Vayigash 5772: The Same Mistake Again?!

Pharaoh tells Joseph to take a caravan back to Eretz Yisrael and bring his father to Egypt. In preparation for the journey, Joseph gives clean changes of clothing to each of his brothers. But to Benjamin, Joseph gives five changes of clothing.

Recall that Joseph was sold into slavery because his father gave him better clothing than he gave his brothers. So how could Joseph could risk making the very same mistake again after all he has been throught? Did he learn nothing at all about the power of jealousy?

In the Talmud, Rabbi Benyamin Bar Yefet explains Joseph's actions as follows: "Joseph was subtly giving Benjamin a sign that one of his descendants would go out from the presence of a king clad in five different kinds of royal clothing. Who is this? Mordechai. What five royal clothes did he wear? "And Mordecai went out from the presence of the king in (1) royal clothes of (2) blue and white, and with a (3) great crown of gold, and with a (4) garment of fine linen and (5) purple." (Esther 8:15)

It also worth noting that Joseph was technically not making the same mistake that his father made. For one, he was Benjamin's brother, not his father. Therefore, the risk of jealousy was greatly lessened. Moreover, Joseph did not give Benjamin better or even different clothing, but simply more than what the others got. In contrast, Jacob gave Joseph a striped tunic that marked him as the favorite child wherever he went.

Vayigash 5772: The Eyes Of Benjamin

In Genesis 45:12, Joseph says something odd. He says, "And, behold, your eyes see, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin, that it is my mouth that speaks to you." Why does the Torah mention the eyes of the brothers and the eyes of Benjamin, given that Benjamin is one of the brothers. It would have been simpler for the Torah to say "your eyes" and leave out the explicit mention of Benjamin.

We find the answer to this question In the Talmud (B. Megillah 16b), where Rabbi Elazar says, "Just as I am not angry at Benjamin who was not even present when I was sold into slavery, I am, likewise, not angry at you."

Here, Joseph shows a preternatural ability to forgive a crime that would be practically unpardonable in the eyes of most people. Jewish forgiveness does not demand that we forget the wrongs committed against us. It does, however, tell us to grant forgiveness completely and not to dole it out in bits like popcorn thrown at pigeons.

Vayigash 5772: Yes, The Midrash Actually Says This!

When Joseph reveals his true identity to his brothers, he tells them to approach with the words, "G'shu na eilai" (גשו נא אלי). Rashi quotes a midrash from Bereishit Rabbah that elaborates on the sparse words of the Torah: "He saw his brothers cowering across the room and said, 'My brothers are indeed ashamed.' He then told them to come close to him in a gentle and forgiving tone, whereupon he showed them that he was circumcised."

My question: Why does the midrash have to add this elaboration? Would the sight of Joseph's circumcision prove his identity beyond any doubt? If the brothers were unable to recognize Joseph's face immediately, how would his circumcision suddenly jar their memories?

A possible answer to my own question: Joseph did not show his circumcision to them for purposes of identification. He showed it to them so that they would know that not only was he Joseph, but that he was still a Jew and loyal to tradition.

Vayigash 5772: Jewish Dirty Laundry

In the first verse of Genesis 45, we read that "Joseph was unable to control himself in front of the people standing before him, so he called out, 'Everyone must leave me alone!' There was no one else there when Joseph revealed himself to his brothers."

The simple meaning of the verse is that his brothers' presence made him very emotional, and he didn't want to cry in front of the royal court.

Rashi gives us a different interpretation. He says that Joseph ordered everyone out of the room because he did not want his brothers to be publicly shamed when he revealed himself.

In other words, Joseph was uncomfortable with airing Jewish dirty laundry in front of non-Jews. This topic remains a hot one today. There are those who argue that a Jew must never turn in a fellow Jew to the state authorities under any circumstances. Some even hold that the sin of snitching on a fellow Jew is far worse than the sin of, for instance, child molestation!

