Is My Father Still Alive? A (Belated) Vayigash Thought Le'Ilui Nishmat Werner (Binyamin Ben Mordechai Dov) Fleischmann

Everyone talks about why when Yosef finally reveals himself to his brothers he asks, "Is my father still alive?" There are many answers. But I'm thinking that whatever we want to say about that specific question in that moment there's a broader context to consider. In the big picture Yaakov is always split between being Yosef's father and being the father of his other sons. This is true in terms of how they saw him as their father and how he related to them as his children.

Yaakov clearly treated Yosef in one way (special clothing, spending time just with him, sending him to check on the brothers/others) and the brothers another way. I don't think that Yosef ever refers to Yosef as "our father" or that the brothers ever refer to his as father of all of them, they just speak of father of them ("we are 10 sons") and also - by the way - of a brother who's now gone.

So when Yosef asks - if just his father is still alive, it's not such big news. They were talking about their father, and it's true that he was just one living body and soul, but in essence Yosef's father and the brother's father were quite different, like two fathers. So it makes sense to stress this point, putting it out there that his father is special to him, that through this whole story Yaakov as a split father is key (spiritually keeping Yosef strong, sensing spiritually - if not consciously - that Yosef was still alive, and on the other hand being deceived by the brothers and having tension with them over the fact that Yosef died under their watch.) (It's ironic that Yosef died under the brothers' watch, even though he was sent to watch them).

I always thought it odd that we speak only of the story of Yosef and his brothers, why not speak of the story of Yosef's sons. I think calling these brothers sons would highlight their unity, that they were born to the same father. Speaking of Yosef and his brothers highlights the division between them, the fact that as independent humans these sons split into groups of brothers, a group of 10 and a group of one (plus his dad). (This fits with the brothers' saying we are ten sons, and then there's one who is not here. He was never with them, in their group.

In hard times we sing Am Yisrael Chai + Od Avinu Chai. I think this harkens back to Yosef asking, "Is my father still alive?" We say that Our Father in Heaven is still alive and connected to us. What helps this to be so? The fact that are sing TOGETHER and say OUR father, rather than singing alone about MY father. When is it true that Am Yisrael Chai? When we embrace each other - correcting the mistakes made by all involved in dividing sons and brothers in this story.

May we be blessed to be living embodiments of Hineh mah tov u'mah na'im shevet achim gam yachad. May our Father in Heaven be proud of each one of us, and also of all of us together. And may our father - the father of Barry and Neil - be proud of each of us and of both of us, his two sons, two dear brothers, together.

Shoftim Haiku With Notes

 

Shoftim

We need protection
Of the gates into our soul (1)
Shoftim VeShotrim

Bribes will blind your eyes
And the world is filled with them (2)
Beware subtle bribes

Seek justice justice
For Jewish brothers, others
Mayor Koch's pshat (3)

This dead man will die
Already gone long ago
As some dead men live (4)

Two or three eidim
The third counts like the second
For better or worse (5)

Listen to the judge
When he says that right is right
Or that left is left (6)



(1) The Sefer Yetzirah and others explain in a mystical/metaphorical way that the command to defend our gates applies not only to our cities but tour bodies. Our orifices are our gates and we must protect our souls by defending what we allow inside us. When the Torah speaks of social justice there is also an element of treating ourselves justly and wisely as well.

(2) Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman explains that the world can to some extent offer bribes of a variety of material forms. We must be on guard to adhere to the truth and not be swayed by the bribes of this world. Along these lines Rav Chaim Schmuelewitz said "there are no doubts, only desires." We must be on guard to do what is good and right and to try to be as objective as possible, staying as free as we can from vested interests, which can be viewed as forms of bribes as well.

(3) When Koch was hosting his Ask The Mayor radio program one evening years ago, a man called up and said that Hatzalah – an ambulance corps under Jewish auspices - wouldn't take him because he wasn't Jewish. Koch said flatly that he didn't believe the man because a rabbi had taught him this traditional Jewish understanding of the seemingly redundant wording of “justice, justice shall you seek.

(4) The Torah states that via testimony of valid witnesses "yumat hameit" – “the dead man shall die.” The rabbis explain that an immoral person is like dead when alive. The rabbis add that righteous people live on after they die, through the ripple effect of the just acts which filled their lives.

(5) The rabbis say that the Torah says two or three people count as valid witnesses to teach us that if the two witnesses are found to be con artists, the third person is held accountable too for having latched onto them. The lesson, developed in the Talmud’s Tractate Makkot, is that it is a positive thing to connect to good people. Just as we are held accountable for associating with people that are cold or unjust, so too we are credited for supporting and associating with those who are righteous and courageous.

