A Thought on Parshas Vayechi

"...al na tik'bereini b'Mitzrayim..." "...please do not bury me in Egypt..." (47:29) Yakov devotes time and energy to persuading Yosef to bring him out of Egypt for burial. Yosef asserts that he will do this. Nonetheless, Yakov extracts a strong oath from Yosef, pledging him to follow through with burying him in the tomb of his own father and grandfather. Yosef agrees to this as well. Ibn Shu'abi now opens up this passage with some lesser known midrashim and sources. What worries Yakov so much that he needs assurance that Yosef will take him out of Egypt? On the one hand, practically, we can understand that Yakov is aware that Yosef is viceroy and committed to the laws of Pharaoh. He is not free to travel without the king's approval. This may explain why he must insist that Yosef commits to finding a way to "get away from work" long enough to bury him in the Cave of the Patriarchs. Ibn Shu'aib cites a midrash which offers this logical interpretation. However, he offers a deeper layer of interpretation. Yakov is aware that he is dying prematurely. He has forfeited some of his years as a consequence of not expressing more positive gratitude. This is a midrashic interpretation based on the 33 words employed in Yakov's conversation with Pharaoh about his life of suffering (47:8-9). The 33 words in that exchange led, according to the midrash, to Yakov's loss of 33 years of his life. That's a midrash. Ibn Shu'aib continues: what is the connection between Yakov's realization that his life is ending early, and his insisting that Yosef take him out of Egypt? He answers that Yakov was concerned that his brother Esav would not have his own life span shortened, and that he would outlive Yakov. This might mean that upon the sons of Yakov attempting to bury their father in Chevron, the jealous and vindictive Uncle Esav would show up with his legions once again, and attempt to claim the inheritance, and attempt to wrest the tomb for himself, to assert that he, and not Yakov, was the rightful heir to the blessings of Avraham and Yitzchak. So, reasons Ibn Shu'aib, Yakov concluded that the only way to assure that he be buried properly despite the interference of Esav would be for Yosef to accompany his body to Chevron. Yosef was the viceroy to Pharaoh and anywhere he would travel, he would bring the king's royal guard (50:9). That way, if Esav attempted a confrontation, Yosef would have the Egyptian troops stand up to them. ibn Shu'aib supports his interpretation by citing an account from "Sefer Ben Gurion and related volumes from early scholars" that Esav did dispatch a legion, under the leadership of Tzefo the son of Elifaz the son of Esav" (see 36:11,15) to protest the burial of Yakov. Fortunately, Yosef was protected by his vanguard of Pharaoh's soldiers, who vanquished the combatants. According to this legend (the Torah Sheleimah says it is also an authentic Midrash Agadah), Tzefo was taken into custody and brought as a prisoner back to Egypt for his role in the attack on Yosef. He remained in prison the rest of Yosef's live, but then escaped and fled to Carthage. From there he went to Italy and eventually ruled Rome, and was the first to establish massive shrines there. And the conflict continues. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought on Parshas Vayigash

"...va'yizbach...l'Elohei aviv Yitzchak...Va'Yomer...Anochi Ered imach..." (46:1-3) "...Yakov sacrificed to the G-d of his father Yitzchak, who said "I shall go down with you..." There is a shaela gadola - a big question - writes ibn Shu'aib, about the exile into Egypt. All of the other exiles in our history were a consequence of something done wrong. Galus Bavel, Galus Edom... we know through our sages and our prophets wherein our iniquities were. We have concepts with which to follow why each Bais HaMikdash was destroyed and our nation dispersed. The question, though, is what did we do to end up in Egypt? That exile lasted for centuries, and we were hardly yet a nation or an organized religion that we could have done something so wrong so as to deserve the traumata of Mitzrayim. This is a shaela gedola. We know that there are some midrashim wherein Chazal detect words with hidden meanings, or events with subtle implications, which suggest that there were some incidents which hint at Avraham's descendants having had to correct or enhance their collective stature as a people. But is seems clear that Avraham was foretold that exile and oppression were a plan-in-process years before he had a family. We also know that the exile was to last 400 years, but in reality was a 210 year process. The explanation