Those who hold such extreme opinions are generally of the opinion that Jews should take care of Jewish criminals within their own communities, and that non-Jews should not become aware of the fact that some Jews break the laws.

Assuming one lives in a democracy governed by the rule of law, one should not hesitate to report the crimes of a fellow Jew to the authorities. Indeed, those who are concerned about airing Jewish dirty laundry should well consider that the charge of protecting the criminals who live among us is arguably more embarrassing to the Jewish community than the untoward acts of any particular Jew. If we really care about our people's reputation, then we should not stand in the way of legitimate criminal investigations.

Vayigash 5772: The Crying Verse

When Joseph reveals himself to his brothers in Genesis 45:3, the Torah tells us that their shock rendered them speechless.

The Talmud (B. Hagigah 4b) teaches that Rabbi Elazar cried whenever he would read this verse. Why? He would say to himself, "Joseph's brothers were shamed and shocked by the rebuke of a human being. How much worse it must be to receive the rebuke of God!"

Perhaps Rabbi Elazar had it backwards. It may be the case that God is infinitely more loving, patient, and tolerant than humanity. Indeed, a great deal of the Jewish religion presupposes this idea. If God were as bitter and unforgiving as typical human beings, there would be almost no chance for repentance.

Mikketz 5772: Jacob Says "Enough!"

In Genesis 43:14, Jacob says to his sons, "May El Shaddai (God Almighty) give you mercy." Why did Jacob see fit to invoke this particular name of God? He used this name to indicate that more than enough afflictions had come upon him. (The word "dai" in Hebrew means “Enough!”) His trial and tribulations were, indeed, numerous. While he was yet in his mother's womb, Esau strove with him. When he fled from Esau to Laban, he spent twenty years there in many kinds of distress. After he left, Laban pursued him in order to slay him. As soon as he was delivered from Laban, Esau came and sought to slay him, and because of Esau he had to give up a huge tribute [of cattle, camels, and so on]. After he extricated himself from Esau, the distress with Dinah befell him. After that crisis, there was the distress of Rachel['s death]. After such a chain of suffering, he wanted a little repose, but then there befell him the problems involving Joseph, Simeon, and Benjamin. That is why Jacob invoked the name Shaddai (Almighty)," as if to say: May He who said to heaven and earth, "Enough!" say also to my affliction, "Enough!"

Mikketz 5772: Better Than Rosetta Stone

According to the Talmud (B. Sotah 36b), Pharaoh's selection of Joseph as viceroy of the kingdom greatly displeased the monarch's astrologers. Joseph's lowly pedigree as a Hebrew slave bothered them in particular. The Talmud imagines the following conversation between Pharaoh and his astrologers:

ASTROLOGERS: You are going to allow a slave whose purchase price was twenty pieces of silver to rule over us?!

PHARAOH: I see the attributes of royalty within him.

ASTROLOGERS: If he has royalty within him, then he should be fluent in the seventy languages (of the world.)

The Talmud then says that the angel Gavriel immediately started to teach Joseph the seventy languages, but Joseph couldn't master them. So God added a letter "hay" to Joseph's name so that he would be able to pass the astrologers' test of foreign language knowledge.

This midrash is an explanation of the fact that Joseph's name does in fact appear with an extra letter "hay" in Psalm 81, where it is written יהוסף instead of the normal יוסף. The content of the verse reflects back on the midrash:

"This he ordained in Joseph for a testimony, when he went out through the land of Egypt. I heard the language of one whom I had not known."

Knowing foreign languages may not be a sign of royalty in our world, but it is a sign of worldliness. It is known that learning a foreign language is beneficial for the brain, forcing it to maintain itself as it learns new things.

Mikketz 5772: Bedside Manner

Pharaoh has had two dreams that require interpretation. He calls upon his necromancers to explain the dreams, but they are unable to do so. Genesis 41:8 says that the necromancers and wise men were unable to interpret the dream **for Pharaoh**. Rashi asks why the Torah says that the royal experts were unable to solve the dream **for Pharaoh**. After all, isn't it already obvious that we are talking about Egypt's ruler? Why didn't the Torah simply say that the necromancers and wise men were unable to interpret the dream?

