

D.

The story of Yosef affords us a vital lesson in the real and apparent mechanisms which operate in the world.

Yosef himself told his brothers: אל תעצבו ואל יחר בעיניכם בי מכרתם אתי הנה כי למחי' שלחני אלקים לפניכם (“Don’t be sad or angry with yourselves that you sold me hither, for it was to keep [you] alive that G-d sent me before you;” XLV, 5). It had always been planned in advance that Israel would pass through the crucible of Egypt, or something very like it, on their way to being forged into the Torah nation, as Avraham had been told many years before (cf. XV, 13-14).

But did it have to happen in the way that it did, with all of the attendant suffering for Ya’aqov and Yosef, indeed, for the world, which had to endure the seven year famine?

At every stage in events, there were choices made and actions taken which had consequences: Ya’aqov did neglect communicating with his parents whilst he was in yeshiva and afterwards in Paddan Aram with Lavan; his sons, in consequence, did not take honoring him with the full seriousness the mitzva requires; Ya’aqov did show favoritism to Yosef, who did tell lashon ha-ra about his brothers, who did sell him into slavery.

Even though it all came out well, and there was general forgiveness (as we have seen), nonetheless facts came into being in the physical world, whose logic had to be played out, as the result of these choices.

Similary, 60 years ago a great miracle happened, and against all odds the Jewish people achieved sovereignty in their homeland. That this was a miracle cannot be gainsaid, and is as plain as sunlight at noon. But, one can ask, did it have to happen the way it did? Were the World Wars necessary, and all the suffering incurred by Israel’s subsequent wars, and the current bitter relations with the Muslim world?

And in response, one can also ask: Was the haskala necessary? The Reform movement? The dalliance of so many Jews with Communism, and the secular nationalist Zionist movement?
The Yosef story provides us with grounds for hope and faith that all will turn out well. It also lets us know that there is a price for our choices.