Parashath Va-Yéshev (Genesis XXXVII,1-XL,23) 12/15/12

A.

With our parasha begins the story of Yoséf, which occupies the rest of the Book of Genesis. It is a story of the intense rivalry between Yoséf and his brothers, which the actinic, prophetic light of the Torah’s account casts in very harsh relief indeed. The account must be read through the filtering lens of Hazal in order to restore its human dimension, lest we be led to bring a dibba ra‘a, an evil report, against tzaddiqim.

אלה תלדות יעקב יוסף וגו' (“These are the offspring of Ya‘aqov, Yoséf....”; XXXVII, 2), even though Yoséf was the 11th of Ya‘aqov’s twelve sons; as the Torah Tëmima puts it, דאם בא לספר תולדות יעקב כסדרן ה"ל להתחיל מתולדות ראובן ומדהתחיל ביוסף ש"מ דשייכות יתירה יש ביוסף ליעקב משאר בניו (“for if it is coming to tell of Ya‘aqov’s offspring in order, it should have begun with Rë’uvén; and since it began with Yoséf. we discern from it that there is an additional relationship between Yoséf and Ya‘aqov [different] from the rest of his sons....”). Indeed, Rashi explains why the Torah focuses so intensely on the circumstances of this relationship, for ע"י זה נתגלגלו וירדו למצרים (“because of this they were led to descend to Egypt”), and exile.

This exile had been foretold to Avraham, at the bërith béyn ha-bëtharim: ידע תדע כי גר יהי' זרעך בארץ לא להם ועבדום וענו אותם ארבע מאות שנה: וגם את הגוי אשר יעבדו דן אנכי ואחרי כן יצאו ברכש גדול: (“Knowing you should know that a stranger shall your seed be in a land not theirs; and they will serve them, and they will torment them four hundred years. And also the nation which they will serve I am judging, and afterwards they will come out with a great possession”; XV, 13-14).

Two things are obvious from the above passage: First, that the nation amongst whom the bënei Yisra’él would be exiled is not named. The other is the period of 400 years assigned to an exile which in fact lasted 210.

About the latter, Rashi explains: משנולד יצחק עד שיצאו ישראל ממצרים ארבע מאות שנה כיצד יצחק בן ששים שנה כשנולד יעקב ויעקב כשירד למצרים אמר "ימי שני מגורי שלשים ומאת שנה" הרי ק"צ ובמצרים היו מאתים ועשר כמנין רד"ו הרי ארבע מאות שנה וגו' (“From Yitzhaq’s birth to when Israel departed from Egypt, four hundred; how? Yitzhaq was sixty years old when Ya‘a-qov was born, and Ya‘aqov when he went down to Egypt, said, ‘The days of the years of my sojournings are thirty and a hundred years’ [XLVII, 9], which is 190; and in Egypt they were 210, the numerical value of radu [“they descended”], which is 400 years....”).

This implies that by the time Yitzhaq was born a clock began ticking. Rashi’s next comment makes it even clearer: The word translated “stranger” above, gér, is derived from a root meaning “sojourn, stay or swell provisionally or temporarily” (“my sojournings in the verse cited by Rashi supra is mëgurai). Hence, Rashi tells us, the name of the nation or country is not defined, but a hint is provided: ולא נאמר בארץ מצרים אלא לא להם ומשנולד יצחק "ויגר אברהם" וגו' ויגר יצחק בגרר "ויעקב גר בארץ חם" "לגור בארץ באנו" (“and it is not said ‘in the land of Egypt’ but rather ‘not theirs’; and from when Yitzhaq was born, ‘And Avraham sojourned....’ [va-yagor; XX, 1; XXI, 34]; and Yitzhaq sojourned in Gërar [cf. XVI, 6, where the hint is found in the name of the town]; ‘And Ya‘aqov sojourned [gar] in the land of Ham’ [Psalms CV, 23]; ‘to sojourn [la-gur] in the land have we come’ [Genesis XLVII, 4]”).

The whole nature of the exile, then was that it would be temporary, ואחרי כן יצאו ברכש גדול (“and afterwards they would come out with a great possession”). This temporary exile, as Rashi tells us, was engineered through the events of Yoséf’s life. How, and why? Beyond the historical, what does it mean for us?

B.

Hazal in several places note the uncanny parallels between Yoséf’s life and his father’s. To name a few: Both were born circumcised; both had serious problems with siblings who sought to destroy them; both began as herdsmen and achieved wealth; both descended to Egypt; and both were brought out of Egypt and buried in the Holy Land (עיי' בראשית רבה פפ"ד סי' ו', סוטה ל"ז:, ואבות דר' נתן פ"ב).