Rashi's answer is that the necromancers and wise men were in fact able to interpret the dream, but they were unable to get Pharaoh to accept their interpretation. Other people might have been able to accept their explanation, but Pharaoh either could not or would not.

Why such difficulty? Rashi says that Pharaoh's failure to accept the interpretation of the dreams was largely the fault of the experts. They were very capable when it came to divining the secret meanings of dreams, but they were rank amateurs when it came to communicating their findings.

Rashi says that the royal dream interpreters explained Pharaoh's dream in a way that upset him and caused him to shut down. They said, "Seven daughters you shall sire and seven daughters shall you bury." They understood that Egypt would face a period of contentment and then a period of tragedy. But the way they explained it rattled Pharaoh so much that he ignored what they had to say.

In other words, Pharaoh's necromancers and wise men were like skilled physicians who lack even the basic rudiments of beside manner. They were the scientists of their day, and for them, truth was all that mattered. They interpreted the dream correctly, and as far as they were concerned, it did not matter that their explanation caused Pharaoh such pain.

One oncologist might say to a patient, "You have an incurable form of cancer and about three months to live." Another oncologist, equally skilled but more sensitive, might say, "Your case is a challenging one, and I can make no promises. Nonetheless, the situation is not hopeless."

The former practitioner may be speaking the naked truth, but he has stripped his patient of any dignity and hope for a recovery. The latter physician has conveyed the seriousness of the situation in a compassionate manner that does not deny the gift of hope.

Joseph was able to get Pharaoh to accept his interpretation because he delivered it without causing the king undue emotional discomfort.

Vayeshev 5772: Unlucky Places

Joseph goes to find his brothers in Sh'khem. In The Talmud, (Sanhedrin 102a) Rabbi Yossi says that "Sh'khem was a place that attracted suffering; it was there that Dinah was raped, it was there that Joseph was sold in slavery, and it was there that King David lost control over the northern kingdom."

What is the point of this teaching? The Torah Temimah says that Rabbi Yossi was trying to explain why tragedy befell Joseph while he was doing a mitzvah. His father told him to go to Sh'khem and bring back a report on the brothers and their flocks. So that means that Joseph was fulfilling the commandment to honor one's parents. Furthermore, the Torah Temimah says that there is a established tradition that one does not get injured while doing a mitzvah. So why was Joseph captured and sold whilst obeying his father?

According to the Torah Temimah, Rabbi Yossi is saying that Sh'khem was like a black hole of suffering, a spiritual Bermuda Triangle. Therefore, even Joseph's performance of a mitzvah could not protect him there. Sh'khem was a bad neighborhood, and good things rarely happen in bad places.

Vayeshev 5772: Did The Brothers Cause The Enslavement In Egypt?

The Talmud (B. Shabbat 10b) records this opinion from Rabbi Hama bar Gurya and Rav: "A man should never play favorites with his sons, because on account of two selas of fine wool that Jacob added to Joseph's coat, the brothers grew envious, and the end result is that our ancestors were enslaved in Egypt.

Rashi presents this midrash in his commentary. According to the Torah Temimah, the Tosafot disagree with Rashi and argue that the enslavement was preordained during the Covenant of the Pieces, or Brit Bein Habetarim (See Genesis 15:8-16.)

The Torah Temimah resolves the conflict as follows: The enslavement per se was preordained, but none of the details were. For instance, nowhere does it say in Genesis 15 that the enslavement would take place in Egypt. Joseph's brothers did not cause the enslavement itself, but they did cause the period of bondage to take place in Egypt. Had they not hated Joseph, perhaps the enslavement would have been easier or in a less brutal climate.