(6) See Rabbi Baruch HaLevi Epstein’s Torah Temimah. The statement rabbis of the Talmud that says that we must listen even if leading rabbis say left is right is often quoted in certain Orthodox circles. The Torah Temimah quotes a statement from the Talmudic scholars that state outright the sensible reverse: that we should only listen when they say right is right or left is left. But when what we are told is clearly wrong then we must not obey.

Replacing Pinchas

Replacing Pinchas

This is on last week’s parsha. I’ve been thinking and rethinking it and wanted to share it even though the parsha may seem to have passed. It is an adaptation of the ideas of Rabbi Yitzchak Twersky. In three instances where I added my own thoughts, I put them in parentheses, followed by the word “Me.”)

There are four topics in Parshat Pinchas: 1) the postscript to the Pinchas’ actions, 2) the dividing of Israel according to inheritance, including lists of lineage and the episode of the daughters of Tzlofchod, 3) the choice of Yehoshua to take over for Moshe, and 4) the regular-temidim and Mussaf Korbanot. What is the connecting theme of these topics?

The common theme here is the concept of korban (which is normally translated as sacrifice, but really means an act that increases closeness to G-d - Me).

The killing of Zimri is described by Chazal in terminology of sacrifice. We’re told in 25:6 – that Zimri was makriv a Midianite woman, towards the opening of the Ohel Moed. Also, Pinchas is rewarded with kehunah, and we’re informed that he brought kaparah for the Jewish People. The Medrash asks about the use of the word kaparah – “did he offer a korban that this word is used?” And the Medrash explains that his killing a wicked man was considered like offering a sacrifice.

These same phrases are repeated in the story of Bnot Tzlofchod (27:1, 5). Their approach of Moshe is preceded by the word vatikravna, then there’s a mention of being towards the opening of the Ohel Moed. Additionally we’re told that Moshe was makriv their words – lifnei Hashem.

The symbol used for the passing on of leadership to Yehoshua is semicha, a physical act commonly used in the avodah of korbanot.

The last part of the Parsha is actually about korbanot.

The deeper theme here is that of replacement, a foundation of what korbanot are about. By attacking Zimri and Kazbi, Pinchas replaced G-d’s Kin’ah with his own (25:11). Also, Hashem was intent upon destroying Am Yisrael, but we’re told that He did not destroy them, because the killing of Zimri and Kazbi replaced that of Bnei Yisrael (velo kiniti et Bnei Yisrael). These replacements are the undercurrent of the korban that the Medrash says that Zimri and Kazbi became.

The section that discusses the division of the land deals with the generation that replaced those who left Mitzrayim. As described in Shemot 3:8, the Yotz’ai Mitzrayim were originally meant to inherit the land but the next generation inherited in their stead.

Bnot Tzlofchod replaced the men (father, brothers) that were not there to inherit the land.

Yehoshua replaced Moshe.

Karbanot are based on the principal of the animal replacing us.

There are two seemingly out of place references in this parsha to people who were killed out. These can be explained in the light of the approach we’ve developed.

26:9-11 speaks of Korach and co. Their desire was to replace Moshe and Aharon. Their names are evoked by the daughters of Tzlofchod. We can now see that Bnot Tzlofchod are drawing a contrast between their father (who they wish to rightfully fill in for) and Korach who had an insincere personal agenda motivating his demand for replacement.

26:19 refers to Eir and Onan. At the center of that story is Onan’s refusal to replace the lineage of his deceased brother.

There is also reference to the death of Aharon’s sons. They brought a korban that did not serve to replace them, thus their lives were taken. Aharon and others who brought korbanot correctly were replaced by their korban.

That this portion focuses on replacement is not surprising taken in light of what precedes it. The previous portion focuses on abuses of this concept. Bilam continuously uses korbanot towards accomplishing his evil designs. Also, at the end of the parsha Bnei Yisrael are involved with zivchei meitim.

Going back to Bilam, there is a striking similarity between Bilam’s story and the story of the Akeida. Chazal note the description of Bilam rising early and preparing his donkey for his journey, and imagine G-d telling him, “Wicked one, Avraham already preceded you in rising early.” These two personalities personify self-centeredness on the one hand, and self-sacrifice on the other. Also, it is not arbitrarily that the Mishna in Avot chose to contrast the students of Avraham and the followers of Bilam. (Some commentaries explain that Chazal contrast the students, because sometimes the differences can be hard to detect in the masters – Me.)

