Where does Rashi derive this conclusion about the departure? Where is his source for this statement? It was no longer the B’er Sheva which it previously was. He felt that semantically Vayaytze tells a story. It contains a message B’er Sheva became a desolate place which previously it was a beautiful city.
In Hebrew the word Vayaytze appears with many suppositions as demonstrated in various places in the Torah. In chapter 11, sentence 8 of Sedra Bo in Chumash Shemot we find: "Vayaytze mayim paroh b’chori af." (And Moshe went out from Pharaoh in great anger.) We find it combined with the word "ays" when Pharaoh asked Moshe to pray for him and he answered that he could not pray here. "I will go out and spread out my hands to G-d!" There are three suppositions connected with "Vayaytze". It is combined with the words "ays", "m’ays" and "min" — all meaning "going out from". It means a physical departure — not a spiritual one. For instance, we find in Sedra Vayakal (section 35, sentence 20): when Moshe sent the people to obtain the ingredients necessary for the "chel moed", "Vayaytze kol adas bnai Yisrael milifnai Moshe." They went out to attend to important business — to return shortly with the "offering for the Mishkan." This is a departure not for ever but for a short time. They went just to get what they needed. It is a physical departure for a short time but not permanent. The same applies to what Moshe said to Pharaoh, "I’ll walk out to the city gate to pray." Again it is physical, "B’tzasi ays" — not "min". "Ays" is departure from a person — Moshe’s leaving Pharaoh. These are the semantics of the word. When it is combined with the word "min" (or a contraction of "min") it means something different; it means "permanent — forgotten."
Thus in "Vayaytze Yaakov mi’ber — means "I had to move away from something dear — something I loved. A "force" has displaced me. This is what Rashi means "Mi Be’r Sheva". He didn’t want to go but was uprooted. More over, "Vayaytze min" refers to something tragic — something sad which is reminiscent of a catastrophe — his moving from B’er Sheva. How do we know he felt like that? B’er Sheva felt it and Jacob felt it. It is hard to imagine a B’er Sheva without the personage of Jacob. They were one entity; he belonged to the city. His distinction was strange and foreign to him and he felt that he could never learn to live there. His tragedy was the necessity to live minus his father’s home. Why did he experience this in such tragic terms? Of course, it is understood that no one wants to leave his father and mother and the home he loves. But this was not Jacob’s main reason for he was not a child. The Torah would not talk merely about sentimental terms. The Patriarchs were not in the habit of turning natural events into tragedies.
There is a posek in Tehilim which reads, "I lift up mine eyes to the mountain; from whence shall mine help come!" This "posek" of Tehilim refers to Jacob when he left Be’r Sheva to go to Choron. It was a spiritual moment of tragedy for him. Interestingly, however, after he spent the night "B’mokom" (at the place), he became light-headed, happy — because he had experienced an encounter with G-d and assurance of Divine help. But it was not due merely to an encounter with G-d and not only the promise of protection and assurance. What did G-d tell him?
Abraham introduced the Covenantal Community. It was signed and sealed by G-d and it imposed an obligation not only on man but on G-d. It involved each side of the covenant. Was it unconditional or did Abraham have to meet certain conditions and obligations? Certain definite conditions were introduced as we find in Chapter 18, line 19 of Sedra "Vayera".
"For I know that he will instruct his sons and his community after him to observe the ways of G-d to do charity and righteousness in order that G-d will bring to Abraham that which He has promised concerning him."
He must transmit all his teaching to future generations. If Abraham leaves no "will", there is no obligation by G-d. It is said that every member of the Covenant must write two wills. There is the normal will which disposes of his personal wealth and belongings. But there is another will, the one of observing "Derech Hashem" (G-d’s way). "He (Abraham) will entrust the spiritual treasure to his children."
According to Rambam, a "mitzvah" is not merely a commandment but "m’tzoa she’ bal peh" — an utterance or a will. The word "mitzvah" is synonymous with the word "Tzavoah" (will). If it were not carved out, the covenant would have terminated.
Abraham was the first teacher, not to a few but to tens of thousands, according to Rambam. The Community consisted of "Talmidim" — students. The main thing was the "Teacher-father," not merely based on the biological factor but on the teaching aspect. Rambam calls it, "the nation which is in love with G-d." This is how he termed the Covenantal Community. We find in Tehilim often the phrase, "Shigoyun L’Dovid" as it introduces a psalm. The word "Shigoyun" means the "Madness of David." He was madly in love with G-d. Abraham’s responsibility was to see that there is someone to pass it on to. This was the type of community which Abraham passed on to Isaac and which Isaac then passed on to Jacob. It was "love of G-d" and it was consummated at Sinai.
Where in Torah do we find that "Yitzchak" took over the lead? In Chapter 26, line 25 of "Toldos" it declares, "Vayiven shom mizbayach" — and he built there an altar. Once he built the altar, he was now the teacher. Now he became the successor.
We also find that Abimelech, the King of Gror, recognized this greatness
as did the previous Abimelech of Abraham Here, immediately after being
told that Yitzchak built the "Mizbayach" Abimelech came to sign a treaty.
"Now I see that G-d is with you. Let there be a treaty between you and
me." A king does not sign a pact with an ordinary person but with a
person of equal importance. In Chapter 22 of "Sedra Vayera", Abimelech
made a treaty with Abraham and recognized him as a king. Also, he wouldn’t
have done this with an ordinary man. Thus, with both Abraham and Isaac
we find them recognized as kings. Therefore, lineage succession is clean.
Now as for Jacob, where do we find the leadership turned over
to him?
We find it in the second "Brochos" or blessings bestowed upon him by
his father Isaac before Jacob left his home. Chapter 27, line 4: "And may
He bestow upon you the blessings of Abraham." Isaac never intended these
blessings for Esau. He intended for Esau only "M’tal Hashamayim" — the
dew of heaven — the physical riches. The second ones, "Birchas Avrohom"
were for Jacob. "Travel and spread the words of G-d. Tell the people
who G-d is!" That is the trusteeship of the Covenantal Community. "Love
of G-d." Interestingly, here we find the name of G-d written as "Kal
Shadai" In the first blessing it is written Elokim. Shadai means
"limitation," not too big — not too much — limited. Jacob’s role
would now involve a limited group of people.
Jacob understood all this but there was something he didn’t understand. If he is the leader of the community, he thought it only could be carried out in Eretz Yisroel. He knew that his father Yitzhak wanted to leave the land but G-d stopped him. "You are the leader of the Community — one entity and cannot leave."