The debate about predestination is a timely one in regard to genetics and health. Does an unhealthful lifestyle cause disease, or are our ailments preordained in our DNA? Both science and the Torah Temimah suggest that although a susceptibility to a given disease may be predestined, we still have a great deal of control over the details. Will the disease strike when we are young and strong or when we are weak? Will we be blessed with health and meaningful lives until the end, or will our health slowly deteriorate over many years, forcing us to live many years in discomfort?

We don't control our destination, but we do control our route.

Vayeshev 5772: At Least They Were Honest

Verse 37:4 tells us that Joseph's brothers "hated him and could speak with him civilly." (וישנאו אתו ולא יכלו דברו לשלום.)

Rashi's comment is that "Even as the Torah degrades the brothers, it tells us something good about them; the brothers were not two-faced people who spoke one way with their mouths and one way with their hearts."

In other words, although the brothers were clearly filled with rage and hate, we have to give them points for honesty. An honest enemy is less dangerous and preferable to a dishonest enemy who speaks from both sides of his mouth. An honest foe can be identified and avoided. Moreover, we can engage an honest enemy in dialogue that may eventually lead to a resolution of the conflict.

A dishonest foe, however, can hide in the shadows and do a lot more damage as a traitor. A fifth column is far more dangerous than an identifiable foreign enemy.

Vayeshev 5772: The First Metrosexual?

For those of you who don't know, a metrosexual is a man who takes great care in his hair, nails, and clothing, just as many women do.

Genesis 37:2 refers to the seventeen-year-old Joseph as a "na'ar" or young man. Rashi reads "na'ar" as if it implied that Joseph engaged in acts of femininity like doing his hair and fluffing up his eyelashes so that he would look good.

Rashi's point is that Joseph, albeit a great Biblical hero, did have flaws. One of those flaws was his vanity, which served to irritate his brothers even more than they already were.

Excessive care for one's physical appearance often reflects a certain level of ugliness on the inside. Having said that, tradition tells us that the Mishkan was covered in gold both inside and out to remind us that a Jew should be "tokho k'varo," which means "his inside (soul) should be just as beautiful as his outside (body).

Vayeshev 5772: The Pearl

In last week's Torah portion, we read a brief genealogy of Esau's family. We did not receive a lot of specifics, just a list of who married whom and who was born to whom.

At the beginning of this week's sedra, Vayeshev, we immediately return to Jacob and his family. The Torah pays a great deal more attention to Jacob than it does to Esau and gives us a wealth of detail.

Rashi points out that the Torah spends more time on Jacob because Jacob was more important to God than Esau. He elaborates with a midrash about a man who accidentally dropped a valuable pearl in the sand. Until he found the pearl, he quickly threw piles of sand this way and that.

So it is with the Torah. Jacob's family is valuable in the eyes of God, so the Torah goes through Esau's history and genealogy very quickly. Rashi also notes that the same thing can be seen in Parashat Noah, which whips through ten generations of humanity because they aren't that important. Only when it reaches Abraham does the Torah slow down and take its time, for the Torah is about his family's saga.

We learn something important from this for our daily lives. We should spend a great deal of time on things that are important. If something is not important, than we shouldn't spend a lot of time and energy on it. Time is a precious, irreplaceable resource, so we must preserve it whenever possible. If the Torah follows this rule regarding Esau and Jacob, then we should all the more so!

Vayishlah 5772: Being Whole

After his encounter with Esau, the Torah says that Jacob went to Shalem, a town in the territory of Shkhem. Shalem, in addition to being the name of the town, means "whole" or "complete" in Hebrew. Based on this, the Talmud says that the verse is not describing Jacob's geographic location, but rather his physical, spiritual, and financial well-being: "Rav said that Jacob was whole in his body, his Torah, and his money." (B. Shabbat 33a)

Rashi adds some detail and says that Jacob was physically whole in the sense that he had healed from the limp he suffered when wrestling with the angel. Moreover, he was spiritually whole in these sense that he had not forgotten any of the Torah that he had learned while living with Lavan for fourteen years. Lastly, he was financially whole because giving the enormous gift to Esau had not affected his status as a wealthy man. (If Oprah gave someone a gift worth a hundred million dollars, she'd still be a billionaire!)