Finally, Pinchas put himself in danger. Like Yitzchak, he was willing to sacrifice his own life and was then replaced and saved. (Normally, one can not become a Kohein. Even as a gift from G-d we don’t see another example of this once it was set who the Kohanim were. Rav Nachman Kahane suggests that Pinchas actually became a new person, and the person he became was a Kohein. Within the terminology we’ve been using, you could say that the old Pinchas was replaced by a new one! - Me )

In conclusion, this parsha presents a restatement of the fundamental concept of replacement as it relates to true service of G-d.

P.S. Unrelated (although everything is really related) parsha point: Rav Nachman Kahane notes the striking similarity between the Dovid vs. Goliad story and the Pinchas vs. Zimri story.

A Leader Who Carries the Nation in His Heart – Parashat Tetzaveh

Rabbi Shmuel Rabinowitz, Rabbi of the Western Wall and Holy Sites

 

This week’s parasha – Tetzaveh – deals with the clothing worn by the Kohen Gadol, the High Priest, in the Temple.  These were valuable clothes meant to symbolize the Kohen’s respectable status and the fact that he was chosen to serve the nation and sacrifice its sacrifices.

One of the pieces of clothing worn by the Kohen was the “choshen”, the breastplate.  This was a square piece of material embroidered with valuable stones that had the names of the twelve tribes etched on them.  The sages of the Talmud (Tractate Yoma, page 73) teach us that the choshen was not just a piece of decorative jewelry.  It served a practical purpose for the entire nation.

When the nation faced a significant dilemma requiring a decision, they would present the problem to the Kohen Gadol and the answer would be given from G-d through the stones of the choshen and the letters etched on them.  The etched letters of the choshen would shine but not in any logical order that would signify a clear and definitive answer.  The Kohen would have to combine the letters that shone and deduce the answer to the dilemma presented to him.  This is possibly why this clothing was called “urim ve’tumim”, referring to the light.

The reason the answer was given in this unclear manner, leaving the Kohen to decipher G-d’s message from the shining letters, is hinted at in our parasha.  One of the halachot (Jewish laws) regarding wearing the choshen stipulates that the choshen must be placed over the Kohen’s heart:

…and the choshen will not move off the ephod. You shall place the Urim and the Tummim into the choshen of judgment so that they will be over Aaron's heart when he comes before the Lord, and Aaron will carry the judgment of the children of Israel over his heart before the Lord at all times.

(Shmot 28, 28 - 30)

This unusual law stipulating where on the Kohen Gadol’s body this clothing must be positioned does not exist with any other item of his clothing.  The other items must be worn by the Kohen when working in the Temple, but if they move slightly out of place, there is no problem.  Only with the choshen do we find a specific directive that it must not move from its designated place.

This law teaches us about the essence of a true leader.  Obviously a leader is obligated to lead his nation wisely, and make decisions after properly considering all the necessary information.  But there is another side to this coin.  A leader who only makes decisions with cold logic will ultimately end up disconnected from his nation.  Analytical considerations do not suffice in determining serious moral issues.  Room must be made for feelings as well.  Sometimes, rational decisions lead us in a certain direction, but when we listen to the sounds emanating from our hearts, other considerations arise which we did not consider when weighing pros and cons.  Listening to these feelings adds a deeper dimension to decision-making.

A leader must not ignore the feelings of his public; he must make room for the “heart”, feeling his nation’s pain and distress, feeling what they are experiencing on a day-to-day basis, and thus attempting to alleviate their hardships.  A leader whose decisions stem from awareness of his nation’s feelings is the one who will arrive at decisions that are beneficial for it.

Only the Kohen wears the choshen etched with the names of the tribes on his heart.  He is the one who can combine the shining letters and create the relevant and best answer for the given situation.  Only a leader who carries the nation in his heart, is sensitive to its troubles and needs, can find the answer, because the decision is based on a combination of factors.

This concept is true for each and every one of us.  It is only the person who carries the suffering of others in his heart, who is aware of another’s distress or pain, can help him and offer the wisest advice which will be the most beneficial. 

Parshat Bo

איש מאת רעהו וגו'. לעיל ג' כ"ב כתיב ושאלה אשה משכנתה ומגרת ביתה, שאז היו הדברים שיצאו מיד, ולא היה התרועעות לישראל עם אנשי מצרים רק עם שכנות, אבל כאשר עלה כי לא נגאלו עד שהשהה י"ב חודש שהיה משפט מצרים, וממכת ערוב ואילך השיגו התרועעות הרבה, ולא עוד אלא במכת חשך שלא קמו איש מתחתיו ג' ימים והאיך התענו כולם ג' ימים, אלא ישראל שהיה אור במושבותם הושיטו להם מזון וכל ההכרחי, ולא שמחו לאידם ולא נקמו בהם, ובזה השיגו ישראל חן גדול בעיניהם:

Mind blowing Netziv, in which he says that the Jews asked for things from their friends the Egyptians because a connection had developed between them in the later plagues. Paticularly he says, they connected during darkness because the only reason the Egyptians did not starve to death and die is because the Jews helped them.