given for this by Chazal is that we clock the onset of exile from the birth of Yitzchak, 90 years before Yakov descended to Egypt. Now on the one hand, we can understand Yitzchak having a role in the saga of exile, in that HaShem had told Avraham that (15:13) ki ger yiyeh zarecha - your child will be a stranger in that strange land, and Yitzchak was in fact the child of Avraham. On the other hand, Avraham had a brief exile in Egypt. Yakov had a definite exile in Egypt. YItzchak, however, never went to Egypt so in what way did our historical exile relate to him; why do we date its onset from his birth? ibn Shu'aib continues: if we study the prophetic foretelling of the exile carefully, we read (15:13) b'eretz lo lahem. We always translate that Avraham's descendants would be exiled in a land that was not theirs. ibn Shu'aib suggests that it means we would be exiled in a land that is not the land of our oppressors. It was a land which at first was not the Egyptians', but belonged to us, namely, the land where Yitzchak lived. The "exile" began while we were not geographically in exile. And if you will ask that the land is also described as "bais avadim" - HaShem says that He is the One who took us out of the place where we were slaves, ibn Shu'aib responds that the verse actually means "a place that was run by slaves", namely, the sons of Cham who were cursed and branded as a slave nation; the verse does not mean that we were slaves ourselves the entire time. So now that we have presented an alternative formulation for how the exile really began before we were slaves and before we left our own land, and how its onset coincided with the birth of Yitzchak who never was a slave and never was exiled, we now must explain wherein Yitzchak can be regarded as the first to experience that exile. ibn Shu'aib suggests that the answer lies in what the Torah tells us about Yakov's sacrificial offerings prior to descending to Egypt. Our verse relates that Yakov sacrificed to "the G-d of his father Yitzchak." It seem curious that it does not say that he sacrificed to "his own G-d", which he surely did. What is hinted at by this verse? ibn Shu'aib reminds us that earlier (41:42, 53), Yakov refers to "his G-d" as "the Dread of Yitzchak." What is meant by the expression that HaShem is the Dread of Yitzchak? The answer is that from the time that Yitzchak learned of the impending exile which would take his son and his grandsons to Egypt, he was in dread of the impact which that long peril would have on his family, and he prayed that HaShem lighten the process. HaShem regarded Yitzchak's personal struggle and suffering over that future galus as the onset of galus. The internal exile began 90 years before the overt exile. A mind preoccupied with future suffering is also suffering. ibn Shu'aib then says that there is a mystical concept known as sod ne'elam - a hidden dimension - here. The "reason" for that preliminary exile was to facilitate a sacred energy in advance of all future suffering which would befall the Jewish people. Mobilizing the pure and saintly pleadings of Yitzchak, who suffered over the very thought of Jews in peril, was a catalyst for the Divine Presence to be part of all of our future exiles. He brings scriptural support for the recurrent promise made to Avraham, made to Shmuel, made to Dovid, made to Yeshayahu, that the Shechina would always accompany us during our national tragedies. Just as Yitzchak paved the path of tefilla, of forging a link from earth to heaven prior to exile, so would that link now connect heaven with earth in all centuries to come. And, ibn Shu'aib assures us, we can depend on this in our own lives as well, as foretold through the prophet Zecharia (9:9) "Rejoice greatly O daughter of Tzion! Shout for joy, O daughter of Yerushalayim! For your king, with the Righteous One, is coming to redeem you." Good and hopeful Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought About Parshas Miketz