Wholeness is a good goal, and its definition will vary from person to person. A cancer patient who has survived for five years can rightly consider himself "whole" even though other people might be healthier in the medical sense. Likewise, people who struggle in school because of learning disabilities but who persevere and graduate can consider themselves whole even though others might get better scores or get into more prestigious schools. Life is about overcoming challenges, not avoiding them.

Vayishlah 5772: Wants And Needs

When Esau turns down the peace offering in Genesis 33:9, he says, "I have plenty, my brother; keep what you have to yourself." Then Jacob begs his brother to reconsider and says something similar: "Take, I beg you, my blessing that is brought to you; because God has dealt graciously with me, and because I have everything."

Note that Esau says, "I have plenty," whereas Jacob says, "I have everything." Rashi says that Esau was speaking arrogantly and meant to say, "I have plenty, much more than I need," while Jacob was being modest and meant to say, "I have everything that I need."

The difference between wants and needs is lost on many people. Every morning, a Jew is supposed to thank God "for providing me with everything I need. (שעשה לי כל צרכי) But what does "everything I need" mean? For some, it means cable TV with DVR service, high speed internet, and fancy cars.

For those who understand the Torah's message, "everything I need" means food, clothing, shelter, love, friendship, education, a profession, Torah, and other absolute necessities. Esau was in the former category; Jacob was in the latter.

Vayishlah 5772: Flattering The Wicked

In Genesis 33:10, Jacob flatters his brother with a syrupy, obsequious comment. Esau has just turned down the peace offering, saying that he has more than enough wealth already. Jacob responds, "No, I beg you, if now I have found grace in your sight, then receive my present from my hand; for therefore I have seen your face, as though I had seen the face of God, and you were pleased with me." Jacob goes so far as to compare the sight of his wicked brother's face to the impossible sight of God's countenance!

There is a debate in the Talmud as to whether flattery of this kind is permitted or not. On the one hand, Rabbi Elazar takes the hardline and says that those who flatter the wicked are cursed even by embryos. The reason for his opinion is that flattering the wicked only encourages evil to flourish. (B. Sotah 41b)

Likewise, Rabbi Shimon ben Halafta says, "From the day the fist of flattery prevailed, justice became perverted, conduct deteriorated, and nobody could say to his neighbour, 'My conduct is better than yours.'" In other words, flattering the wicked confuses the world's standards of morality. (ibid.)

On the other hand, Resh Lakish argues that it is permitted to flatter the wicked in this world. He quotes Jacob from our parashah, when he flattered Esau as described above. (ibid.)

But why would one want to flatter the wicked even if it is permissible? In the same sugya, Rabbi Levi answers this question with a parable: "The situation is like the parable of the man who invited a guest to dinner. The guest sensed that his host wanted to kill him. So when the guest ate, he said to his host, "This food tastes just like the food I ate at the king's palace." The host said to himself, "He knows the King personally!" Fearing retribution, he decided not to kill his guest after all. In other words, the guest flattered his wicked host in order to save his life.

The Torah Temimah has a more liberal interpretation of the parable. He says that one may flatter the wicked not only to save one's life, but even if there is a risk of any danger whatsoever, even if the risk is only a significant financial loss. One may flatter the wicked to avoid danger of any kind.

Many people flatter the wicked these days. There is a lot of praise for the so-called "Arab Spring," as if what the rioters want is Western-style liberal democracy. It is becoming clear that what the majority wants is a Shariah-based, Islamic theocracy and the destruction of Israel. (Many do want genuine freedom, but it does not seem that they are in the majority.)