This also fits with the Ibn Ezra who ways that some of the plagues hit both the Jews and the Egyptians. And this is backed up by Moshe saying that he wanted the suffering to stop for the Jewish People.

Dad not in good shape based on all physical measures.  if you see this pray for Binyamin ben Chana.  Just back from ICU, going to try to sleep.....

G-d tells Moshe, in VaEira, his mission , twice. one is phrased more per Jewish People, one more universal. 2 levels/approaches...

We all live 2 lives - Jewish and universal.....

Shemot

Right before candle lighting I feel a calling to share.  Dad is in ICU.  I am sick w fever and cough and all that jazz.  Brother will be sleeping in ICU.

If you see this say a prayer for Binyamin ben Chana, a survivor over and over again, a superman, who came back again and again.

I can't read the opening words of Sefer Shemot without thinking of the closing words of Sefer Breishit.  Specifically Yosef's assurance to the brothers that he will sustain them.  And then a page turns and Yosef is gone and completely unknown to the leader of Egypt.  That's life.  We're so here and so strong one second, but then the page can so easily turn.  And in a second...

May we be blessed to humbly, kindly, joyfully, generously, embrace life while we are vibrantly still living it.

Shabbat Shalom.

Shemot - Guest Post

Please continue to have Rabbi Hoffman in mind in your prayers for a complete & speedy recovery, among the ill of the nation.

                                                                                 

                                                                             

                                                                           Setting the Stage

                                             By Rabbi Joshua (dramatically known as the Hoffer) Hoffman

  

  The Talmud (Shabbos 12) tells us that a father should never favor one son over another, because as a result of the two measures of silk by which Yaakov favored Yosef, our ancestors ended up in Egypt. This passage is a bit difficult, because exile was already foretold at the bris ben habesarim, many years before. The Netziv explains simply that the favoritism Yaakov showed would have been enough on its own to cause the exile.

  Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik zt"l, however, based on a midrash cited in the Torah Shleima, took the gemara in a non-literal way. The Rabbis tell us that Yaakov sought to sit in tranquility, but the trouble with Yosef arose. What this means is that he wanted Mashiach to come, and he could have. Just as the 210 years the Jews spent in Egypt were considered as 400 years, so too, the 20 years Yaakov spent with Lavan could have been considered as 400 years. The only reason that didn't happen is that the brothers did not appreciate the principle of how good and pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together. As representatives of G-d in the world, the nation had to be unified,reflecting the Unity of G-d. The Midrash in fact says that Yehudah went down from his brothers, Yosef went down to Mitzrayim, and Yaakov mourned. And G-d was busy sowing the seeds of Mashiach. The conflict of the brothers necessitated the preparation for the path of Mashiach.

  This conflict then had to be resolved in order for redemption to come. We find at the end of Parshas Vayechi that the brothers, speaking in the name of their departed father, asked Yosef for forgiveness. 

 

  Interestingly, Rabbeinu Bachya notes that we never find explicitly that Yosef did indeed forgive his brothers. Why not? Perhaps Yosef believed that the brothers first needed to forgive themselves and not become mired in a black sheep complex, thinking they could never change. As my teacher, Rav Aharon Soloveichik zt"l explained, that is why he put them in a situation in which they had to save Binyamin, to convince them that given the chance they would not repeat the same mistake as they did with Yosef. 

  I believe that the symbiotic relationship between Moshe and Aharon, as displayed in the book of Shemos, served as a further impetus to the tribes, setting up a model of brotherly love, with Aharon wholeheartedly accepting his younger brother as his successor in leading the people to redemption.

Sometime I want to hide in public, post in the least likely place to be seen.  Dad is in bad shape at the moment.  It happened suddently.  I am ill, have been for days.  Anything could happen with dad.  I have to be ready, but am in denial.  And I'm sick w possible pneumonia.  Dad probably has pneumonia, with serious complications. Was there all day, needed to go home.....

Vayechi Thought

The seventh time that Yosef cries in his serialized Torah drama is when the brothers approach him after Yaakov dies, saying (in Yaakov's name) that he should not take revenge for what they did to him.

