A Thought on Parshas Vayechi

"...va'yelchu gam echav va'yiplu l'fanav..." "...and his brothers also went and fell before him..." (50:18) The sons of Yakov had sent a messenger to appease their brother Yosef, hoping that he would forgive them for their actions years before. Now that their father had died, they feared that Yosef, a powerful man, might seek revenge. Our verse tells us that now the brothers themselves entered the palace, and prostrated before their younger but mighty brother. The verse, using the word "gam" - also - implies that their appearance was in addition to or an extension of that earlier mission of having sent a messenger in on their behalf (see verse 16). Is there a lesson for us from this sequence of events? Rabbeinu Avigdor derives from here a psak - a halachic ruling. The Torah is teaching us that one can appoint an agent (shliach) or intermediary to approach an aggrieved person on his behalf to ask forgiveness for hurting, slighting, insulting or embarrassing him, and in fact the offended or victimized person can respond favorably to the apologetic message. However, from our verse we also learn that the act of forgiving requires a face-to-face encounter as well. It is not just that one who asks forgiveness must humble him or herself and petition the victim directly. It is more than that: Rabbeinu Avigdor understands that our verse is instructing us that the victim who agrees to do the forgiving must also permit the offender a personal audience. If I am sincere in seeking forgiveness, I will be willing to ask him or her directly. If I am sincere in wanting to grant forgiveness, I must first see if I can actually tolerate being in the presence of my adversary. If I cannot accept him, I may not be ready to accept his apology. Forgiveness is a relationship for which both parties must be prepared. And that is the halacha. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought on Parshas Vayigash

"...al tirgazu b'darech.." "...do not agitate on the highway..." (45:24) Yosef dispatches his brothers on a return trip to Yaakov in Kanaan. He begs them, however, not to agitate on the way. The tricky word here is tirgazu. It has been translated a number of ways by a wide variety of commentaries. Rashi suggests that it may mean "don't get angry" from the root word rogez which can mean to get angry (think of the Hebrew-Yiddish term "b'roigez" which means the same thing.) Rashi also suggests that it may mean "don't get too involved" while traveling, meaning that he asked his brothers not to get engrossed in halachic concerns while traveling, lest the journey lead to trouble. Other commentaries suggest that the words might mean "don't argue", "don't worry" or "don't fear." Rabbeinu Avigdor has a different take on the word. As we know, his preference is to meld the pshat - the literal meaning, with the psak - the practical or halachic implication of a verse. Here too, he notes that whereas we can find support for some of the other interpretative approaches in the Talmud and in Midrashim, we have an opinion in the gemara (Taanis 10b) which infers from this verse that when people travel together, they are expected to engage in Torah discussions. To do otherwise is foolhardy. Based on this, Rabbeinu Avigdor suggests that our verse cannot mean that Yosef told his brothers not to quarrel or not to get too involved in matters (including Torah discussions). He had something more to say than telling them what not to do on their trip. Rather, Yosef was instructing them what they had to do on that journey. Namely, to assure their safe passage, they needed to engage in sharing words of Torah. There is no vacation from learning. The Torah Jew stays mindful and focused on the Word of HaShem in all places and all times, as we say in the Shma "u've'lech'techa ba'derech" - even when we are on the highway. To lose sight of this responsibility would be to "agitate" or to stray from their mission. To assure that we feel that HaShem is close to us as we travel, we include Him in our experience. Wishing you a good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought on Parshas Miketz