By the same token, a columnist in the New York Times has heaped praise on the Chinese economic system, ignoring the fact that their system is based on totalitarianism, slavery, and gulags. It is permitted to flatter the wicked to get out of a sticky situation, but one must always remember that evildoers do not deserve compliments.

Vayishlah 5772: Genesis SVU

In verse 33:6-7, there is a lot of bowing going on. First the handmaids and their children bow before Esau. Then Leah and her children do the same. Finally, Joseph and his mother, Rachel, bow before Jacob's wayward brother.

Rashi points out that the handmaids and Leah come forward before their respective offspring. But Rachel only approaches her brother-in-law and bows to him after Joseph does. Why did Joseph go out before his mother did when the other children waited until after their parents bowed?

Rashi answers with a midrash: Joseph said to himself, "I am worried that Esau will be attracted to my mother. So I will stand in front of her and prevent him from looking at her."

Rashi then says that by protecting his mother from his uncle's salacious gaze, he won for himself the blessing Jacob gave him in Genesis 49:22 - "Joseph is a fruited bough by a well." (The word for "well" and "eye" in Hebrew are the same - עין. Because Joseph protected Rachel from Esau's eye, his blessing described him as a bough by a well.)

In the Torah itself, Joseph stands up for morality again when he refuses to sleep with Potiphar's wife and serves time in prison as a result. In our society, sex crimes are so common that they rarely make the headlines unless a celebrity is involved. It is responsibility of every Jew to stand up for the victims.

Vayishlah 5772: Palpatine, Darth Vader, and Madoff

In Genesis 33:4, Esau kisses Jacob. In a Torah scroll, the word for "he kissed" (וישקהו) is traditionally written with dots above it. These dots, called nekkudot, identify certain ancient scribal traditions, grammatical concerns, or midrashim.

In this verse, the dots remind us that there are two rabbinic interpretations of Esau's kiss. One is that Esau's kiss was insincere; it was a osculation in the physical sense but lacked any true emotion.

The other is that Esau did hate Jacob, but that at that moment, the little bit of mercy inside him woke up. At that moment, his kiss was completely sincere (See Rashi on the verse.)

The first interpretation considers Esau to be a completely evil person, like Emperor Palpatine in the Star Wars movies.

The second midrash gives us a more nuanced, complex description of Esau. According to this second interpretation, Esau was indeed a deeply flawed man burdened with a lot of hatred and anger. Having said that, Esau was a human being with a definite, albeit small, capacity for empathy and love. In this sense, Esau is like Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatine's protegé. Vader was an angry man, but at the last minute, his love for his son drives him to kill his evil teacher.

No matter which interpretation you prefer, you could also compare Esau to Bernie Madoff. Is Madoff a completely evil person devoid of any good qualities whatsoever, or is he a tragically flawed man who, despite the enormity of his crime, still has within him a small, weak spark of goodness?

Only God can answer that question with any certainty.

Vayishlah 5772: The Names Of The Angels

After wrestling with the angel, Jacob asks the entity for its name. The angel declines, saying "Why are you asking me for my name?" and then blesses him. A similar event takes place in Judges 13, when Manoah, the father of Samson, asks the angel for its name. There, the angel responds, "Why are you asking me for my name - it is unknowable!"

Although it sounds like the angels have secret names that they cannot divulge, Rashi has a different interpretation. He quotes a midrash that imagines the angel saying, "We angels do not have one name in particular. Our names change depending on the circumstances of our task at the moment."

That is why the angels say, "Why are you asking me for my name?" What they mean to say is "Why are you bothering to ask me my name? I could tell you, but it's going to change tomorrow, so what's the point in asking?"

Nonetheless, both Jacob and Manoah did the right thing by asking. It is never wrong for a Jew to ask a question. Questions lead to learning, and learning leads to goodness.