The rivalry between Yoséf and his brothers had reached the point that ולא יכלו דברו לשלום (“they were unable to speak of him peacefully”; XXXVII, 4). When Yoséf was sent by Ya‘aqov to Dothan to check on his brothers, we read: ויראו אתו מרחוק ובטרם יקרב אליהם ויתנכלו אתו להמיתו (“And they saw him from afar, and before he had yet drawn near them they conspired against him to put him to death”; XXXVII, 18). The verb used is significant; hémith is used of execution, as opposed to harag, which simply means “kill”; the brothers had been accused by Yoséf of serious transgressions; the accusations were sincere, though mistaken. Nonetheless, the brothers felt that they had a legitimate case against him for false witness (עיי' ירושלמי פאה פ"א ה"א).

But a cooler head prevailed: וישמע ראובן ויצלהו מידם ויאמר לא נכנו נפש: ויאמר אליהם ראובן אל תשפכו דם השליכו אתו אל הבור הזה אשר במדבר ויד אל תשלחו בו למען הציל אתו מידם להשיבו אל אביו: (“And Rë’uvén heard and saved him from their hand, and said, 'Let us not strike him mortally.' And Rë’uvén said to them, 'Do not spill blood; throw him into this pit which is in the desert, and do not lay a hand on him'; in order to save him from their hand to return him to his father”; vv. 21-22). The others took his advice, וישליכו אתו הברה והבור רק אין בו מים (“...and they cast him into the pit; and the pit was empty, there was no water”; v. 24).

Hazal ask: If the pit was empty, of course there was no water in it; so why say it? לומר לך מים אין בו אבל נחשים ועקרבים יש בו (“to tell you, There was no water in it, but snakes and scorpions were in it”; שבת כ"ב.).

Rë’uvén was frustrated in his rescue attempt, because the brothers spotted an Arab caravan headed toward Egypt, and Yëhuda suggested selling Yoséf to them. But the Torah makes clear what his intent was, and yet elsewhere, Hazal tell us: נפל לבור מלאה נחשים ועקרבים מעידין עליו להשיא אשתו (“[If] one falls into a pit full of snakes and scorpions, it constitutes testimony for his wife to re-marry”; יבמות קכ"א.). The poor man is considered a goner; how, then, did Rë’uvén expect Yoséf to survive long enough to be rescued and returned to his father?

C.

The answer is, in fact, simple, as the Maharal mi-Prag tells us in his Gur Aryé; the gëmara is speaking a pit which is swarming with noxious creatures, such that the victim cannot possibly avoid being stricken when he falls in. In Yoséf’s case, the pit was not “full”; it simply had some snakes and scorpions in it, such that Yoséf was able to avoid them, or kill them individually, and stay alive.

But if so, why bother to tell us this? What difference did it make?

We have here another parallel between Yoséf’s life and his father’s, the crucial one, I think, in understanding the nature of the exile.

Ya‘aqov was forced to flee from his brother into exile, where he also found his wives and made his fortune. However, in fleeing from ‘Ésav, he found himself contending with his wily, unscrupulous, and thoroughly corrupt father-in-law, Lavan. When he returned to the Holy Land, he announced to his brother, ‘Ésav, עם לבן גרתי (“With Lavan did I sojourn”; XXXII, 5) and Rashi explains what lay behind this blank statement: גרתי בגמטריא תרי"ג כלומר עם לבן הרשע גרתי ותרי"ג מצות שמרתי ולא למדתי ממעשיו הרעים (“Garti [‘I sojourned’] is in gimatriya 613, as if to say, I sojourned with the evil Lavan and [yet] observed the 613 mitzvoth, and I did not learn from his evil ways”).

Ya‘aqov’s exile, his sojourn with the ‘snakes and scorpions’ of Lavan’s personality, had not affected him; finally at the appropriate time, a mal’ach came to Ya‘aqov in a dream and said, in part: ראיתי את כל אשר עשה לבן לך: אנכי הא-ל בית א-ל כו' קום צא מן הארץ הזאת ושוב אל ארץ מולדתך (“...I have seen all that Lavan has done to you. I am the G-d of Béyth É-l... Arise, depart from this land and return to the land of your birth”; XXXI, 12-13).

Similarly, Yoséf was freed from his ordeal, and sold to the Yishmë‘élim, and in this he, too, had a sign from Heaven. The Torah gives evidently unnecessary details, that the caravan was an ארחת ישמעאלים באה מגלעד וגמליהם נשאים נכאות וצרי ולוט (“caravan of Yishmë‘élim coming from Gil‘ad, and their camels were bearing spices, and balsam, and lotus”; XXXVII, 25), Why do we need their cargo? Rashi tells us: להודיע שכרן של צדיקים שאין דרכם של ערביים לשאת אלא נפט ועטרן שריחן רע ולזה נזדמנו בשמים שלא יוזק מריח רע (“to inform [us] of the reward of tzaddiqim, for the usual Arab custom was to carry petroleum and natron, whose smell is bad; and for this one were provided spices, so that he not be harmed by the bad smell”). But he was still being taken into slavery and exile!