He is, perhaps, struck by how wealth and power are a facade and that all the power in the world is no match for the strength inherent in being connected to your family. He cries, as he realizes, that while he seems to be the one who has what they lack, and that he is the one providing for them, the opposite may be more true. They have something he always wanted, each other.

(Based on words of Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, in "Yosef's Tears")

Vayishlach

Read fascinating essay by rav Chanoch Waxman about how Yaakov returns the birthright to Eisav/apologizes for taking it, when he meets him.

Read it in Torah MiEtzion, my hunch is that this presents a shorter version.

Vayeitzei: Even Yisrael

Vayeitzei is a unique parsha (I believe) in that it is one parshiah, it has no breaks. It reminds me of when I sometimes write and have so much to get out that I don't stop the paragraph, because the writing reflects how my life is feeling non-stop. I think Yaakov probably felt pressured, had a hard time catching his breath, and this is reflected in the style of how this parsha is written breaklessly. Yaakov was like a rock in how he kept going. He was steady, patient. He didn't lose it (except once to Lavan at the end of the parsha and he's actually in the wrong about something there but doesn't know so).

It's not for nothing that the Torah calls Yaakov Even Yisrael (in Vayechi Yosef is described, by Yaakov, as being loyal to Yaakov - Even Yisrael). And it's purposeful, as well, that stones, rock solid ones keep appearing in the parsha. Yakkov takes one to sleep on. (Seforno says they were left out for that purpose for visitors. Ibn Ezra says that despite the midrash that says that he took several stones that joined into one, the verse actually says that he took [one] of the stones of the place.) Then the stone becomes a standing pillar like altar, which mirrors the ladder of Yaakov's dream, the the head reaching up in holiness and the foot of it grounded (the way a person should be).

Next, Yaakov gets to town and the first thing he sees is a stone covering a well. (It is a unit representing the disunity and distrust of the shepherds who won't allow anyone to get water till they all do.) He takes it off the well in one shot, inspired by his love and feeling of connection for his wife to be (and then he cries, and tradition has it that it's because in this moment of the unity he felt, and that the stone represents, he saw that even with the love of his life there would one day be separation, in death and burial [-When a matzeivah is put up]).

And then one thing happens after another - work, marriage, work marriage, children, more children, "if it's not one things it's another. And then this parshah/parshiah ends with things coming full circle like a stone. There's that stone again, which is used as a standing altar, a sign of hopeful peace, despite tension, between Yaakov and Lavan.

Stones represent wholeness as well as fragmentation. they protect us, they build buildings, even holy ones. And they break our bones and harm us. In this non-stop story of the building of the Jewish People the stone is an apt symbol of the development of Yaakov Even Yisrael, Jacob , the Rock of Israel. When Yirmiyahu is chosen he doesn't want the job. G-d shows him a vision of a potter creating vessels on his stone. Metzudat Tzion says that one creates via stones, that was the message to Yirmiyahu, he was being chosen and needed to embrace his being the receptacle - the kli kibul - for recreating, shaping, the Jewish People. On a similar note, when we're told of the rapid birth rate of the Jews in Egypt, the birthing stone is mentioned in the context of the creation of a nation.

May we be blessed to be rock solid and to build up our nation and the world as our great prophets and ancestors did before us.

Balak: Love and Curses

By Rabbi Neil Fleischmann
Published in the New Jersey/Rockland Jewish Standard: July 3, 2015

“Mah tovu ohalecha Ya’akov, mishkenotechah Yisrael!” —
“How good are your tents, Jacob, your dwellings, Israel.”

These beautiful words of blessing stir up warm memories of growing up Jewish. They were among the first holy verses that I sang and chanted with peers in school and in camp. And yet, I wonder how these words of blessing — uttered by Bilam, who came to curse — got into our Torah in the first place.

When Bilam is hired to curse the Jewish People, God blocks his curse and turns it into a blessing. At the heart of this story is the question of why God, who runs the world, was concerned with Bilam’s curse. Bilam himself concedes that “there is no divination in Jacob and no sorcery in Israel” (Bamidbar 23:23). Why did this story unfold as it did? What lesson does it contain that makes it worthy of being in the Torah?

Nechama Leibowitz quotes the commentary of Rav Yosef Ibn Kaspi. He asserts a truth regarding relationships to explain why God turned Bilam’s curse into a blessing. As Kaspi puts it, “A true friend will save his colleague any pain, even if he knows that no danger will ensue. Similarly, the Almighty, out of the abundance of his love for Israel, prevented Bilam from cursing them.” When you really love someone, you care about that which matters to them, even if you know it to be insignificant. God knew that the Israelites were afraid of Bilam’s curse, so He not only prevented Bilam from saying his negative words but He flipped them into blessings, all because of His love for His people.