Vayishlah 5772: Abuse Of Torah

The Torah can and usually is used for good. But when misinterpreted, the teaching of Torah can bring insult, suffering, and even death. Here is an example of Torah abuse by an otherwise distinguished scholar, the Sha'ar Bat Rabbim, also known as Rabbi Hayyim Aryeh Leib, a Sefardic scholar of the early twentieth century who lived in Jerusalem:

A famous Torah scholar once conversed with a rabbi who "burnt his meal" and became a Reform rabbi. The Torah scholar said, "Regarding the angel who wrestled with Jacob, the Talmud (B. Hullin 91) presents two opinions. One is that the angel looked like a non-Jew, and the other is that the angel looked like a talmid hakham (a learned student of Torah.) But how can the Sages present such diametrically opposite views? A non-Jew is the opposite of a talmid hakham, just as east is the opposite of west. What does one have to do with the other? But now that I have seen you, I have solved the problem. It is possible for a man to be both a non-Jew and a Torah scholar at the same time. A Reform rabbi like you is both a gentile and a talmid hakham at the same time.  (Translated from Itturei Torah, ed. by Y. Greenberg)


With all due deference to his life of scholarship, the Sha'ar Bat Rabbim has abused the Torah with this teaching. The Torah should not be used to insult other people. While rabbis of different streams may disagree with each other on points of Jewish law, it is wrong to suggest that a Reform or other non-Orthodox rabbi is somehow a gentile in the spiritual sense.

Extremist, hateful opinions are hillulei haShem, desecrations of God's name, and do no one any good in the long run.

Vayishlah 5772: A Chance To Sing

In Genesis 32:27, the Torah says that a man wrestled with Jacob until dawn. The stranger then said, "Release me, for dawn is breaking."  According to a midrash in the Talmud (Hullin 91a), Jacob said to the man, "What are you?  Are you a thief or a dice player who is afraid of the daylight?"  The angel responded, "I am a an angel, and since the day I was created, I have never before had an opportunity to recite the Psalm of the Day."  (Angels do not live in our world, so they never see sunrise.  This angel had never seen a sunrise and so he wanted to celebrate the event by reciting shir shel yom, the Psalm of the Day.

This teaches us that we should be grateful even for things like sunrises that seem ordinary and not worthy of our thought.  Other things in this category include sunsets, breathing, the ability to walk, eyesight, etc.

Vayishlah 5772: Jacob's Little Jars

Genesis 32:24 says that Jacob sent all of his possessions across the Yabbok river.  The next verse begins with the words, "Jacob remained alone" (ויותר יעקב לבדו.) The Talmud (B. Hullin 91a) says that Jacob stayed back so that he could collect some small containers that he had forgotten to pack.  Where does the Talmud get this rather fanciful interpretation?  The Torah Temimah suggests that it is reading the word levado (by itself) as if it were lecado (for his jar.) In Hebrew, these words look very similar, as the letters ב and כ look almost identical.

Why would Jacob bother to risk his life and stay behind to pack up some small items?  Why not just leave them behind?  The Talmud says that tzaddikim (the righteous) care more about their money than their health.  Yes, you read that right.  How can this be?  The Talmud says that the righteous carefully defend their worldly possessions because they never engage in theft or embezzlement of any kind.  Because they never benefit from ill-gotten gain, they must zealously defend the few possessions they do have.

My question:  What does this Talmudic teaching say about religious leaders who hobnob with the rich and powerful and dress themselves in riches fit for a king when then should be following the laws of the King?

Vayishlah 5772: Hutzpah!

In Genesis 32:17, the Torah says that Jacob's servants allowed space in between each flock and the next one. According to Rashi, they were not just following the rules of the road.  Rather, Jacob wanted Esau's peace offering to look bigger than it really was. By adding space in between the flocks, the gift would take up more room and would take longer to gather. Rashi explains that Jacob wanted "to satiate the greed of that wicked man and astound him with the generosity of his gift."