I have heard in the name of Rabbi Hayyim Shmuelevitz זצ"ל that this circumstance was sufficiently unusual as to constitute a Divine message to Yoséf, that he was not alone, and that just as G-d had assured his father, He would be with him in the trials ahead, as He had seen everything that had been by Yoséf, and that, like his father, he had not let himself by harmed by the snakes and scorpions with which he was confronted.

D.

And this is the significance, beyond the historical, of Yoséf’s experience, and all of Israel’s subsequent exile in Egypt.

As we read every year in the Haggada at the séder: בכל גור וגור חייב כל אדם לראות את עצמו כאילו הוא יצא ממצרים (“In each and every generation, every person is obligated to see himself as though he has departed from Egypt”), and the sëfarim ha-qëdoshim assure us that this is possible only if we understand that Egypt represents the yétzer ha-ra‘, and the Exodus our freedom from its tyranny, possible only if we grasp the opportunity afforded us by the Torah of mastering our lusts and appetites, the “snakes and scorpions” with which we are surrounded, when the nëshama is cast into the pit of the physical world, and exposed to its influences.

The Egyptian exile also has immediate national relevance; the Talmud connects the 400 years of Genesis XV,13 with Psalms XC,15: שמחנו כימות עניתנו, “make us rejoice according to the days you afflicted us,” to indicate that ימות המשיח ארבע מאות שנה, (“The days of Mashiah are four hundred years”; סנהדרין צ"ט. ). We shall not know until his advent at what seminal moment the 400-year messianic clock began ticking, but we can be assured that the countdown has begun.

In neither the individual nor the national case is he pit “full” of “snakes and scorpions”; it is possible to master them, to avoid them, and when necessary, to crush them. In both cases we must know that we are our gérim in a foreign land not ours, an exile endurable because we know it is only a sojourn, that G-d is with us, and that He sees all that is done to us.

Parshath Va-Yéshev (Genesis XXXVII,1-XL,23) 11/26/10

A.

'וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען: אלה תלדות יעקב יוסף וגו (“And Ya‘aqov settled in the land of his father’s sojournings, in the land of Këna‘an. These are the offspring of Ya‘a-qov, Yoséf....”). So begins our parasha.


Rashi comments, quoting the midrash (בראשית רבה פפ"ד סי' ג'): ביקש יעקב לישב בשלוה קפץ עליו רוגזו של יוסף צדיקים מבקשים לישב בשלוה אמר הקב"ה לא דיין לצדיקים מה שמתוקן להם בעוה"ב אלא שמבקשים לישב בשלוה בעוה"ז (“Ya‘aqov sought to settle in comfort [bë-shalva]; the rage of Yoséf [rugzo shel Yoséf] sprang upon him. 'Tzaddiqim seek to settle in shalva?' Said the Holy One, Blessed is He, 'Is it not enough for the tzaddiqim what is established for them in the coming world, that they seek to settle bë-shalva in this world?”).


The word shalva is difficult to translate into English. It refers to a state of well-being, of contentment born of a surfeit of what one needs, such that one is at ease and free of worries.
What exactly are Hazal, through Rashi, getting at? What is the implication of Ya‘aqov’s “settling,” so obviously contrasted with his father’s “sojourn,” that rugzo shel Yoséf, which will occupy us for most of the rest of Genesis, should be imposed to disturb his sense of shalva?

B.

Last week, we considered the upcoming holiday of Hannukka as the commemoration of the Hashmona’i victory over the Seleucids, and the subsequent miracle of the oil. This is true enough, but no Jewish holiday is merely an historical commemoration, and this is especially true of Hannukka, a unique holiday not least in that it is the only one mandated purely in the Oral Torah (since the events occurred after the Anshei Kënesseth ha-Gëdola sealed Tanach). In a sense, as we shall see, as the Oral Torah is the living, beating heart of Yiddishkeit, so is Hannukka.

The halachic ramifications of the nér Hannukka are well known: At least one light must be lit on each of the successive eight days (the prevailing custom is hiddur mitzva, increasing the number of lights with each successive day).The lights should ideally be placed outside one’s door to the left (so that the entrance to one’s home is guarded by the mëzuzza on the right and the nér Hannukka on the left), be within ten tëfahim (a tefah is equivalent to approx. 0.048m בשיעור החזון אי"ש) of the ground, and should contain enough oil to burn from the onset of darkness until people generally leave the marketplace (שבת כ"ב. ושו"ע או"ח תרע"א).

Since the general purpose of lighting the Hannukka lights is mi-shum pirsumei nissa, to publicize the miracle of the oil, the positioning of the light seems strange; after all, would it not be more visible, and provide more publicity, if it were placed higher? The position below ten tëfahim seems even odder when one considers that most other mitzvoth which involve a measure of height require ten tëfahim or more; indeed, the mënora whose miraculous lighting we are commemorating stood 18 tëfahim high (עיי' מנחות כ"ח:), and, as the Talmud elsewhere asserts: מעולם לא ירדה שכינה למטה מעשרה (“The Divine Presence [Shëchina] does not descend below ten [tëfahim]”; סוכה ה.').