Here suddenly Jacob’s father tells him to leave the land with the "Birkos Avraham," — (Abraham’s blessings). This is what he couldn’t reason. We are told by Rambam that B’er Sheva was the "Ir M’Kudeshes" — the city as holy in the Patriarchs’ time as Jerusalem was destined to become. It was the center of Abraham’s activities. From time to time we are told that Abraham left B’er Sheva to expand his activities but invariably he returned to the city. Thus, if the city had such stature, Jacob couldn’t visualize leaving B’er Sheva. In fact, he was uprooted and taken by force from B’er Sheva. "It is not your place." These were his fears for he thought that his role would be taken away from him. It was hard for him to realize that he could be a leader — a teacher in a place of Pagans. B’er Sheva indeed lost a great man! The holiness is not B’er Sheva per se. It is not holy more with his departure and is similar to Mt. Sinai. Now it means nothing per se. "The moment the shofar "Tkiah G’Dolah" was sounded at Sinai and the "Shechina" departed, there was no longer holiness. Similar is B’er Sheva. Jacob was frightened! Perhaps, not only was Kedusha (holiness) taken from B’er Sheva but maybe from him too. Maybe there is another man. This was his great fear. This is why he declares almost hysterically, "Where shall I turn my eyes, etc." "Can I build a community in Choron? It is an impossibility." Why did G-d send him to Choron? Why start from scratch? Why lose the tens of thousands who Abraham trained, who Yitzhak trained? Apparently, the community was destroyed. However, it was G-d’s inscrutable will. In Choron he did start the community with a handful of children — with twelve people. Only this did G-d want! He left thousands and came back to an old blind father with a handful. Why?
I believe that G-d tried to teach Jacob this "Yehodus" — faith is recognizable and understandable even on the moon. If he didn’t leave, the community would have been limited only to Eretz. "Yehodus" wanted Jacob to realize this and to start from scratch. It also shows us that we can start from scratch.
There was "Churban rishon" — Churban sheni — destruction after destruction, and yet we picked up the threads and started from scratch. Yitzhak told him, "Lach Padena Arom" (go to Padan Arom). And Jacob had to experience this — not only Jacob but later Joseph. G-d wanted Jacob to experience "Golus" (Diaspora) — to be a stranger — to be rejected — not in a known land — to be exposed and persecuted. But why twice? First, it was father and then the son. Joseph resembled Jacob physically and also resembled Jacob’s awesome experiences. Jacob had to experience it in poverty and hard work. Joseph had to experience it both ways — in poverty and as a successful man with material wealth. It was to teach us, the later generations, that we can be part of the Covenantal Community under all conditions in all places.
This is what G-d wanted for Jacob. "Go, forget all your friends and your people — go to Choron. Try to convert the young girls - your wives - your children." And from the twelve cornerstones come the nation. There will be a Mokom Kodesh, a holy place, but not B’er Sheva. There he became happy with "B’Mokom" (the mount where he slept the night). "I realize I don’t have to worry. ‘B’er Sheva’ is not the place of destiny. It will be in time to come in another place."
It makes no sense to say that the "posek" refers to "Makers Josef" — the selling of Joseph! I doubt that this is the idea. It is general injustice and cruelty! Still, this Haftorah was selected for this Parsha by the Bal Ham’Sorah (the tradition). I believe the reason for the choice lies not only in the first "posek". When you recite the "payit" — the liturgy of Yom Kippur in Musaf dealing with the slaying of the ten righteous rabbis (Assora Arugak Hamalchus) and you portray the nature of the executioner, it declares, "He filled up his mansion with ‘shoes’". It means he killed them as an expiation for the selling of Joseph and the shoes they bought with the money.
We have three themes in today’s Sedra: (A) selling of Joseph; (B) the affair of Yehuda; (C) Joseph’s life in the master’s house and his encounter with the prisoners in the dungeon. What is the central theme? Until now, Jacob often met with opposition from sources outside of his house — not members of his own household. Thus, his problems were Esau, Laban, Schem. The actual house of Jacob enjoyed complete unity but all opposition came from without. Suddenly, a new confrontation developed — brother against brother. They hated Joseph — they couldn’t talk peaceably with him! What was their opposition which bothered them the most? It was motivated by the partiality showed to Joseph by his father.
Usually, parents do have preferences in children. Sometimes, the preference is the older child by the father because he is his assistant — his disciple. Mother’s usually favor the younger because they remain their babies. But parents try to imply that there is no preference. Despite preferences a parent tries to cover it up. Jacob, however, for good reasons of his own not only didn’t deny but gave the coat of colors to Joseph and it was the coat which symbolized leadership. He wanted them to know! Therefore, the first thing they did was to remove his coat — the symbol of leadership. What they hated most was the coat of colors or proclamation of his leadership.
Next, the Torah tells us of his dreams. The dreams complicated everything and their hatred for him increased. He (Joseph), himself, told them of his nightly vision and interpreted it even. The second dream was even worse; here there was open hatred. Had he not told them of the dreams it would have been perpetuated — tolerated. After all, the coat was Jacob’s doing, not Joseph’s. When he began to dream, he promoted Jacob’s doings and they became frightened. How do we know that the dreams complicated it? They called him not "Bal Hapassim" (master of the coat) but "Bal Hachalomos" (the master of dreams). Later in Egypt, Joseph remembered the dreams. The tragedy was caused by the dreams. Invariably, a "Bal Hachalomos" is not a dim person. He is a gifted — bright person - a leader — an innovator.
Now, what did the brother’s try to do? What was their desire? It was that Joseph be silenced — that he stop dreaming and stop talking of the dreams. Not only to them but to many others. They wanted to silence him! This is what we find in Tanach in Amos! They (the people of his time - wanted to silence his prophecies. We are told in a different Tanach, "The young prophets were instructed not to prophecy." The people were afraid of prophecies. Even though one knows disaster will strike they do not want to be told of it. Amos tells them: "You’ll never get rid of "Neviim" (prophets). "You will have to listen whether you want to or not. G-d speaks! Who can resist it?" Jeremiah declared: "The word of G-d became a fire in my bones; I was compelled to prophecy." The attempt was to stop the prophecy — the truth; this is indicative of Joseph. Rambam said, "He who is compelled and is moved must speak - must be heard." "The L-rd has spoken; who will not prophecy?" (Amos). From medrash we learned that Joseph must have had a spark of prophecy. The "cholomos" (dreams) has charismatic prophecy and they (brothers) tried to suppress it. Prophecy breaks through human personality. The Samaritans wanted Amos to go back to Judea where he was a shepherd but he declared, "Suddenly, I was possessed and cannot go back to Judea." This is exactly the "chet" (sin) of the brothers. They wanted to suppress him (Joseph) and that is why the Haftorah belongs to this Sedra. They wanted him to lose his visionary power.
I believe that here is the link between Chanukah and Sedra Vayeshev. Of course, the "nes" (miracle) of Chanukah occurred 200 years after scripture was completed. Therefore, it is not part of "Torah Sh’biksav" (written law). It is connected only with, "Torah Sh’Bal Peh" (oral Torah). Throughout the ages, most enemies have tried to suppress "Torah Sh’ Bal Peh" the small Jewish community in Jerusalem was told by its enemies (internal ones) to stop studying and practicing, the same as Joseph and Amos. It was not so much to stop being Jews, but to stop preaching - teaching - practicing. This is what Amos declares: "G-d speaks! Who can resist?"
There is another link between Chanukah and "Parsha Vayeshev". Of course, there are many experiences which the sages of Israel rejected which the enemy promulgated. Chief amongst these was sex modesty. That which aroused Matisyahu. The most was the nudity which was being flaunted. They (the enemies) tried to reject the modesty of the Jews. In fact, our whole Shulchan Aruch revolves around modesty. It is all represented by the story of Joseph. Modesty is what they wanted to undermine for it was the basis of Greek culture (display of the body). When Roman Emperor Caligula declared his intention of displaying the banner of the King’s image in the Temple, the Jews declared, "it means war." Philo the progressive Jew came to Caligula and said, "No, I’ll join my brothers in this matter. A human figure cannot be displayed in the Temple." Consequently, Caligula had to acquiesce. However, we have two distinct "Shvotim" (tribes) — Yehuda and Joseph. Yehuda is not strong and subject to stumbling while Joseph does not yield. Later, we find that Yehuda had the strength to rise once he had fallen.