This is the same thing that modern marketeers and restauranteurs do to make their products look bigger.  Marketeers put a relatively small amount of chips in a big bag and fill the remainder with air so that we'll think we're buying a substantial amount of food.  Restaurant workers regularly add generous amounts of ice to drinks in order to make them look bigger.

So I wonder just how sincere Jacob's peace offering is.  He is ostensibly giving the gift because he deceived his brother twice, thereby stealing his birthright and blessing.  But now he is trying to deceive his brother a third time even as he supposedly makes amends for tricking him twice before.  This is called hutzpah in the first degree!

In Jacob's defense, however, one must note that defeating evildoers often requires a certain amount of guile and trickery.  Just ask the people at the CIA, CSIS, MI6, or the Mossad.

Vayishlah 5772: Busy Goats!

Rashi has a very interesting comment on a verse that, at first blush, seems to be quite ordinary. In describing the peace offering that Jacob plans on giving to his brother, Esau, the Torah lists "two hundred she goats and twenty male goats; female sheep two hundred and rams twenty...forty cows and ten bulls; twenty she-asses and ten male asses." (see verse 32:15)

Notice that the male-female ratio is different for some of the animals.  The reason is that some animals have more sexual freedom than others.  Goats and sheep, which are never used as beasts of burden, have nothing to do all day but eat, sleep, and have sex. Therefore, one goat can mate with ten females.  Cows however, will not mate once they get pregnant, and the bulls are used for agricultural work, so they are not as available as the goats and sheep.  As a result, their ratio is lower - one bull for every four cows.  Donkeys are used to travel long distances, so they are often not around for mating.  Consequently, their male-female ratio is one for every two.

Now comes the kicker:  Rashi says that the Sages used the same principle to determine the minimum sexual obligations that men have to their wives. In Judaism, men are obligated to have sex with their wives; it's not like other religions in which the woman must submit to the man's desires whenever he wants.  The minimum required frequency of a couple's sexual relations depends on the man's profession.  Men who have lots of time on their hands are required to have sex every day (assuming she's interested.)  Workers who engage in hard labor have a mandated ration of twice a week. Donkey drivers must have sex with their wives once a week because of the distances they travel. Camel drivers go even farther, so their ratio is once a month.  Sailors go to far off lands, so their required frequency is once every six months.  A Torah scholar is required to put down his books and have sex once a week.

I am surprised that the tradition would tie the frequency of human sexual relations to that of animals.  Aren't we supposed to strive to make our sexual lives sacred and not bestial?  As they say in the study of Torah, the matter is צריך עיון - it requires further study.

Vayishlah 5772: Jacob's Staff

When we think of Biblical heroes splitting bodies of water, we normally think of Moses. But according to the Midrash, Jacob split the Jordan hundreds of years before Moses arrived at Yam Suf. Verse 32:11 says, "I am unworthy of all the kindness that You have so steadfastly shown Your servant: with my staff alone I crossed this Jordan, and now I have become two camps." Focusing on the phrase with my staff alone, the Sages depict Jacob using his staff to split the waters of the Jordan and imagine him saying, "I crossed the Jordan without gold, silver, or livestock - only my staff."

The point of this Midrash is that although Jacob was a wealthy man, it is not his wealth that saved his life but rather his faith and gratitude to God.  Time and again, Jews have faced the prospect of penury and starvation. Just as often, Jews have found a way to overcome their fears and not only survive but thrive in the face of near certain doom.

Vayishlah 5772: Kill Or Be Killed?

In Genesis 32:8, the Torah says that Jacob was both afraid and troubled. Why does the Torah use both of these words when would have sufficed? Rashi explains that Jacob was afraid that Esau would kill him and troubled that he might have to kill in selfdefense.

Rashi's teaching is an important commentary on the nature of war and conflict. No one should ever relish or celebrate the act of killing in self defense. Killing to save a life might be tragically necessary at times, but it is never a cause for joy.

Israeli prime minister Golda Meir put it this way: We do not hate our enemies because they kill our children. We hate them because they force us to kill theirs.