The Birkath Tov suggests that the reason derives from another unique aspect of Hannukka: דכל המצות הן מלמטה למעלה שמעלין דבר התחתון והגשמי למעלה ובנר חנוכה הוא להיפך שמורידין אור עליון להאיר למטה ולכן אסור להשתמש לאורה וגו' (“that all the [other] mitzvoth are from below upward, in that we elevate a lowly, physical object upward [in spirituality]; and with the Hannukka light it is the opposite, for we bring down the supernal light to illuminate the depths, and for this reason, it is forbidden to use its light [for mundane purposes]”; ע"ע פרי עץ חיים שער חנוכה פ"ד ועוד מקומות).

Viewed in this way, Hannukka is a precursor of the future time in which the lower realm in which we dwell will come to be suffused with the supernal light, as the prophet Yëhezqél sang: והארץ האירה מכבודו (“And the earth absolutely shines from His glory”; Ezekiel XLIII, 2). This has always been the intended state of Creation, as is suggested by the very word for G-d’s manifest presence in this world, Shëchina, derived from the root shin-kaf-nun, “lie down, rest, dwell, inhabit,” and Hazal insist that the intended “habitation” is this world: עיקר שכינה בתחתונים היתה (“the essential habitation [Shëchina] is definitively in the lower realms”; בראשית רבה פי"ט סי' י"ד), or נתאוה הקב"ה כשם שיש לו דירה למעלה כך יהא לו דירה למטה (“The Holy One, Blessed is He, is passionately desirous that, just as He has a dwelling above, so should He have a dwelling below: מדרש תנחומא בחוקותי ג'). Indeed: אותה אורה שברא הקב"ה ביום הראשון הי' אדם צופה ומביט בה מסוף העולם ועד סופו וכיון שראה הקב"ה דור אנוש ודור המבול ודור הפלגה עמד ונגנזה והתקינה לצדיקים לע"ל שנא' "ואורח צדיקים כאור הנוגה הולך ואור עד נכון היום" (“That very light which the Holy One, Blessed is He, created on the first day was [such that the first] man was able to observe and look with it from one end of the world to the other, and when the Holy One, Blessed is He, saw the generations of Enosh, and the Mabbul, and the Haflaga, He stood up, and it was laid aside, and He established it for the tzaddiqim in the future, as it is said: ‘The path of tzaddiqim is like the light of a bright dawn which grows progressively brighter until the day is stable’ [Proverbs IV, 18]”; במדבר רבה פי"ב סי' ז).

The Mishkan (again, from the same root as Shëchina) and the succeeding Béyth ha-Miqdash come to dispel the darkness which had overtaken the world, stemming from those three problematic generations, the re-establishment of the Divine “residence,” as it were, home of the supernal light here below, in the form of the mënora, the glorious glow of Torah (עיי' למשל העמק דבר לשמות פכ"ז כ). The windows of the Béyth ha-Miqdash were designed so as not to let light into the Sanctuary, but rather to let the light from within radiate outward (ויקרא רבה פל"א סי' ו' ותנחומא בהעלותך ב).

G-d Himself spoke of this purpose: ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם (“And [Israel] shall make for Me a Sanctuary [miqdash] and I shall reside [ve-shachanti] amongst them”; Exodus XXV, 8), or: וידעו כי אני ד' אלקיהם אשר הוצאתי אתם מארץ מצרים לשכני בתוכם וגו' (“And they shall know that I am Ha-Shem their G-d, Who brought them out of the land of Egypt for Me to reside [le-shochni] amongst them”; ibid., XXIV, 46). The site of the Béyth ha-Miqdash in Yërushalayim is called המקום אשר יבחר ד' לשכן שמו שם (“...the place where Ha-Shem chooses to establish [lë-shakkén] His Name”; Deuteronomy XXVI, 2).

This, then, is the reason why the nér Hannukka is positioned below ten tëfahim; the light of the nér stands in place of that of the mënora which had been so miraculously fueled; the mitzva performed in lighting the nér Hannukka with proper intent draws down the supernal light from on high to illuminate the depths here below.

C.

All this is well and good, but how is it connected to Ya‘aqov’s “settling” where his father “sojourned”?