Ibn Kaspi’s take on Parshat Balak exposes the subconscious layer of the literal text, revealing God’s love of the Jewish People as the theme of this episode. God is modeling a loving relationship for us, and thus we must try to be like God, fulfilling the mandate of Imitatio Dei. We need to remember that what matters to others aren’t necessarily the things that we think are important. To truly care for another person means to be sensitive to what they care about. When those around us are concerned about something, even if we don’t understand why they care about it, true friendship and love dictates that we be supportive of their feelings.

When God took the Jews out of Egypt He took us the long way in order to avoid war. He could have told the Jews to buckle up and that He was with them and they didn’t have to be afraid. Instead, He respected and accommodated to people’s fears rather than challenging their feelings, which He knew were objectively unwarranted.

The Rabbis teach in Pirkei Avot that every human being is beloved by God. This love is made clear by the awareness we are granted of the fact that we were created in the image of God. Additionally, that love is evidenced by the giving of the Torah and by our being deemed children of God. Similarly, before we fulfill our obligation of reciting Shema in the day and the night, we reference God’s “abundant love” for us, highlighting this aspect of the relationship.

God turned Bilam’s curse into a blessing at a time of transition, right after the decree that Moshe would not enter the Land of Israel. The generation that left Egypt had died out; the new generation was feeling insecure as they prepared to finally enter the Promised Land and they needed and were given a reassurance of God’s love.

May this illustration of God’s great love for His people in the desert cause us to recall and be inspired by the immeasurable love that God has for each of us today. May we approach our spiritual lives with a sense of God’s love and reciprocate that love through joyous involvement in Torah life, rather than regarding our observance of mitzvot as a mandated burden. And may we all strive and succeed to follow His ways and to be there for each other in vulnerable times when we are needed most.

Behar Poem

Behar Poem: A Unique Take On Shmittah

There's an age old question- who are you?

Unfortunately many people don't have a clue

We think we're our clothes or our house or our car

But many of us don't really know who we are

And most people have a funny quirk

They define themselves by their work

While being a doctor or a lawyer may be what you do

It does not answer the question- who are you?

Being a farmer used to be the job everyone had

It wasn't their definition, didn't make them good or bad

It what never true that what a person was

could be summed up by what he or she does

Shmittah was a year when everyone took a rest

And this provided a profound test

People had to define who they were inside

We have our own potential, from this we can't hide

Every seven years they took a break

It was time to be real, not fake

May we be inspired by Shmittah to know who we are

And in our unique service of G-d to travel far.

Yitro

Yitro finds Moshe judging and counseling the people all day, non-stop.  He asks about it and Moshe says that the people come to him in order to get close to G-d.  They come with questions about their interactions and Moshe makes G-d's laws and His Torah clear to them...

.

Vayeitzei

Guest Post

The Eyes Have It

• 
  By Rabbi Joshua Hoffman
  
  The Torah’s description of Ya’akov’s two marriages, first to Leah and then to Rachel, is, at first glance, somewhat difficult to understand. We are told that Lavan had two daughters, the older one Leah, and the younger one Rachel. Leah, the Torah continues, had eyes that were “rakos,” which is commonly translated as soft, weak, or tender, and Rachel was of beautiful form, or complexion, and beautiful appearance (Bereishis 29:16-17). Ya’akov, the Torah tells us, loved Rachel, and proposed to Lavan to work for him for seven years, and then marry her. Lavan agrees, following which he worked for Lavan for seven years, which, in his love for her, seemed like several days, but, on the morning after the wedding, discovered that Lavan had given him Leah instead of Rachel. Ya’akov complained to Lavan about his trickery, and, eventually, married Rachel, as well. Many questions arise regarding this account, but a puzzling one is how Ya’akov did not realize, until the morning, that the bride he had been given was Leah, given the difference in appearance between the two sisters, as described in the Torah.
  