"...Pharaoh...Poti Phera...Yosef hu ha'Shalit..." "...Pharaoh...Poti Phera...Yosef was the Sultan over Egypt..." This week ibn Shu'aib takes a stealthy approach in commenting on the parsha. He begins this process by examining the name or title Pharaoh. Varying people in the parsha refer to this Egyptian ruler as "Pharaoh" which, writes ibn Shu'aib, must mean that this was his formal title and not his name, for who would refer to their leader by his first name? We must infer, therefore, that Pharaoh was a title, such as "king" or "president". ibn Shu'aib adds that the name "Hiram", king of Tzur (Tyre), also was not a name at all. Rather, the word for king or ruler in those times in that region was "Hiram" (In Hebrew, it is actually Chirram and means "exalted" or distinguished, just as a "harem" means the women made distinguished as property of the ruler, and a cherem is a writ of excommunication which makes a person off limits, thus negatively distinguished). The name "Avimelech" who was a king of the Pelishtim (Philistines) is also not a name, but a title. ibn Shu'aib points out that all of the rulers who lived in that region were entitled "Avimelech." So, in Egypt there was the Pharaoh, in Tzur there was the Hiram and in Philistia there was the Avimelech. But now ibn Shu'aib becomes cryptic, at least in my interpretation of his words. Let's remember: ibn Shu'aib lived in Spain in the early 1300s. At that time, the Christians had accelerated their conquest of the provinces of Iberia, and were increasingly successful in vanquishing the Moors, or Moslems, who had ruled that area for hundreds of years. In fact, during much of that earlier time, Jewish scholarship had flourished in that the Moors were somewhat tolerant of us. As the centuries passed, however, the tide turned in Spain and the Christian rulers began killing off both Jews and Moslems. The Moors lost most of their territory and retreated to the south. The fate of Jewish communities depended on who was in power at a given time. Ultimately, the Inquisition forbade all people to practice any faith other than that of the ruling Catholics, which led to the virtual end of both Jewish and Moslem life in Spain for centuries to come. In the days of ibn Shu'aib, relationships with the Church were tenuous and fractious. Dealings with Moors were limited, in that most of them had fled to southern Spain, whereas the Jews were in the northern and central provinces. By early 1300, the frame of reference for ibn Shu'aib would have been the Christian governance of Spain. How curious, then, are the words he writes now: Pharaoh, Hiram, Avimelech are all titles, just as the Moslems say "al Khalifa" (the Caliph), and the {Christians} say "Sultan" or "Emir al Mul'minim." If we know our history, we are aware that Emir al Mul'minim is an Arabic title meaning "leader of the faithful." We can see in those words the cognate Hebrew words Amir which means a spokesman and emun which means faithfulness. Sultan is Arabic and means "ruler" or "powerful one." We can see in that word the cognate Hebrew word shalit which means to rule or have power (this is what our verse (42:6) calls Yosef!). Khalif or Caliph has become familiar to us these days because of world events; in Arabic, it means successor to, or replacement for, Mohammed. In Hebrew the cognate word is chalif which is a replacement or equal. Now that we have a grasp of the words used by ibn Shu'aib, however, we must pose a question: since he lived in Christian Spain, where the Moslem presence was minimal, why does he cite as examples of enduring royalty the titles used by the Moors, rather than refer to the Spanish titles used to identify kings and leaders? If a contemporary American writer would be describing political parties in this country, he would hardly use "Whigs" and "Tories" as examples. Moreover, after telling us that the Moslems say al Kalifa, why does he say that the Christians say "Sultan" and "Emir."? The Medieval Spanish word for king was rey; a ruler was gobernador. Why would the local Spaniards use the Arabic titles? Later on in the parsha, ibn Shu'aib references a verse in Tehillim (81:6) which calls the miracles linked to our exodus from Egypt as eidus - testimonies. He asks why Dovid HaMelech refers to the miracles of Pesach as "testimony." To what are the events of Pesach testifying? He suggests that we commemorate Pesach every year because HaShem does not always perform miracles for us. HaShem does not always alter reality for the Jewish people the way that He did in Egypt. It is therefore up to us to commemorate those miraculous events every year, so as to remind ourselves that there have been miracles, and will be miracles in the future. Our commemorations testify to the reality that there were once miracles. With that, ibn Shu'aib addresses Chanukah. He reminds us that there too, HaShem brought about miracles, both evident and subtle. We commemorate those miracles every year by symbolizing some of the events through lighting a menorah. This helps remind us that just as there have been miraculous interventions in ages past, so will there by wondrous changes in our future. I suspect that this explains ibn Shu'aib's hidden message. It is well known that the Golden Age of Spain was coming to a treacherous and violent end during the years leading up to the Inquisition. There