Ya‘aqov, remember, was born into the despairing darkness of the world after those three fateful generations mentioned above. Further, as we have established over the last few weeks, Ya‘aqov’s birth as the epitome of rahamim was the culmination of a process which had begun with his grandfather Avraham, who was pure hesed, and continued through Avraham’s son and Ya‘aqov’s father, Yitzhaq, who was entirely din. Ya‘aqov, as the merger of hesed and din, sought to apply rahamim to relieve the world’s distress. In his prophetic dream, he had seen for himself the distance of the Shëchina, stationed at the head of the great ladder, from the lower realms (cf. Genesis XXVIII, 13). Ya‘aqov sought to re-establish the Shëchina in this world, and once again draw down the supernal light, thereby establishing ‘olam ha-ba’, the coming world. The Anshei Kënesseth ha-Gëdola describe the serenity of shabbath, מנוחת שלום ושלוה והשקט ובטח (“the repose of peace, and shalva and tranquility and security”; מל' תפלת מנחה של שבת). Ya‘aqov’s intent finds allusion in the gimatriya, the numerical value, of shalva, 341, equivalent to that of nér Hannukka (also taking into account the two words of the phrase). Shabbath, as Hazal tell us, is מעין עולם הבא, a taste of the world to come, a sixtieth part thereof (ברכות נ"ז:).

But it was too soon. Many of the exactions of din remained to be worked out (it is perhaps instructive to note that judgment, din, is distinct from justice, tzedeq); it would require not only Ya‘aqov’s ‘avoda, but that of the many generations of his descendants to establish completely the merger of hesed and din which had commenced with him; there would be setbacks in the attempt to restore the Shëchina and the supernal light in the lower realms, transcending physicality and abolishing the tyranny of time. The occasion was not, is not, yet; it will be heralded, as Yëhezqél ha-navi’ sang, with the establishment of the Third Béyth ha-Miqdash (cf. Ezekiel XL-XLIII).

D.

In the meantime, we learn Torah and perform its mitzvoth, and in particular that of lighting the néroth Hannukka, the mitzva on which we are about to embark, so that at least over the span of these eight days the material world, the world of teva‘ bound and defined by cycles of seven, is conquered, and the supernal light is brought down, suffusing the lower realms and pushing back the darkness of this darkest period of the material, solar year, the light ever increasing and growing (surely one of the reasons that the hiddur mitzva in which most of us engage is to count the nights by adding successive lights), until, finally, Yëhezqél’s vision cited above will be realized, and the earth will shine with His glory, the supernal light of Torah.

Parshath Va-Yéshev (Genesis XXXVII,1-XL, 23) 12/11/09

A.

וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען: אלה תלדות יעקב יוסף בן שבע עשרה שנה הי' וגו'(“And Ya‘aqov settled in the land of his father’s sojourns [mëgurei aviv] in the land of Këna‘an. These are the fruits of Ya‘aqov: Yosef was seventeen years old....”). So begins our parasha.

Rashi comments on the above, following the midrash (בראשית רבה פ"ד סי' ג'): בקש יעקב לישב בשלוה קפץ עליו רוגזו של יוסף צדיקים מבקשים לישב בשלוה אמר הקב"ה לא דיין לצדיקים מה שמתוקן להם לעוה"ב אלא שמבקשים לישב בשלוה בעוה"ז (“Ya‘aqov sought to live in tranquility; the outrage of Yosef sprang upon him. Do tzaddiqim seek to dwell in tranquility? Said the Holy One, Blessed is He: it is not enough for the tzaddiqim what is in store for them in the world to come, but they seek to live in tranquility in this world”).

The midrash puts us in mind of King Shëlomo’s assertion: יש צדיקים אשר מגיע אליהם כמעשה הרשכים (There are tzaddiqim to whom it happens according to the deeds of rësha‘im”; Ecclesiastes VIII, 14) on which Rava famously asks in the Talmud: וכי סני לצדיקי דאכלי תרי עלמא (“Is it hateful for tzaddiqim who enjoy the fruits of both worlds?”; הוריות י:).

Apparently it makes a difference to G-d if tzaddiqim are well off in both worlds; why should that be, especially in light of Rambam’s pësaq (הל' תשובה פ"ט הל' א') that the purpose of the good things of this world is so that the tzaddiqim are free to concentrate on Divine service? It would appear that tzaddiqim should dwell in tranquility in this world!

B.

The great Rabbi Aryeh Yëhuda Leibush ha-Lévi Epstein זצוק"ל proposes in his Birkath Tov to answer our question by carefully examining the wording of our passage. “In the land of his father’s sojourns, in the land of Këna‘an”; why does the Torah find this repetition necessary, given that we already know not only that Yitzchaq dwelt in the Holy Land but was indeed the only one of the Patriarchs never to have left it?

The Rebbe considers this reason to reëxamine the word mëgurei as meaning not temporarily staying in one place or another (hithgorér), but rather magor, “fear” (cf., e.g., Jeremiah VI, 25 and XX, 3; Psalms XXXI, 14; and especially Lamentations II, 22, where the word occurs in the construct plural, mëgurei), seeing in this an allusion to Yitzchaq’s defining characteristic, his G-d-fearingness (ופחד יצחק, Genesis XXXI, 42), which the Zohar defines as the clear and certain knowledge דאית דין ואית דיין, “that there is judgment and a Judge”; ח"א ע"ב. פ"ז:).