  My friend, Rabbi Yitzchok Twersky, author of Amitah Shel Torah, has pointed out (although not in his book) that the medieval collection of midrashim, Lekach Tov, says that Leah and Rachel were identical twins, and, the reason that the Torah mentions the difference in their physical appearance is because, in truth, that difference was very slight, so that the appearance of Leah’s eyes was the only way in which the two sisters looked differently from each other. This comment of the midrash answers another question, which is, given the common translation of the word “rakos,” why does the Torah, uncharacteristically, speak in a disparaging manner about one of the matriarchs. Actually, however, the Targum, translates the word “rakos” as “yafin,” which according to Rav Noson Adler in his Nesinah LeGer to Onkeles, means “beautiful.” The Rashbam, as well, says that the Torah means to say that Leah’s eyes were beautiful, in that they were light, or blush, rather than dark. He adds that according to the Rabbis, the eyes are the salient feature of a person’s face, and if a woman has pretty eyes, her entire appearance is attractive. The description of Rachel, on the other hand, is of her overall appearance, not that focused on any particular feature. This approach, while it answers a number of otherwise particularly puzzling questions, still leaves us with the question of why the Torah placed so much emphasis on the physical appearance of Lavan’s daughters. Rav Aharon Kotler was strongly opposed to a simple understanding of the account, saying that it reflects badly on the personality of our forebears, and that there is a deeper meaning in the background. I believe that we can, with the support of certain commentators, explain what happened differently from the common understanding.
  
  Rabbi Shmuel David Luzzato, popularly known as Shadal, explains the term “rakos” as meaning weak, associating it with the expression, found later in the Torah, of “rach ha-leiv” (Devarim 20:8), or “weak hearted.” The term, then he says, refers to an ethical character trait, and the Torah mentions it in regard to Leah so that we should not think that Ya’akov felt that Leah did not have good middos, or character. Perhaps we may further suggest that “einayim rakos” means a good eye, thus conforming with Rabbi Eliezer in Pirkei Avos, who says that this is the most important character trait that a person should develop. Rabbi Yochanan, his teacher, agreed, saying that the the good traits mentioned there are included in the trait of having a good eye (Avos 2:14). Rabbi Reuven Bulka, in his commentary to Avos, explains that this trait entails seeing the good in everyone. We may add that this includes one’s own self as well. Leah, then, saw the positive elements in both Rachel and herself, and realized that Ya’akov, in order to become the patriarch required for the Jewish people at that stage of its founding, needed to incorporate within himself the personalities of both the sisters. As Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik explained, Leah represented gevurah, or perseverance, in her quest to become Ya’akov’s wife, and Rachel represented chesed, or kindness, in her acquiescence to Lavan’s plan of tricking Ya’akov, to save her sister from shame. The two character traits, combined, resulted in the trait of tiferes, or splendor, which Ya’akov represented in the process of the creation of the Jewish people. Leah, with her good heart, understood this and acted accordingly.

Lech Lecha Poem By Rabbi Neil Fleischmann

There's a story we all know
about Avraham being asked to go
Hashem said to Avraham, "Lech lechah"
We should hear the story and we say, "Aha!"

If you think about it for a while
you can see it with a new style
Look at it in a different way
change your life, starting today

Avraham was told from himself to go
that's a game-changer of the whole show
He was told that he really had to change
to take his life and rearrange

"Lech lecha" means go to you
G-d said, "You know what to do"
"Lech lecha"- return to your self
Whether you're a giant or an elf

"Lech lecha"'s a call to everyone
It's sometimes hard, sometimes fun
"Lech lecha" means become the real you
We could start now, we know what to do

Avraham was told to become who he was
That's all any of us have, all anyone does
All of our lives we go to who we are
May we be blessed to be close, not far

Noach

If a friend woke me in the middle of the night and asked me to share a Dvar Torah on Parshat Noach, I’d probably come out with the one about whether or not Noach would have been an even greater tzadik, or not such a tzadik at all if he'd lived in Avraham’s generation. This is also an easy and popular route for a pulpit rabbi to take: Step One – Read pasukaloud, Step Two – Read Rashi aloud, Step Three – Pause meaningfully, Step Four - Connect with current events.

The pivot of this famous Rashi on Noach is the word “bedorotav.” Noach was referred to as a tzadik in his generation. In addressing this curious description, the rabbis go in two directions. One approach says that he was a tzadik in his generation, because he was the most righteous man in unrighteous times, but if he’d have lived at the same time as a righteous man such as Avraham, he’d have paled in comparison. The medrashpresents an analogy of a small coin that is valuable compared to lesser coins, but put next to a currency of greater worth it becomes inconsequential. The other take is that if Noach acted nobly in a lowly generation how much more so would he have shined as a hero had he lived in the same time as an Avraham. The medrash compares this to a girl that was born into brothels and rises above the immorality that surrounds her.

The problem with the discussion about what Noach would have been like in Avraham’s generation is that the two men were alive at the same time.If you do the math that’s given in the Torah itself it becomes clear that Avraham and Noach overlapped for 58 years (easy to remember because it’s the gematriah of Noach).

