A Thought on Parshas Vayeshev

"...va'yehi HaShem es Yosef..." "...and HaShem was with Yosef..." (39:2) During the challenging years of Yosef's exile and captivity, HaShem was "with him." This phrase is difficult for us to grasp. Surely, HaShem is with someone at all times and in all circumstances and places. What does the Torah add here by reporting that in Egypt, too, HaShem was "with" Yosef? The Gan views it as less of a theocentric expression and more of a person-centered idea. It really does go without saying that HaShem is "there" and everywhere and thus is "with" one always. The focus of the phrase, however, is from Yosef's perspective. Yosef recognized how greatly he needed HaShem to help him during his many ordeals. The verse is saying that Yosef focused on sensing and knowing at all times that HaShem was with him. The Gan brings a midrashic parable: a herder was leading twelve camels laden with barrels of wine. One of the camels entered the shop of a heathen merchant. The herder let the remaining eleven camels graze in a field and he went in after the stray animal. People asked him "what's this that you are abandoning eleven and going after one?" The herder told them, "it may be that those other camels and their wine don't require much shepherding right now. This lone animal is carrying valuable wine while he is in the premises of someone who can easily defile that wine!" Under such circumstances, the herder explained, he needs me there more than the others, who are secure in a field where no one will contaminate their wine. The Gan now returns to our verse. When the Torah writes that HaShem was with Yosef in Egypt, the emphasis is on the protection that Yosef needed there, lest he be influenced and affected by the heathen environment. Yosef was aware of the risks, and sought HaShem in earnest. HaShem, in turn, sought out Yosef. The Gan observes that in TaNaCh, we find King Shlomo dedicating the Bais HaMikdash and proclaiming "Yehi HaShem Elokeinu Imanu" - "long may HaShem our Lord be with us" (Melachim I 8:57). This also captures the image of people seeking out HaShem in the fervent hope that HaShem will then "seek them out" as well. The Gan closes with a recommendation: every pious person should pray for HaShem to be with us as we make our way through this exile where they are devising bad decrees against us. Yehi HaShem Imanu! Good Shabbos. D Fox **************************************** The Gan was written by 13th century Rabbeinu Aharon ben Yosi haCohen, Baal Tosfos More pirushim presented by Rabbi Dr. Dovid Fox at http://thoughtonparsha.blogspot.com/

A Thought on Parshas Vayishlach

"...va'yomer nisa v'neilecha..." "...and Esav said, let's start traveling and I will accompany you..." (33:12) Once Yakov and Esav agree to part ways on better terms, a striking discussion ensues. Esav suggests that the two of them proceed together on their journey. Yakov politely counters that Esav should travel onward alone. He explains that his children are tender and his flocks and cattle are a burden. He expresses concern that if they are pushed to move too quickly that they will die in one day! He suggests that Esav move ahead, and allow Yakov to move at a slower pace according to the needs of his flock and his family. He says that they will meet again eventually in Seir, which was Esav's territory. Esav offers to leave behind a vanguard but even this is gently refused by Yakov, who asks only that he find favor in his brother's eyes. So, they parted ways and Yakov never did make it to Seir. The passage and all of its details beg for interpretation. Are there deeper meanings or deeper messages beyond the literal text of the dialogue between our patriarch and Esav? The Gan writes that he heard there is a midrash about this that explains the actual meaning of the dialogue. Esav made Yakov a proposal that, despite the separate brachos that each brother had been granted by father Yitzchak, they could make an agreement now to divide their respective inheritances in a different manner. Esav proposed that he and Yakov share equal parts of the material world and of the ultimate world to come. That way, Yakov could have a portion in the global bounty of olam ha'zeh. In turn, Esav could look forward to a share in the spiritual world to come. Yakov's response was that he had to deal with his children and with his flock. The deeper meaning here is that "children" refers to the 12 sons of Yakov. "Flock" refers to their descendants who would become the Nation of Israel (see Yechezkel 34:31). Said Yakov: if my people are given free reign in the acquisition of "this world", they are likely to forfeit their interest and future in the world to come in a single day! Yakov felt that his people would still need much time and spiritual preparation in order to tolerate the wiles and challenges of trying to deal with this-worldly realities. Premature exposure to such nisyonos would distract them from their ultimate mission and they would end up loosing both a fulfilled life in olam ha'zeh and a fulfilled existence in olam ha'baah. So, in verse 14, in saying to Esav that he should "travel alone ahead", he was really telling him that he should go ahead and select his intended portion, which was to inherit this world and take dominion over it. When Yakov adds that "I will proceed slowly", this means that the Jewish nation will endure the stresses and burdens of exile until they are in fact fit and ready to "meet in Seir." Although Seir emerges later on as a reference to Esav's territory, Yakov's message is an allusion to his far-reaching vision of the promise found in Ovadia (1:21) that with the coming of Moshiach, we will ascend to our mountain in Jerusalem and the land of Esav will be judged. At that time, the dominion of the world will be, clearly, solely that of the Divine Kingdom. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought on Parshas Vayetze

"...eid ha'gal ha'zeh..." "...this mound shall bear witness..." (31:52) Once Yakov and Lavan meet to agree upon peaceful coexistence from a distance, as they part ways, they erect a mound which will serve as a reminder that each should refrain from violating physical and geographical boundaries. The mound is referred to by both of them as a "witness." The Gan quotes Rabbeinu Shlomo ben Avraham of Troyes who introduced a rule for accurate interpretation of the Torah. His rule was that every place where the word "witness" (eid) is used in reference to a covenant or pact, that witness serves not only as a reminder of the agreement, but also becomes the source or force which will be used to mete out retribution to whomever violates that pact. Support for this interpretative principle comes from both TaNaCh and Talmudic references. The Gan writes that this Rabbeinu Shlomo was troubled, however, with our verse. We find that Lavan's later successor Bilaam broke the covenant (see Sanhedrin 105a), yet we do not find that Bilaam was punished through the agency of this inanimate mound! The Gan then relates that Rabbeinu Shlomo was deeply bothered by this apparent refutation of his interpretative principle until an answer was revealed to him in a dream. In his dream, he was told "go out and look in Bereishis Zuta." Now, Bereishis Zuta (which means "little Genesis" or "the lesser work on Genesis") does not seem to be a known or published volume. In fact, in my compendium of midrashim printed in 1915, there is no reference to such a volume. The Bereishis Rabba ("great midrash on Genesis") is well known as part of the famous Midrash Rabba. From the fact that we have a Bereishis Rabba one might conjecture that there is or was indeed a Bereishis Zuta. However, such a source is not known to us, nor was it known to Rabbeinu Shlomo or to the Gan himself. The Gan next reports that Rabbeinu Shlomo then searched and found some small sefer that states that when Yakov and Lavan formed their covenant, it was not only the mound that they established but they also agreed to stick a sword into that mound to symbolize "krisas bris" which means "the cutting of the covenant." Later on in the Torah, we read a passage where Bilaam injures his leg while passing by a wall along his path (BaMidbar 22:25). Further there, we read that Bilaam died of a sword wound (ibid. 31:8). When Rabbeinu Shlomo discovered that midrash, he was able to confirm the validity of his principle. Here too, the use of the word "eid" with regard to the covenant presupposes that one who violates his side of the pact will find that his "witness" will bring about his punishment. Our verse is no exception, based on the fascinating tale cited in that small volume. How did the Gan hear of this exciting interpretation? He closes by saying "this is what I heard from my teacher Rabbeinu Moshe bar Shneur zt'l." (I found that this sage was from the French town of Evreux and is cited by the Ramban.) Good Shabbos. D Fox