So we have two reasons; the gentile world wanted the Jew to stop preaching and they wanted to remove modesty. There is a third reason which is subjective and some may disagree. There is a link between Chanukah and Joseph’s life. In Bais Rishon — the first Temple, the people and the land were one entity. There were no Jews outside the land, no Diaspora — no "Golus." In the era of Chanukah, it was different, for more lived outside the land tan within. Before the "Churban" the overthrow, there were circa 5 million people. Afterwards, most of them lived outside the land’s borders. The first Jews to experience "Golus" was Jacob, but even more so, it was Joseph. Joseph, however, experienced is as a slave and then as a viceroy. He experienced Diaspora from both the experience of poverty and that or riches. During the last 1900 years we have demonstrate that our greatest loyalty was when we were poor. Our record is not so good when we are affluent. Chanukah was not a fight only for the Bais Hamikdash but for the survival of the people. If the Maccabeans had lost not only the Temple would be lost but the people and the entire Diaspora. That Jews do not lost their loyalty in the Diaspora was manifested by Joseph!
Let us go back to Sedra "Vayetze", "Vayifaga Bamokom" (and Jacob lighted upon the place), (on his way to Choron). The logical translation is that Jacob suddenly discovered that he hit upon or lighted upon a place quite unexpectedly. He came across it; it did not promote his interest. He hit upon a place which he did not search for but was so tired and the sun had set that he decided to stay over at this place. The real translation is that at this place he prayed to Hashem. He interceded with G-d. The word "mokom" here means G-d — not place. (The word "mokom" is one of the names referring to the Alm-ghty.) Here, it means "prayed to G-d". This is why the Hebrew uses the word "Bamokom" instead of "B’mokom" (if it were B’mokom it would mean he arrived or lit at a place. Bamokom means appealing to G-d — according to Rashi.) Example in Prophet Jeremiah 7 — "Al Tifga Bi" (do not entreat me). It all can be traced back to one root. The word "Foga" — entreat or prayer — sometimes can be translated as interspacial and sometimes it can be as short as the distance of prayer itself. The intensity of the prayer determines the distance. If my heart is completely immersed, the distance is short. If it is not intense the distance is long. It is said that Moshe in his prayer defending Israel at the sin of the golden calf held onto G-d’s garment, so intense was his prayer. The more passionate, the stronger the appeal and surrender, the shorter the distance. Thus, this "Bamokom" of Jacob was very close. This "Poga" was "Noga" (meeting was touching). "In time of disaster, I come very close to Him." If the prayer is with fire, we have "P’giah" or close meeting. How does "Chazal" (sages) know that he prayed at night? Scripture tells us "Vayifga Bamokom Vayolen Shom Ki Voh Hashemesh." (And he tarried there because the sun set.)
What is the difference between Shacharis, Mincha and Maariv attributed to the three Patriarchs? It is not merely a prayer recited at different times. Th whole concept changes. Shacharis — what is its purpose? What does it want to achieve? There is a halacha which declares that one must not eat before Shacharis. Chazal says that "one prays for his blood." You do not eat before the blood is yours — before you own the blood. There must be no enterprise, no undertaking until I have davened. It is declared that each arising is compared to "T’chias Hamasim" — revival of the dead. And some say we should not even study before Shacharis prayer. Before I daven the world does not belong to me; with davening I possess my existence. Man does not belong to himself before Shacharis, he belongs to G-d.
What is Mincha? We are told always to be careful of Mincha. Whatever you want to start should not be done before Mincha such as sitting down at a barbers, etc, for fear that we will tarry too long and miss the time limit. Mincha mean interruption! It is very easy to lose the Mincha. I must interrupt my activity no matter how important. It is a retreat. The essence of Mincha is interruption of our work, all our activities — to turn our attention to G-d, our Creator. It is taught that it was at Mincha that the prayers of the Prophet Eliayhu were answered. It is most difficult.
What is Maariv? "Arvis" basically is a very strange "tefilah". Philosophically speaking, Maariv is the later stage in man’s life. When one is young, he doesn’t experience it; when he starts to get older he starts to feel the insecurity. In Maariv, we start by speaking of our experience in Mitzraim. Then we begin with "Hashkivaynu". It is a tefilah whose main activity is survival. It treats of death. This is the experience of having entrusted the soul to the Al-mighty and then the revival. In Maariv, we entreat G-d for survival. When an older man read the "Sh’ma" before his bed, it has more meaning and impact than 25 years previously. This is "Maariv". This is why Jacob introduced "Maariv" at the mokom — the "place". It was for survival. Abraham prayed for success — to convert thousands more to the new morality. Neither did Yitzhak have fear. Abraham was still alive — he had not the responsibility. Jacob, however, prayed the night he left B’er Sheva and the night he was to meet Esau. He prayed for the survival of Choron (Laban) and survival of the confrontation.
In our own era, we were exposed to complete annihilation. We prayed for survival and our prayers were partially accepted.
Tonight, I shall read and interpret a few sentences from Rambam on Hilchos (laws) Chanukah. If you read the Rambam, you note striking resemblances to the prayer "Al Hanisism". The Rambam declares that the mitzvah of Chanukah is an exceedingly precious mitzvah. One should be particularly careful in order to make known, to publicize the miracle and to add and offer additional praise to the Alm-ghty for the miracles He performed. Even if a man has no food except that received through Z’dakah (charity) he should beg for or sell a garment for oil for the Chanukah lamp. Maimonides declares that this mitzvah is so precious that it falls into the identical category with wine for Shabbos, "Arba Koses" (4 cups) for Pesach and the giving of "Shkolim" (Machatzes Hashekel) where also a man must borrow or sell something to perform these above mentioned mitzvos. Again, Rambam declares it precious and one should inform the people of the "nes" — the miracle.
There is a formal question! The reading of Megilas Esther is just as important. Why didn’t Maimonides include the mitzvah in that selective category. In fact, according to Rambam, when it was introduced it was fashioned after "Kriyas megilah" — the reading of the Megilah Esther. Purim preceded Chanukah by 200 years. We go to chapter three of Maimonides: "It happened during Bais Sheni." — the Second Temple. Why did we have to be told? Why is the time fixed in history? Apparently, Rambam tried to introduce something new — something we wouldn’t have known.