A retrospective of Ya‘aqov’s career ere now reveals a life filled with considerable hardship: He was forced to flee from his home by his evil brother ‘Esav (XXVII, 42-45), after which he confronted his no less evil father-in-law, Lavan (XXIX, 1 - XXXII, 1). On his triumphant return to the Holy Land from Paddan Aram, Ya‘aqov again faced the challenge of his brother, first in the metaphysical struggle with his sar, his “guardian angel” at the River Yabboq, and then in the physical confrontation with ‘Esav himself (XXXII, 4 - XXXIII, 33), followed by the rape of his daughter Dina (XXXIV, 1-31) and the premature death of his beloved wife, Rachel (XXXV, 19-20).

Having thus been “through the mill” and emerged unscathed (XXXI, 5, Rashi ad loc.; עם לבן גרתי ותרי"ג מצות שמרתי, “I stayed with Lavan and nonetheless observed the 613 mitzvoth”), one might perceive that Ya‘aqov felt himself ready to inhabit the space which his father had earned through his willingness to be sacrificed at the ‘aqeida, in the Rebbe’s words, שרצה לאחוז במדת גודל היראה והפחד מדת אביו יצחק "בארץ כנען", שגם ארץ ישראל מסודל לכך כמ"ש "תמיד עיני ד' אלקיך בה" וגו' וכנע"ן ראשי תיבות "כנור נעים עם נבל", "עם נבל" מרמז על "עם נבל ולא חכם" (“for he wished to grasp the quality of the greatness of fear and awe, the quality of his father Yitzchaq ‘in the land of Këna‘an’, for which Eretz Yisra’él is especially suited, as it is written, ‘the eyes of Ha-Shem your G-d are always upon it’ ]Deuteronomy XI, 12]; as well, Këna‘an is composed of the initials of kinnor na‘im ‘im navel [‘a pleasant harp with a lute’; Psalms LXXX, 3], and ‘im navel allides to ‘am naval vë-lo’ chacham [‘foolish and unwise people’; Deuteronomy XXXII, 6]”), going on to find in the word naval an allusion to the lamed-béyth nëthivoth ha-chochma, (“32 paths of wisdom”), that he wished, in other words, to be left in peace to concentrate on Torah u-mitzvoth, on his Divine service.

But such peaceful contemplation is part of the next world, not this one; the here and now is not the time or place for this, for the correction and perfection of the world is still so very far from complete, and who else but the tzaddiqim must lead the way: וזהו הכההנה "לא דיין לצדיקים מה שמתוקן להם לעולם הבא", שראה הקב"ה שהצדיקים אין די ומספיק להם זה הדבר שצד הקדושה והשלוה הוא לעולם הבא ורק שמשתוקקים ומבקשים וחפצים שצד הקדושה יהי' להם ישיבה ונטיעה גם בעולם הזה ולכן למלאות רצונם "קפץ עליו רוגזו של יוסף" ועל ידי זה יגרום להוציא נצוצות הקדושה ושיהי' גמר התקון כו' כמו שעקר הבריאה היתה על דעת כן וכמו שנאמר "ומלאה הארץ דעה" שהארץ הגשמיות תתמלא בדעת והשכל וכולם ידעו את ד' למקטנים ועד גדולים וגו' (“and this is the meaning of ‘it is not enough for the tzaddiqim what is laid up for them in the next world’, for the Holy One, Blessed is He, saw that it is not enough and satisfactory for the tzaddiqim this thing that the side of sanctity and tranquility be in the next world, but they yearn and seek and desire that the side of sanctity be for them a dwelling implanted also in this world; and therefore, to fulfill their will ‘the outrage of Yosef sprang upon him’. that through this the sparks of sanctity would be brought forth and the completion of the correction would take place... as was the main point of the Creation, and as it is said, ‘and the earth will be filled with knowledge’ [Isaiah XI, 9], that the earth, the essence of materialism, will be filled with knowledge and enlightenment, and all will know Ha-Shem from the lowly to the great [cf. Jeremiah XXXI, 33]”).

It required the crucible of the Egyptian exile to prepare Israel for receipt of the Torah, the beginning of the “correction and perfection” of which the Rebbe speaks.

C.