"...u'la'Yosef yulad shnai banim b'terem tavo shnas ha'raav..." "...and to Yosef were born two sons before the famine came..." (41:50) The Torah recounts how Yosef had two sons prior to the famine which struck Egypt and the surrounding lands. Rabbeinu Avigdor notes that the Talmud derives from our verse that a person must not engage in procreating during a famine. We can understand this at a values level, in that a severe shortage of food makes it impractical and perhaps unethical to continue having children. Rabbeinu Avigdor asks, however, how Yosef's brother Levi did not adhere to that ethic. When the family of Yaakov came to Egypt, we know that Yocheved was born en route. Clearly, Levi had remained procreative during that famine year. If you will answer that only Yosef, who had Divinely guided foresight, was aware of the impending enduring famine but that Levi had not known about this, then this would mean that only those who are prophetic should have to adhere to this restriction! Would Chazal have dictated that ethic (actually a halacha) only to those who are able to anticipate that a famine will last, but not to others? They should have said as much in the Talmud, rather than wording it as an absolute. Rabbeinu Avigdor then suggests that we might answer that Levi had had no children until that point and was thus exempt from the ethic. Those who have not fulfilled the mitzvah of being fruitful and multiplying are permitted to procreate even during a famine (as we see with Yitzchak (see 26:8), as stated in the Talmud (Taanis 11a). He then observes that from the Torah passages, it is apparent that Levi had children prior to the birth of Yocheved, so we are back to our original question: if Yosef followed the rule and only had children before the famine, how did Levi continue to have children despite the dismal times that the peoples of that region were facing? Rabbeinu Avigdor answers that Yosef was aware of the struggles of the Egyptians as food ran out, and he also assumed that the famine was rampant, even reaching the land of his father Yaakov. Meanwhile, Yaakov was aware of the encroaching Egyptian famine but was not at that time as affected by it back in Kanaan. Levi lived with Yaakov and also saw that there was still sustenance at home (see 42:1), even though Yaakov sent his sons to seek additional provisions down in Egypt. With this presentation of the verses, thus, Rabbeinu Avigdor traces the halacha which encourages abstinence during a famine, and the corollary that this applies only when the famine is both present and severe. It is important to note that the halacha is brought in Shulchan Aruch in Orach Chaim 240 and 574. Regarding the fact that Levi did not abstain, many views are brought by the poskim. The closest I have seen to the view of Rabbeinu Avigdor is one brought by the great Chi'da in the name of his father, who ruled that the halacha does not apply as long as people are still able to purchase food. It is clear from our parsha that Yaakov and his sons were able to buy food. This would explain why their situation was not considered a famine at that time. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A thought on Parshas Vayeshev

"...va'yeivch oso aviv..." "...and his father wept for him..." (36:35 When Yaakov is presented with misleading evidence that his son has been killed, he falls into a prolonged state of mourning. Our verse seems to add that he not only mourned for his son but that he cried for him as well. This seems superfluous. Rabbeinu Avigdor analyzes this and, as Rashi also writes, he suggests that our verse is not referring to Yaakov the father weeping for Yosef the son. Rather, as Yaakov mourns for his son Yosef, the Torah adds that his father, namely, Yitzchak the father of Yaakov, cried for his son who was going through such grief. But then, Rabbeinu Avigdor ponders why our verse does not simply parallel the verses which describe Yaakov's grief process. The Torah might have written that Yaakov mourned, and Yitzchak mourned along with him. What is the distinction between mourning and crying? Rabbeinu Avigdor then offers, as does Rashi, that Yitzchak had ruach ha'Kodesh - Divinely inspired higher vision - and knew that his grandson Yosef was actually alive. Hence, his weeping was not a mourning state but rather the tears of a father who sees the plight of his own son and is powerless to intervene. Why didn't Yitzchak intervene and inform Yaakov that Yosef was still alive? The answer is that Yitzchak was aware that this was part of a Divine plan which he was not permitted to reveal, even to spare his son such grief. Now Rabbeinu Avigdor shifts into his role as halachist, as a posek or decisor of law. In all truth, he writes, had Yitzchak believed that Yosef was dead, he would have been obligated to fulfill the Talmudic law that "if one would be obligated to mourn for someone, then he is also obligated to mourn with that person." This means that if a person is in mourning and has close relatives whom - should it have been the mourner who died - would be mourning for him, then those potential mourners must in fact join in with that relative as he mourns for someone else. It sounds a little complicated but as an illustration, Yitzchak would have to mourn, potentially, the death of his son Yaakov. That halachic and familial bond between father and son also necessitates that if Yaakov is mourning someone related to him, then Yitzchak must participate in his son's mourning as well. Therefore, from this halacha alone we must go back to our verse and appreciate its clarity along both pshat and halachic lines. From the fact that Yitzchak cried but did not mourn - which he should have been doing since his son was mourning - it must be that Yitzchak knew that his son was mourning in vain (that is a double entendre for those who know Yiddish) because he knew that Yosef was still living. Parenthetically he concludes, just as grandfather Yitzchak would have to mourn his grandson, a grandson must join his father in mourning his own grandfather, his father's father. This is in fact the minhag of the poskim of Ashkenaz. Wishing you a good Shabbos and an illuminated, joyous Chanukah. D Fox