The answer is simple. All "Yom Tovim" (holidays) are mentioned in Torah Sh’Biksav (the written Bible — or the Holy writings) except Chanukah. Chanukah took place at a time when "N’vuah" (prophecy) was already absent — There were no more prophets. In other words, there is no biblical text (such as Chumash, Tanach - Neviim - or K’suvim). Esther prevailed in her arguments that the megilah should be incorporated into the biblical text. All we know of the "text" of Chanukah is merely found in "Torah Sh’Bal Peh" the oral-traditional law (mishnais- Gemoro). Gemoro asks "Mai Chanukah" — where is the text that authorizes or constitutes it as a "Yom Tov". Where is the text? The answer is "Moguls Tacos" — we get the authority from "Esther". However, the two holidays are similar in that we are obliged to publicize the miracle. The act of Chanukah and Purim, however, differ radically. Purim is limited to one act — namely the reading of Moguls Esther. It is standardized and fixed and must be read by all — sage, scholar and secular individual — no more — no less! There is no difference such as "m’hadrim" or "min m’hadrim" (zealously adhered to or super zealously adhered to). It is addressed to everyone alike. If I add something to the required text, I’d not accomplish anything. If I read less, I nullify the mitzvah. As with Torah Sh’biksav (the written Torah) any changes render it null and in this respect it resembles "Kriya shma" (which cannot be added to or subtracted from). The mitzvah of the Torah is "lo sosifo Hadovor, v’lo sitorv" (you shall not add or diminish). Again it is likened to "Birchas Kohanim" (the priestly blessing which cannot be altered).
In "pirsuma nissa" (publicizing the miracle) — in contradistinction to Purim, on Chanukah there is no text. It is Torah Sh’Bal Peh (Oral law). For whatever I do there is reward. For instance, if one reads the Chumash and does not understand a word, for the mere act of reading he has accomplished a mitzvah. Reading the Moguls Chanukah (which is found in some prayer books) is absurd because there is no written text. It is not applicable. On Chanukah, the "pirsuma nissa" — the publicizing is not through reading. It is through the naros (the candles). Do Naros tell a story? Actually, there was a period in history during persecutions when candles were used in windows to relate information to other Jews such as a Simcha — a wedding taking place. One would see the candles and would understand. That is the reason candles still are used at weddings. By reciting the "P’sukim" immediately after lighting the candles "Hanaros Halolu" we interpret the miracle. This is "limud" not "sippur" — teaching not declaring. We interpret the miracle. It is an esoteric act. We must understand that only Chanukah there is no limit to what a man can declare — can publicize. That which the scholar is capable of doing is beyond the capabilities of the ordinary man. The pious exceed the ordinary! There is no limit. What is "m’hadrin"? (the zeal or the action of a man). It is permissible for one to light one candle. If one is not satisfied with the basic structure of mitzvah and wants to express more gratitude, he can perform it (the mitzvah) on three different levels or plateaus. If someone for instance lit the candle and forgot to say the "brocho" he would be told, "say it over the second or third candle." It can be one candle for all — or candles for all. On Chanukah, if we light one candle we get one reward, for additional, we get additional rewards.
Not so the megilah! If we read it over several times we receive but one credit for one megilah. The rest is merely "kriah" reading. On Chanukah, however, there is the average, the "m’hadrin" (those with zeal) and m’hadrin min m’hadrin (above and beyond). My grandfather used to say that the hardest thing to take leave of during the entire year is the end of Yom Kippur — the end of nilah (when we recite Hashem Hu Elokim). The same applies to Chanukah. We would like to light candles endlessly but it is halachically impossible. This is what Rambam meant that is a very precious miracle and we want to express our gratitude to the Alm-ghty. It is precious and we should offer additional praise to G-d. I want to pour out my hear and thank Him. We want to experience the unlimited chesed which G-d poured onto His people. It is determined by the capabilities of the individual!
Gemoro Shabbos says (B’ameh madlikin) certain oils were interdicted on Shabbos because they don’t burn well or have odors. On Chanukah we can use any kind. Still, it all depends on the sensitivity of the individual all the way up to the purest "shem zais" (olive oil) because we fell the other is not beautiful enough. From the halachic point, all are alright. The "pirsuma hanes" (publicizing the miracle) varies with the individual. Interestingly, Gemoro says if I utilize the candle for profane reasons, no one will recognize it as a miraculous purpose. Every Chanukah a Jew should discover something new which he didn’t know. It should increase our capabilities and our sensitivities. I should "dig" and make an effort. Interestingly, it is a mitzvah on several levels. Some people demand more and can digest more. It is comparable to "sipur yetzias mitzraim" (relating the Egyptian exodus). We have "echod chochom - echod tom - echod sh’ayno y’dai lishol" - different capabilities and mentalities of children. It was made possible for us to relate the exodus on several levels from the child to the most learned. The reason there too is because the Haggadah is not a "kriyah" or biblical text but a "medrash". Wherever Torah Sh’Bal Peh is involved, there is no limit. The "Geonim" (great rabbis) excommunicated those that thought they could merely recite Sedrahs Voayrah and Bo on Pesach. (This would be in contradistinction because then they would be introducing the written text of the Torah).
Medrash raises the problem. The initiative must be seized by the people. "You seize the initiative and you’ll come close to G-d. On the other hand, G-d often helps not only one who prays but one who cannot help himself. The problem is, "Must initiative by seized by man?" What should be the criterion? Both methods are correct. Sometimes, man is silent; sometimes G-d waits for man to take the initiative.
The answer is: "It depends if people can survive without intervention."
Sometimes, it is painful and difficult but people can survive (example
milchemes Amalek). In Mitzraim, why did G-d "jump over the mountains"?
They were not there the 400 years told to Abraham; in fact, they were there
for less. He said, "if they remain there longer, there will be nothing
left. That is why He jumped over mountains. There simply was no time.
If people still have heroic power and can endure then G-d waits for them
to come. "Lachatz" is pressure. "Either they will be set free
or no nation will there be." Moshe said, "it is wonderful but the
400 years are not up!" G-d answered, "they cannot wait." There is either
"geulah" - redemption or vanishing. This is what Rambam says - there was
no prayer. We are told that the assimilation had penetrated the homes of
the Kohanim. Why did He bestow his chesed - His grace? Because it was so
difficult for them to live. They were not worthy of it but He bestowed
chesed.
Basically, I want to talk about Joseph and his brothers: to understand the story well, you have to read between the lines. I want to speak of three insights.
(1) I try to answer one question halachically. When the brothers come to Mitzraim for the first time to buy food and presented themselves before Joseph, were accused of espionage and denied the charges, Judah’s name is not mentioned. No matter where you look, he isn’t mentioned. We find in the conversation between the brothers and the Viceroy the word, "Vayomru" — (and they said) but it doesn’t mention "Who said." "Vayomru" is mentioned in fact several times but not specifically who.
Where does Yehudah appear? In his debate with Jacob (where he appeals to his father to let them go a second time to buy food and to take along their youngest brother Benyamin as requested by the Viceroy). At first, it is Reuven - the oldest brother who intervenes right away and is rejected by the father. Much later, it is Yehuda. Scripture tells us there was no food and then Yehuda repeated basically what his brother spoke before him. Suddenly, he emerges from the shadows to the forefront. Apparently, his appeal was irresistible and was accepted. He could have said it before the food was consumed but waited till the point of starvation. When they come to Joseph’s house Yehuda again disappears in the background. When they were caught with the silver chalice in Benjamin’s possession, again, Yehuda is not mentioned. The turning point is where Yehuda is singled out in a solemn manner. Yehuda took over the leadership. The fact that Joseph couldn’t contain himself any longer is due to Yehuda’s appeal. Yehuda takes over when the situation becomes grave. Thus, it was grave when the food became low. Before the goblet was found they thought it was a joke on the part of Joseph. When the goblet was found however, disaster threatened. Yehuda takes over in the time of crisis. Technically, Reuven’s power still had not been removed till Jacob’s blessings in Sedra "Vaychi". Yehuda takes over in the time of despair. "Chazal" (Sages) says, "Reuven bchor shota" - Reuven is a fool for he speaks of "Jacob killing his children if he fails to return Benjamin - Aren’t his children Jacob’s also? Yehuda however, wins over with his oration. When Yehuda takes over, the mission will be implemented. The reason is: Yehuda will be Melech. From him will arise the kingship.