His grandson and heir to the throne of Ozherov, Rabbi Moshe Yëchi’él, brings out in his Bë’er Moshe another aspect of the “outrage of Yoséf,” explaining the midrashic assertion cited by Rashi supra that tzaddiqim are not satisfied only with the world to come as simple fact and their just desserts, such that בגלל זה סבבו משמים שימכרו את יוסף במו שאמר יוסף לאחיו "וישלחני אלקים לפניכם" וכו' ונפלא בזה הבנת הלשון "קפץ עליו" כי מצינו בזוה"ק שיעקב חי במצרים י"ז שנה כנגד מה שיוסף הי' בן י"ז כשנמכר ויעקב הי' בוכה בכל יום על אותן י"ז השנים כו' ולפיכך קפץ עליו רוגזו של יוסף כי לשם קיום גזירת גלות מצרים לא הי' אולי צורך למהר אך בגלל טו"ב השנים של יעקב הוצרך לזרז מכירת יוסף ולכן "קפץ עליו" רוגזו במהירות ובחפזון (“For this reason it was arranged in Heaven that they would sell Yoséf, as Yoséf told his brothers, ‘And G-d sent me before you....’ [Genesis XLV, 7], and so the meaning of ‘it sprang upon him’ can be understood wonderfully, for we find in the Holy Zohar [ח"א רט"ז:] that Ya‘aqov lived in Egypt 17 years apposite the fact that Yoséf was 17 years old when he was sold, and Ya‘aqov would weep every day over those 17 years... and therefore the outrage of Yoséf sprang upon him, for in order to fulfill the decree of the Egyptian exile it was not necessary, perhaps, to hasten, but for the sake of Ya‘aqov’s 17 good years [the numerical value of the word tov, ‘good’, is 17] it was necessary to hasten the sale of Yoséf, and therefore ‘the outrage of Yoséf sprang upon him’ suddenly and unexpectedly”).

In other words, the “outrage of Yoséf" was the means to achieving the relative comfort of Ya’aqov’s declining years in Egypt, and the Rebbe finds in this an indication that the trouble and woe of our current exile are only the means and preparation for the future which the nëvi’im tell us is yet in store for us, based on the midrash Leqach Tov on our parasha which sees an explicit connexion between the sale of Yoséf and exile in general.

D.

This weekend marks the beginning of the festival of Chanukka, celebrating faithful Israel’s miraculous deliverance from the unclean hands of the Greco-Syrians and their Hellenizing allies, the end of galuth Yavan, the third of the four exiles which Israel were destined to endure. The Shëla”h ha-qadosh comments on our parasha that there is an organic connection between the parshiyoth of the Torah and the seasons in which they are read.

Perhaps a connection between our parasha and Chanukka can be seen in this very theme of the darkest hour heralding the dawn, that the depths of anguish, whether from loss of a beloved son, from such cruel oppression as gave rise to the revolt under the Chashmona’im, or spiritual oppression by those whose values are so utterly foreign and contradictory to those of the Torah, conceal the seeds of resolution and redemption.

As deliverance from the third exile came in the days of the Chasmona’im, may it come speedily from the fourth exile in our own.

Parshath Va-Yéshev (Genesis XXXVII,1-XL,23) 11/30/07

A.

With this week’s parasha begins the story of Yosef, which will occupy us for most of the rest of Genesis. The Torah puts its finger on the source of most of the trouble between Yosef and his brothers already in the third verse: וישראל אהב את יוסף מכל בניו כי בן זקנים הוא לו ועשה לו כתנת פסים (“And Yisra’el loved Yosef [more] than his [other] sons, for he was a son of elders [ben zqunim] to him; and he made him a coat of stripes [kthoneth passim]”).

Chazal tell us in several places (cf. e.g. Brachoth 7b) that Yisrael expressed his love by declaring Yosef his bechor, his “first-born.” As Rashi points out in a comment on XXV, 31, in this time before Mattan Torah and the incident of the Golden Calf, it was the case שהעבודה בבכורות כו' שיקריב להקב"ה (“that the [Divine] service was the province of the first-born... that he offer sacrifice to the Holy One, Blessed is He”).

It is therefore also not surprising that Chazal tell us that the striped coat was a priestly garment (עיי' תורה שלימה בשם מדרשים שכתונת יוסף הי' בגד עשו, שכבר אמרינן בירושלמי מגילה פ"א הלי"ב שבגדיו בגדי כהונה היו וע"ע ערכין ט"ז. שדרשו מכתונת יוסף שכתונת כהונה מכפרת), which suggests that the dispute between Yosef and his brothers was on a rather elevated plane; no mere squabble over the affections of their father, the dispute concerned who was fittest to offer Divine sacrifice.

With this in mind, we examine this matter of bechora, of primogeniture, a bit more closely.

B.

A bechor is often called in the Torah peter rechem, the one who “opens,” as it were, his mother’s womb (cf. e.g. Exodus XIII, 2, 12-15; XXXIV, 19-20; Numbers XIII, 15).

By this standard, Ya’aqov had four bechorim to choose from: Re’uven (Le’a’s bechor), Dan (Bilha’s bechor), Gad (Zilpa’s bechor), and Yosef (Rachel’s bechor). That said, it is noteworthy that the Talmud teaches us: "והכהן הגדול מאחיו" שיהא גדול מאחיו בכח בנוי בחכמה ובעושר (“'And the kohén who is greater than his brothers’ [Leviticus XXI, 10] [means] that he should be greater than his brothers in strength, in appearance, in wisdom, and in wealth;” יומא י"ח.).