Why does the Medrash cited by Rashi say that Noach and Avraham were not in the same generation? This is, in fact, based on the text of the Torah. Right after the flood the Torah states that Noach dies. He lived for three and a half more centuries! The text is teaching us that Noach was not involved in society, and thus even though he was technically alive, he was not considered as living in the same generation as Avraham. Though he was technically alive, Noach was all but buried.

The positive and negative views of Noach each base themselves on the same word bedorotav. This reflects the idea that Noach’s greatest positive and negative qualities stemmed from the same source. This fits with the commentary of the Ran (Breishit 6:9-12) who takes the common conception of Noach as a “Tzadik in Peltz” – someone who kept solely to himself and turns it on its head. The Ran says that Noach’s generation was so far-gone that he did the right thing. He explains that the secret of Noach’s righteousness is revealed to us in the words “et haElokim hithalech Noach – Noach walked with G-d.” The word “et” connotes a direct connection to G-d, while implying a total separation from the people of his time. The fact that this behavior is described immediately following the statement that Noach was righteous and pure teaches us that the method through which he achieved righteousness and purity during his life before the mabul.

After the flood Noach continued using the same modus operandi that he employed beforehand. A new approach was called for at this time. Because he separated himself from society in the era following the flood Noach was unable to help others during this time of his life. Furthermore, this time around his approach sadly led Noach to his own decline in status. After the flood there was a chance for a new beginning but this new start called for outreach. Instead of relating with others Noach cocooned, just as he had done before the flood. What was strength became weakness.

It is often the case that people use one approach to survive at one stage of their lives. But later in life they need to move on from this approach and have trouble doing so. What leads to success at one time can lead to failure in another context. A therapist friend tells me that therapy is often about getting someone to halt a behavior that once saved his or her life, but is now restricting them from moving forward in life. For example if someone – G-d forbid – was abused when they were young they may learn to protect themselves by being very private. However when they enter the broader world of relationships, community, and work they need to learn to trust people and not be so secretive.

May we all be blessed to cultivate our strengths at the various stages of our lives.

May we all be blessed to cultivate our appropriate strengths and not allow them to morph into fatal flaws.

(The essence of this piece is based on the thought of Rabbi Yitzchak Twersky)

Breishit - Big Thoughts On The Moon

I thought of something during the leining of Breishit.  It says that there were two big luminaries. Then it says there was a big one and a small one. Rashi famously says that the moon couldn't handle sharing the crown with the sun, saying, two kings can't share a crown.  So G-d made the moon smaller. It dawned on me that there's a straightforward explanation that avoids the question of why it says two were big and then one was big and one was small. Maybe they were both big but one was bigger than the other.  Rashi is, perhaps, hinting to a certain kind of psychology.  The moon felt smaller than the sun because in size it looked smaller.  But in terms of importance they were each great.  The result of feeling small was to be small. If we could learn to realize that whatever size we appear to be we are all big in terms of our significance, we will never have to feel small.

Vayeitzei In September

I was reminded today of the  Masei - destinations/travels vort and my dear friend Pinny Bulman's son's bris where I was introduced to the idea. My friend Yitz Pinkus spoke today (i guess because it was a retreat and he felt strongly about this idea and we won't all be together for Parshat VaYeitzei he said it now) about Leah's names for her first three sons were all all about how her husband didn't love her and she wished he would. Her fourth son was named for gratitude; rather than just looking to the future she stopped this time to appreciate where she was and what she'd just received. We're not told about her situation or mindset after that. My friend, the speaker, said that he likes to believe that as Leah came to appreciate what she had, Yaakov did come to love her in a way that made her feel content in that area as well.  My friend spoke about personal/universal things- how our lives are real and happening and we shouldn't mistakenly think that we are  ever  just waiting for our lives to begin and in doing so miss the life we are living. It was a beautiful talk from someone who learned to speak in an articulate and organized manner not from a course of any kind but from simply opening his heart (a lesson for me as a public speaking teacher of many years).

it reminds me a bit (somewhat of a stretch but i feel like sharing this) of what a non religious (formerly frum) exterminator told me on hoshana rabbah as he attacked my roach problem (I love that he told me that it's not me or my apartment, that it's all pretty nice and pretty well kept), I told him that my person who cleans for me would be coming on Thursday and then i told him I'd be away for Yom Tov. He questioned how she was coming and i said she has the key, comes, I trust her - maybe i trust people too much. He then told me (did i mention that he happily and joyfully took up my offer to bentch my lulav and esrog?) that based on Rav Nachman MiBreslov he thinks that what we believe becomes reality.  Rav Nachman says it's about faith and happiness. He applied it to my trust- that because i trust people fully those people become trustworthy.