I want to quote Rambam about the mission of a king. If a "novi" - prophet appoints a king, even if not from the house of David, and he follows the right path, he will be accepted. His ability must be to fight a war. He should think of one objective - to raise the standard - to establish justice, to break the arms of the wicked and to engage in a holy war because the whole purpose of appointing a king is to implement justice, to march ahead of the armies and to emerge victorious over our enemies. The job of the king is two-fold: to enforce justice and fight the war. The word war, however, has to be interpreted. The word milchama (war) by Rambam is in a much wider sense than the literal meaning.
I would say, "milchama" means time of crisis — military, economic, or spiritual. When there is a war it is a critical time. When times are normal there is no need for such unity. In times of war, we need unified, collected leadership. He is responsible for the well-being of the people and their continued existence. Secondly, the king is responsible for the principles of justice. The courts were composted of three, twenty three , or seventy one justices — and found in all the cities. But the king is necessary when justice is being trampled in time of crisis and is in danger of disappearing. When the principles of justice are being desecrated, where the people make mockery, the Bes Din (court) is not sufficient. For example, the Hashmonayim lived in critical times. They fought against the "mishyavnim" — the revisionists in combat and the power was seized by Yehuda Hamaccabee. He had the courage and ability of a king. These are the two objectives which a Melech should pursue: general crises and justice.
When the brothers first come to Joseph and he accused them of espionage, they thought he was irritated but not critical. After all, he acted like a gentleman, was handsome and in general conducted himself exemplarily. When they finished the food, Yehuda smelled danger. His conscience was affected. "I must come forward at once, it is a crisis!" Later, he withdraws because again there is no crisis. He becomes humble, modest, withdrawn. When he comes before Joseph, they exchange gifts etc. Again he withdraws and his name is not mentioned. When the goblet is discovered and they tear their clothes in despair, now he must emerge. It is a critical time. They all come to Joseph’s house and Joseph understands very well that he’ll have to deal with them, but he thought it would be collective bargaining. However, "Vayigash Yehuda" — Yehuda stepped forth. Joseph had an intuitive feeling that he’ll have to fight with Yehuda and this he’d want to avert. Of course, they were aroused by the initial charge of espionage for it is wrong to be suspicious. But this was a conspiracy. "This Egyptian is out to destroy the house of Jacob." After all, many nationalities came to Egypt and Joseph didn’t receive them personally. Here he singles out the house of Jacob. He is a fiend interested in destroying the house of Jacob and he will go on provoking and provoking. The possibility that the house of Jacob will be destroyed aroused the "Lion of Judah". It is time for the King Yehuda to come forth. Medrash says that the "Shvotim" (tribes) were not involved at all. It is a confrontation of 2 kings. The Torah characterizes Yehuda as a "lion". Often, the lion sleeps and is unaware of what is happening outside. This "lion" slept when Joseph was sold. In time, when courageous action was desired the "lion" aroused to defend the principles of justice and to defend Jacob’s house.
Yehuda appears courageous twice: — once in the affair with Tamar when she returned his goods for identification (when he accused her of harlotry and sentenced her to death. He could have remained silent but chose to forego his honor and publicly admitted his guilt). Secondly, was his defense of Benyamin. Yehuda was successful on both occasions. Why was he tested twice? Because there are two problems! Does he have power as an individual? Does he have power as a leader? Some people can only do one. Some have leadership but as an individual (over their own conscience) they have no power. Here he was tested on both levels. It was not easy to lower himself for an unknown girl. The second time he called the Viceroy of Egypt a liar.
Insight #2
Why did Joseph torture his brothers — charge them with espionage? I believe that Joseph pursued a double objective. First, Joseph wanted to make up his mind, "should I be loving and forgiving or should I be vindictive? Shall I be a brother or an Egyptian tyrant? The answer is: "It depends on them! Are they the wild Bedouins who sold me or have they grown up? Has the morality of Abraham taken hold of them? Are they or aren’t they ‘B’alay T’shuvah’ (repentant)? Have they changed in the course of time?"
Judah’s appearance changed his mind. He remembered Judah on that awesome day when he sold him. How Jacob would suffer to such a message. He had no compassion for his father’s feelings. Now we are told by medrash that Judah grasped the columns of the palace and shook them. He was ready to give his life. The one who repents is willing to give his life. I believe that Judah felt, Joseph will give in if he repeats the story. Here Judah shows his feeling for his father.
Deep down in his heart, Joseph wanted something which no one could give him. Joseph dreamt twice! Once he dreamt of the surrounding sheaves and the prostration of the sheaves. This was fulfilled! When the brother’s came and bowed there was no doubt about the reality in such a fantastic manner. His ego was satisfied. His brothers are beggars and prostrate themselves. Was the second dream a reality or is it a vision waiting to be recognized. Joseph wanted not only that the sheaves should prostrate themselves but also the celestial bodies! He was mainly interested in the second dream. This is related to the spiritual leadership which the "shvotim" (tribes) will prove. He wanted "malchus" (kingship) not in Egypt but in the Eternal City — the "Messiah". He wanted all to prostrate themselves and recognize that from him will the Messiah issue forth.
In order to have all this he had to have one condition. When Joseph beheld the second vision, this is the one which he revealed to Jacob. Jacob declared, "Do you expect me to bow to you?" Jacob is the sun! In order to recognize fulfillment of the second condition, Jacob must bow. Jacob had the key - the control. Jacob will never accept and Joseph can never lay claim to "malchus". His problem was, "How can he make Jacob prostrate himself?" Thus, he contrived the following plan. He will contain or retain Benjamin — fully knowing that Jacob will not remain in Canaan if Benjamin doesn’t return. He will come to Egypt, bow just once to the "Egyptian Viceroy" as a matter or protocol and the "malchus" will come to him. Judah did not understand all this but he felt that the strange Egyptian leader had an interest in making Jacob leave Canaan and come to Egypt. "Jacob will come without knowing the identity." Should he know, he surely will not bow and Joseph cannot take over "malchus".
What did Judah tell Joseph? "You are making a mistake. Jacob will never come. You cannot achieve you objective. If you keep Benjamin, Jacob will die but not in Mitzraim. You have lost your game! You’ll never force Jacob to come! "This is when Joseph broke down and realized that "Hasheocha" (providence) has different plans. Now he no longer could control his emotions!