was little that ibn Shu'aib could write to protest this or to complain of this. However, in his narrative about the enduring monarchies mentioned in the Bible, such as the Pharaohs, the Avimelechs and the Hirams, he studiously avoids mention of the Spanish Kings. He does not offer them or their leaders his tacit support by implying that their entitled kings will reign for a long period. Rather, his example of rulers who endure are... the sultans, the caliphs and the emirs. Somehow, ibn Shu'aib felt that in centuries to come, those rulers would endure, using the same royal titles and brandishing the same power that they had in earlier centuries in his native Spain. Yishmael will rise as Esav retreats. And it looks like he might have been right. HaShem Yirachem al Amo b'eis ha'zos. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought on Parshas Vayeshev

"...to'eh ba'sadeh..." "...straying in a field.." (37:15) "...chosam'cha u'psilecha u'mat'cha..." "...your seal, your cloak and your staff..." (38:18) This week's parsha contains many vivid images and scenes. Each passage is deep and detailed and offers many avenues of understanding. This was always my "favorite" parsha in that it was the first one that I learned b'iyun - with focused intensity - when I was in 10th grade. In turn, the events of the past few weeks, both personally and globally, have led me to meditate on ikvasa d'meshicha - on the times in which we are living and on the direction our people is headed. It may be for this latter reason that I am dwelling on some of the esoteric teachings which ibn Shu'aib offers. I have selected two of his midrashic ideas which draw upon remez - the hidden hints which lend meaning to our verses. This first verse which I cite depicts Yosef lost in the wilderness as he seeks out his brothers. He is found blundering in a field by an angelic messenger. What is the significance of HaShem's angel watching him alone and astray in a field somewhere? ibn Shu'aib cites a midrash: the word used is "to'eh" which is written here with three letters, tof, ayin and hae. The vowel sound "vav" (o) is pronounced but not written, so that this word of four letters is reduced to its three consonants. The midrash sees this as grounds to infer a secret lesson: the notion of blundering in a field is an allusion to the exiles which we will experience. Our exile to Egypt involved 400 years; Babylon was 70 years; Edom lasts into the 5th millennium. In our word to'eh, the tof has the numerical value of 400; the ayin is 70, the hae is 5. ibn Shu'aib notes that this self-same allusion appears earlier (32:5) when Yakov proclaims to Esav "v'eichar ad ata" - I was delayed until now. The word "until now" - ata - is also spelled with ayin, tof and hae. There too Yakov signals to his nemesis, the archetype for our current exile, that we will tarry and survive those three long intervals of persecution, but we will return. HaShem's angel watching Yosef astray in a field signals that HaShem will monitor our plight even in the far away fields of exile, from which we will return. ************ The second verse above depicts the collateral, or security deposits, which Yehuda gives in order to assure that he will return to the selected place. What do the seal, cloak and staff symbolize? What do they represent in Yehuda pledging that he will return? ibn Shu'aib cites a midrash: these three items represent the three batei mikdash. A collateral is called a mashkon in Hebrew. A sacred shrine is called a Mishkan. The similarity between the two words hints at the conditional nature of HaShem giving us a select place in which His Presence will dwell. If we fail to adhere to our promise, the mishkan becomes a mashkon, and is taken until we can provide the deeds which we have pledged. Then, the mashkon is returned and is once again a mishkan. The seal represents the first Temple built by Shlomo. This is because a king is known in TaNaCh as a chosem (seal). The splendor of the first Temple was that it was built by a king and it operated during the era of kings. The cloak represents the second Temple. This is because a cloak symbolizes the regal gowns of the judges on the Sanhedrin. The splendor of the second Temple was that it housed the Sanhedrin, chief justices dedicated to resolving the conflicts of the nation according to the will of HaShem. Finally, the staff represents the third Temple, the mikdash yet to be built. This is because a staff is a symbol of Moshiach, the messianic leader who will spout in the days ahead and in whose time the ultimate Bais HaMikdash will be established. May the geulah come soon in our days. Good Shabbos. D Fox