Now consider that the Torah specifically calls Yosef a ben zqunim, which Onqelos translates bar chakkim (“wise son”), and that a bit later in our parasha we read: ויהי יוסף יפה תאר ויפה מראה (“And Yosef was beautiful of description and beautiful of appearance;” XXXIX, 7). If there is any doubt concerning Yosef’s strength, elsewhere the Torah attests of him: בכור שורו הדר לו וקרני ראם קרניו בהם עמים ינגח (“First-born, his ox is splendour for him and the horns of a re’ém [a huge beast, now extinct] are his horns, by which he will gore nations;” Deuteronomy XXXIII, 17, Rashi ad loc.); and presumably possession of the coat made him wealthier than his brothers.

It would seem, then, that Yosef possessed all of the attributes necessary to be a kohén gadol. His brothers were not unlearned; why did they resist? Why did they not consider Yosef fit for the post?

C.

If we turn elsewhere in the Talmud, we encounter this difference of opinion: יוצא דופן והבא אחריו, שניהן אינן בכור, לא לנחלה ולא לכהן. ר"ש אומר, הראשון לנחלה והשני לחמש סלעים (“A child born of a Cæsarian section [yotzé dofen] and the one who comes after him, neither of them is a bechor, neither for inheritance nor to [be redeemed by] a kohén. Rabbi Shim’on says, the first is [a bechor] for inheritance and the second for five sla’îm [the amount necessary to redeem him from the kohén];” בכורות מ"ז:). Please note that the literal meaning of the phrase conventionally translated (because it is the most usual case) “born by Cæsarian section,” yotzé dofen, is “exiting the [uterine] wall.”

With this in mind, we now turn back to Genesis XXX, 21 and examine the Targum Yonathan, which reads: ומן בתר כדין ילידת ברת וקרת ית שמה דינה ארום אמרת דין הוא מן קדם ד' דיהון מני פלגות שבטיא ברם מן רחל אחתי יפקון תרין שבטין הכמא דנפקו מן חדא מן אמהתא ושמיע מן קדם צלותא דלאה ואיתחלפו עובריא במעיהון והוה יהיב יוסף במעהא דרחל ודינה במעהא דלאה (“And afterward [Le’a] gave birth to a daughter and called her name Dina, for she said, 'This is from Ha-Shem that there should be a distribution of the tribes; however, from Rachel my sister there should come two tribes, just as came forth from the servants;' and Le’a’s prayer was heard, and the fetuses were switched in their wombs, and Yosef was placed in the womb of Rachel and Dina in the womb of Le’a;” ע"ע רש"י עה"פ ע"פ בכורות ס.).

The implication of the Targum is startling. Rachel had actually conceived Dina and Le’a had con-ceived Yosef. In response to Le’a’s heartfelt plea that her sister not be humiliated by having fewer sons than the servants had had, Dina was literally yotzéth dofen, exited her mother’s womb, and entered the womb of her aunt, trading places with Yosef, who was therefore “the one who comes after” in exiting Rachel’s womb.

D.

Now, the fact is that in the dispute cited supra the halacha is decided in favour of the tanna qama, the first opinion cited, and not that of Rabbi Shim’on (עיי' רמב"ם הל' בכורות פי"א הלט"ז וש"ע יו"ד סי' ש"ה סעיף כ"ג ). Yet, there is a tradition that in future, with the advent of our Anointed King, all the disputes to which Rabbi Shim’on is a party will be decided in his favor (עיי' סדר הדורות, סוך ערך רבי שמעון).

It has been noted that the numerical value of Yosef, 156, is the same as that of the word Tziyyon (I have heard this in the name of the Midrash Tanchuma, but have been unable to locate the actual source), a connection to which we find an allusion in Psalms CXXVI, 1: בשוב ד' את שיבת ציון היינו כחולמים (“At Ha-Shem’s returning of [those who] are returning to Tziyyon, we are like dreamers”), remembering that Yosef is called in our parasha בעל החלומות הלזה (“that master of dreams;” XXXVII, 19). A further hint connecting Yosef with Israel’s ultimate redemption can be found by comparing Yosef’s description of his first dream, והנה אנחנו מאלמים אלמים בתוך השדה (“And behold, we were binding sheaves in the field;” ibid., 7) with the last verse in the same chapter of Psalms: בא יבוא ברנה נשא אלמותיו (“he will surely come in joy bearing his sheaves;” ועיי' פי' הצמח צדק על תהלים שם באריכות).

Viewed in this light, both sides of the famous fraternal quarrel now make sense. Yosef, oriented, as was his father, to ultimate things, to the world’s end-game with the advent of ha-Melech ha-Mashiach, naturally considered the halacha to be in accord with Rabbi Shim’on; hence, he had the status of a bechor, and was therefore eligible in every way (as we have seen) for the kehunna gdola. His brothers, however, oriented to the realities of living in this world and still very far (as we ourselves know so well) from that ultimate date with destiny, not yet here, begged to disagree. Threy considered the halacha according to the tanna qama, under which Yosef was arguably not a bechor (having been preceded out of Rachel’s womb by Dina), with all that implies.

And therein, I believe, is what underlay the quarrel.