3rd Insight
"Vayigash alov Yehuda" (And Yehuda drew near to him). It should have said, "Vayigash Yehuda el Yosef". This would have been perfectly acceptable Hebrew grammar. What is the difference semantically? In order to understand "alov", we must study the end of Sedra "miketz" to find out to whom. The brothers didn’t understand the Egyptian. They really didn’t believe he was an Egyptian. "What could we really have said about him had we been exposed to him? We he brutal, capricious? He never engaged anyone else in conversation — the thousands who same to buy. The others bought, they loaded - they departed. Here he asked them all sorts of personal questions. Also they couldn’t understand Shimon’s treatment. Having seen him arrested and bound before their very eyes when they first departed from home, yet when they returned and Shimon was released and was questioned, "How ere you treated?," he answered "Better than ever!" When they come to Joseph’s house, they were wined and dined and exchanged gifts. It was strange!
Even after the charge against Benjamin they were not brought to jail or to the executioner, but to his own house. It was customary even at the time of accusation to throw all into jail. Here the text reads, "Cholilah" (far be it from me to take you all as slaves). In that era, a Yehuda rebuttal against Pharaoh (as he did) would have led to the gallows. Therefore, "alov" is Joseph — the cryptical figure; on one hand an Egyptian — on the other hand, a different kind of person. Even the word, "Baso" (his house) had the opulence of a king but the reminiscence of the quality of their own home. Even when they were apprehended they were not assaulted and he didn’t shout. He used the language of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. It is more of a complaint, not the language of a despot. Joseph was still the cryptical, mysterious figure which no one could describe. He was the man of their family!
In today’s Sedra, Jocob’s last wish to his children, assigning their historic role is also called "Tzavoh". He assigned the role to each child; his place was assigned in Knesseth Yisrael. Thus, also with Joshuah "qualify him to take the leadership which was Moshe’s till then!" It is the final address to a survivor. Here with Jacob, after the change he gathered in his feet and expired.
In today’s Sedra, we find the first time where the language of the Torah is not prose but poetry. Later, we find poetry in Sedras "Bishalach" (the song at the sea) "Hazinu" (the song which Moshe admonished the people before his death) and V’zos Habrach (the final blessing to the Tribes). Here, the prophecy is written in poetic category.
What is the general message which today’s Parsha addresses to us? Of course, it touches the very foundation of our existence. We find the principles which guided our leaders and teachers to perpetuate "Yehadus" (Faith). But the main message I believe is not merely the Kabalistic concept but it conveys the idea of Knesseth Yisroel -- not as much Am Yisroel (Am Yisroel would be merely the people collectively whereas Knesseth represents the different viewpoints, the individualistic complexities of the nation). Rambam says that Knesseth Yisroel is a community which is contradictory with various approaches and aspects. The word "Kallah" (bride) denotes "Klal". You mention the bride, all her qualities -- the culmination of everything good. The same applies to Klal Yisroel. Knesseth Yisroel is all inclusive, contradictory but not afraid of contradiction. On one hand, the Torah displays greater tenderness than a mother to her baby. On the other hand, Torah is so stern and requests such discipline. All ideas are good but not identical. What is meant by the prayer "Ose Sholom Bimromov" (He creates peace on high)? There is reconciliation of contradictions. This is Knesseth Yisroel. It is very committed to "Yehadus" and is not taken aback at a contradiction of ideas.
This is what "Birchas Yaakov" (the blessings of Jacob) describes. It did not excommunicate a single Tribe. Actually, the Torah does not record all which Jacob told them. Undoubtedly, he told them much more than is written. But he blessed every one of them -- each blessing in accordance with each man’s talents. There is no use in blessing a man contrary to his particular talents (such as blessing one to be a great scholar if it is obvious he doesn’t have much of a memory). In describing Yehuda as a "lion," he realized his strength but commanded him he should use it at the proper time. Shimon and Levi -- the way they acted particularly in Schem, was wrong but they should use their zeal for constructive purposes. According to the situation that may arise. When a community is in distress, we must have zeal to save it. Thus, we find with the "Chashmonoyim". What did he address to Shimon and Levi? They should be zealous when necessary but be careful. If they hadn’t killed the residents of Schem, what would have been the situation? It would have resulted in complete assimilation. "Anshe Shlamim Haym" (they are simple people). They (Schem) expected the Children of Jacob to become completely integrated and eventually would be swallowed up (won’t their cattle and possession be ours?). Thus, in their war it was the important element of surprise. Thus, they weren’t so horrible in their concept. With Joseph (advocating his death) they were completely wrong. Thus, Jacob admonished them: "Zeal must be employed correctly".
Then he came to Yehuda. The capabilities, courage and heroism granted to him by the Alm-ghty should be utilized in the proper time. To Joseph, he blessed him to utilize his beauty for the proper cause. Also, in this fashion, he blessed each Tribe.
Why was Pharaoh so excited about the arrival of Joseph’s family? He had a simple theory! Joseph was a great administrator in all ways and saved Egypt. There is a genetic code there! Why not have twelve geniuses and especially the father? They were very gifted, each one excelling in this particular area - one in commerce, one in courage, one in personality. They excelled as the animals of the field but for "Bnai Yaakov", they should turn their talents into a great experience. What is the conclusion drawn from Knesseth Yisroel? It can only come into reality if all the twelve people, unique singular personalities, excelling in different areas (those 12 who couldn’t agree on any subject) should combine and resolve their contradictions and forge a great community. Thus, the American Jew is full of contradictions but this is what he is supposed to be. When a Jew concludes the Shmomo Esrei and steps backwards, he declares "Oseh Sholom" - (create peace) in the transcendental world (Bimormov) - but may it become a reality in our world. It is peace in the metaphysical and philosophical sense. Hence, Joseph cannot touch his brothers for once he touches them and disrupts the "Shvotim", there will be no Knesseth Yisroel. It will vanish and disappear. "Ovicho Tzivo Lifnay Moso" (father delivered the message before his death to all of us). "Stop fighting, stop quarreling, stop combating! Persecution will lead to annihilation. It will all be terminated and lost. "Our father’s oration was "Ono Sono Pesha Avicah" - forgive your brother’s sin. It was a crime but brotherhood should prevail. After hearing this Joseph cried, ‘Why’? "Because your behavior determines the future of Knesseth Yisroel. This is why he felt moved to cry. The future of the Jews was entrusted and dependent upon him. It was a great responsibility.
This is not homoletical but far more. What was Reuven’s sin? He disrupted his father’s couch. After the death of Rachel, instead of arranging his couch in Leah’s tent as might seem logical, Jacob arranged it in the tent of Rachel’s handmaid, Bilha. Rashi declares that the reason he did so was because Benjamin was an infant and Bilha as handmaid took over the mothership. Wishing to be close to the infant, Jacob moved his couch into her tent. Reuven misunderstood the action and declared, "Must a maidservant also be a rival to my mother Leah?" And he moved Jacob’s couch into Rachel’s tent. Thus, Reuven sinned on account of moving furniture. It wasn’t such a terrible crime. Many was the time that Leah cried and with Rochel’s death, Reuven expected better things. Actually, it was Reuven who saved Joseph from death. It was his good intentions. Yehuda was responsible for the selling. Now Yehuda passes with flying colors and Reuven is given credit for nothing. Why? What is important is that Reuven made one mistake and thus indirectly became responsible for "Mechiras Yosef", the selling. If Reuven had not rebelled publicly, the brothers never would have had the "Chutzpa" to think of killing a brother and fooling a father. But by his thoughtless action, Reuven disrupted and split the camp of Jacob. He caused dissension. His rash action precipitated rashness on the part of his younger brothers. "If he can disrupt, so can we."
The question is: where was Reuven during this selling? He had gone off to repent, to fast, to offer prayers, to say "Anaynu" (answer me). Why did he wait so long? Why did he choose just this time to pray and repent? Because it was not until just that moment when he saw and understood his brothers actions and realized that their boldness was the result of his example that he realized his sin. At that very moment, he went to repent.
"Vayomer Yosayf El Echov - Onochi Mays, Vaylokim Pokod Yifkod Eschem." And Joseph said to his brothers, I die but G-d will surely remember you! This "Pokod Yifkod" was a password which Jacob entrusted to Joseph, Joseph to his brothers and they to the heads of their families. It was a password by which he let them know that there shouldn’t be a false redeemer, a false hope. Consequently, it was entrusted only to the heads, not to the common man. Joseph told them, "I don’t know when it will be. I don’t know who the redeemer is who G-d will send. It may take a few years or many years; it may come tomorrow. But come he surely will. First, three is the Tzavoh (the will) - then "V’alisem Es Atzmo - Sai Mizeh" (You shall carry my bones up from here). Interesting is it that the same "Posek" is related in Sedra "B’Shalach" - Chapter 13, line 19 of Chumash Shmos. "etc, V’Haalisem Es Atzmosi Mizeh Itchem." (And you shall take my bones hence with you.) We find that in Sedra Vaychi, Joseph telling the brothers that his bones shall be carried up, but in B’Shalach the word "Itchem" -- with you -- is added. Chazal declares that, in fact, all the skeletons of the brothers were taken up from Egypt at the departure.
Why did Jacob make Joseph take an oath? Why was it of such great importance? There is a great bond between the land where a person is buried and the living. The whole Exodus would have lost its dramatic appeal if all had left and Jacob was left buried there. Therefore, when Joseph felt he was dying, he didn’t say "Itchem" (with you). They felt like immigrants but he didn’t. The people would have felt he considered himself part of the Egyptians. When Moshe explained it, he said, "Itchem". Joseph was part of you -- not an Egyptian. He was well aware that he was a stranger
When Joseph had to ask Pharaoh about burying his father, to leave for a couple of weeks, he had to ask thorough courtiers, although he was second to none in the government. "He spoke to the house of Pharoah" -- he used a messenger. Apparently, he wasn’t sure of himself. Yes, he had accomplished miracles but socially he wasn’t equal. He was an Ivri (Jew) not Mitzri (Egyptian). If Egypt was good enough to feed and to become prosperous in, why wasn’t it good enough for a grave. He was afraid to speak directly, to prepare Pharoah for the request. The same situation occurred in France in 1948, when Edmund Rothschild died and requested previously that he be buried in Israel. DeGaulle declared, "I thought he was a good Frenchman. Isn’t France good enough to be buried in?" The conclusion is that "Goyim" don’t understand. DeGaulle acted such as Pharaoh. It shows that the origin of the Jew is something else.
Thus, Moshe said "Itchem" -- he revealed the secret. Joseph could have been buried royally in a pyramid as was befitting a ruler in Egypt but he didn’t want this. "After 80 years in Egypt, he is still part of Israel. Therefore "Itchem".
Today’s Haftorah, the death of King David is a continuation of the Haftorah of Sedra Chayesora (where David made known the choice of successor). It is really one Haftorah. What is the common denominator with the Sedra of today? It is the business of succession. Abraham handed down the succession to Yitzchak and was contested by Ishmael. With David, father selected a son and it was contested by another son. The challenger loses and the one chosen succeeded. Sholomo challenged, Adoniyahu contested! Adoniyahu was supported by the great leaders of his time. David decided in favor of Shlomo and Shlomo sat on the throne. What do we find in Vaychi? There is no contesting here. But here we find the last message of Jacob to Joseph such as David to Shlomo.
There are two wills, the material and the spiritual. The material is inherited and automatically but not necessarily the spiritual. No one can get the spiritual unless chosen by the predecessor. We can understand this but there is a special question. The Haftorah of "Chaye Sora" should have started with the matter of succession but there is the funny story of the "Shunamith" the unknown girl who was chosen as a companion to David in his final years. Why should we be informed of the strange story of the "Shunamith"? What is the significance?
The people supported Adoniyahu! The whole Tribe of Yehuda supported Adoniyahu. This is how David became King because he was supported by the people of Yehuda. Shlomo only had Noson the prophet and the security guard -- and for Adoniyahu it was tantamount to Coronation. They would have proclaimed him King on the spot and it would be the end of the contest. Their policy was simple! They knew that David wouldn’t support Adoniyahu and so they tried to isolate David -- that no one should approach him. He knew nothing of it and only found out when BasSheva came in to him at the advice of the Prophet. They declared David sick, not to be disturbed. The girl (Shunamith) ministered to him and was instructed none should enter. The inner clique hired her just for this purpose. Thus, Adoniyahu will be Melech (King).
But they made a mistake about her. If she kept out Bassheva, Adoniyahu would be king. The miracle was that she admitted BasSheva. The entire turn of events was due to this strange girl; she kept out the others and let in BasSheva and it determined the Kingdom. Adoniyahu was a warrior and Shlomo was a "Chochom" -- scholar but not warrior. David took the advice of Noson and Bassheva. Adoniyahu lost -- Shlomo won. Interestingly, we find another great woman called "Shunamith" -- at the time of Elisha the Prophet. Thus, "Shunamith" was the "Sheliach", the messenger of the Al-mighty.
Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday night, January 20, 1979
I shall elaborate on two "psukim" of last weeks Sedra ( which is very important in understanding that which follows. The brothers were afraid that with the death of Jacob, Joseph’s attitude towards them would change. "Chazal" says that is did change. It says that the brothers saw that their father is dead. It was a strange statement; he was dead. But what they saw was that his attitude was cooler in relationship to them. They sent a messenger declaring, "father comanded don’t take revenge, etc." As explained, this neer occured. Father never made such a statement. Joseph answered, "Do not worry, Am I in G-d’s stead?"
This answer, "Hasachas Elokim Oni." (Am I in G-d’s stead) is hard to understand. We find this expression also with Jacob in reference to Rachel during his time of childlessness. This type of statement is out of context. I have two answers to this question. What Joseph says, "Hasacha" is not in regard to their petition per se which incidentally was in place and justified. Regarding a sin, the law requires a confession of guilt and the promise taht it will no longer be repeated in the future. This regards sins between mand and G-d; confession and forgiveness. Concerning sins between man to man, in addition to confession to G-d there must be "mechilah" (asking for pardon) towards the man. Still, it is not the same text. On Yom Kippur, we employ both means. Towards man we ask "mechila"; to G-d we say "Al Chet". That which we say to G-d we do not say to man. There are two different apporaches and categories. I speak differently to G-d than the way I speak to man. When I approach someone for "mechila" before Yom Kippur, I don’t say "Ono, Slachno". This is only for G-d when man is completely dependent and G-d completely independent. The forgiveness of G-d is one of the Thirteen Attributes belonging only to G-d. To fellow man, I speak differently -- "I did wrong, pelase forgive me!" But to say ‘Slachno’ would be idolatry. It is two vocabularies - two dictionaries. "Vidu" is total surrender. "I am wrong, G-d is correct. Nothing mitigates my sin - it’s wrong!" How did the "shvotim" (tribes) approach Joseph? "Ono - Sono-" They used the language reserved for G-d. They used the language of "Vidu". Joseph answered them: "This is not the way to apporach me. Address yourself to G-d; I shouldn’t be present. "Yira" (fear) is only to Hashem Elokecho (your G-d). As far as I am concerned, "Yira" is wrong. "Hasachas Elokim Oni?" It shows Joseph’s humility!
I believe there is another answer -- more sophisticated but first I must discuss another problem. We all know there is a lot of trouble with "Ayin Tachas Ayin, Shain Tachas Shain" (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth). Chazal has unequivocally ruled that it means monetary compensation -- not as it appears. In Torah Sh’Bal Peh (Gemoro) when Rabbi Tarfon began to discuss the implication of the matter, he was stopped immediately. The Gemoro was instantly cut off. Never was there a scholar hwo interpreted it literally. Gemoro says, "stop the discussion" and decides it must be cleared up. It means definitely monetary compensation. So, why does Torah write it that way? It should be "Kessef Tachas Ayin" etc. (Money for an eye, money for a tooth). The Rambam answers this question. The quintessence of the statement is such: If I say "Kessef Tachas Ayin", I could take the most precious gift which G-d gave and then merely pay damage if I become angry. There is the recent case of a Jewish father who in his anger towards a psychiatrist who advocated institutionalizing of a mental child, premeditatively shot the doctor in his eyes and blinded him. With "Kessef Tachas" he could have paid him money and that would be all. If it read "money" it would become a cruel manner - not a criminal one. There would be no human perception. To kill is criminal enough but to take away vision is sub-human. Is a million dollars "Tachas" for eyes? Would there be an equivalent? Also, can we compare eyes? What -- how does one see compared with another such as an artist. So we cannot say, "Kessef Tachas". How about "Ayin Tachas Ayin" (actually eye for eye)? Is a human court capable of measuring pain, tragedy, suffering? This there is neither! What Torah means is: "He is dersving of losing an eye and to go through some suffering but there is no implementation. It may demand it but we cannot implement this. No court can impose this.
The brothers said, "Lu Yistamaynu" -- we have fear that he will torture us. "V’Hoshayv Yoshiv" and he will turn the evil on us just as we did to him - by selling him into slavery. "I would like to see you in prison for eyars -- taken away from such a wonderful house a wonderful father. But I cannot measure it, I cannot do it. You’ll never understand what I went through. Instead, "Hasachas Elokim" -- am I in G-d’s stead. I cannot do "Ayin Tachas Ayin" - only G-d can do exactly. Therefore, there is no retaliation!
Sentence 24 and Sentence 25 of the final Chapter of Vaychi seem redundant. The first declares: Joseph said to his brothers, "I die but G-d will surely remember you and bring you out of this land to the land which he swore to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Sentence 25 reads, "And Joseph took an oath of the Children of Israel saying, ‘G-d will surely remember you and you shall carry my bones up from hence!’" It seems superfluous - it is written twice. The first sentence is no request, no demand. He told them, "You are very well established in this land but don’t forget, "You are strangers. Remember you belong to the house of Abraham. This is not your land; you will go back." Who could consider himself more Egyptian than Joseph? He saved not only what we know as Egypt today but the entire Middle East and "Chazal" says it included Lebanon. "I do not know when the call will come but when it comes be ready to go. I don’t know how you will be treated, perhaps very well but remember to be ready to go. Why did Joseph want to be buried in Eretz? It was not necessarily to be buried near his ancestors (as his father) but in Eretz. "When it should happen do not rebel - join the redeemer.
In today’s Sedra we read two Haftorahs. The Misnagdim read from Isaiah, the Chasidim from Jeremiah. In Jeremiah, Egypt is not mentioned. So what is the common theme with the Sedra? Moshe didn’t want to accept the assignment and neither did Jeremiah. It took seven days fro the Alm-ghty to convince Moshe. What is the common theme with our Haftorah (Isaiah)? The people didn’t listen when the Prophet came with the word of G-d. But I think there is something more. In "Yitzias Mitzraim", not all left. Chazal says that four out of five didn’t leave and remained behind. There were agnostics, atheists who didn’t need Abraham and his ways. In the days of Moshiach, every Jew will be picked up. None shall remain behind. "You will be picked up every individual. You won’t have to be coerced. The Messiah with his great personality will attract the people. Those who didn’t join Moshe will join Moshiach. This is the common motif of the Haftorah and Sedra. It is not merely the motif of Mitzraim; it will be complete redemption.
Joseph’s oath was carried out! His bones were extricated! There is one commentary which says his remains were in a royal pyramid, others say it was in the Nile. On the night of the Exodus when all were ready to leave. Moshe was nowhere to be found. Where was he? He was the only one who remembered, the only one who sought out Joseph’s remains. In "Shir Hashirim" (Song of Songs), which is an allegory, we find, "Bikashti Balaylos" - (I was searching for the man I wanted most -- asking the night watchman). Finally, Moshe came, bearing the "Aron" the coffin, on the night of redemption.
What is so paradoxical about this? Moshe was a great man, he shouldn’t
forget. But the paradox is: It shows the Shvotim -- in spite of its
schisms and quarrels and splitting the house of Jacob. Who of them hated
Joseph the most? It was Shimon and Levi who declared, "Kill him." It was
animal hostility! It is strange but usually hatred is carried on from generation
to generation. "He who father hated, I may well hate without really knowing
why. What is anti-Semitism? It is handed down hatred. It is taht which
they cannot understand but carry on the hatred. It is inherited hatred
from generation to generation. Therefore, who should have been more prejudiced
about Joseph than Moshe? His great grandfather Levi called Joseph "vain
- proud -etc." Yet it was Moshe who searched for the coffin, and took "Atzoth
Yosef" into his tent for 40 years. He did not entrust it to anyone else.
He didn’t hand it over and treaed it with reverence. In his "brocho" to
Joseph before his death, Moshe said, "Blessed of the L-d be his land. Let
blessings come upon the head of Joseph!" Moshe realized the wrong which
had been done. Thus, in Mitzraim the people become completely unionized,
pursued the same way of life with unity. Had not Moshe united them, Yitzias
Mitzraim wouldn’t have occured. We are accused of being too clannish. If
we don’t care, who will care? You are supposed to support anyone but especially
your brother -- who becomes poor. All was dependent if Bais Yaakov will
become reconciled. Bereshis and Shmos are books of reconciliation. We find
this message in Haftora Viyigash (Ezekiel "It will become "One nation".
The Torah recorded three incidents about Moshe’s early years, his birth, his encounter with the Mitzri and subsequent defense against persecution and flight from Egypt, and his joining of Yisro (father-in-law to be). There could have been more!
When we read carefully, not only the words tell us a story, but we learn to decipher by that which is missing and not disclosed. Pharoah not only prosecuted him for murder but condemned him for murder. I would like to know what occured during that span of time, perhaps fifty to sixty years, between his young years and having a son Gershom. We have to read and interpret not the text but the gap (the time gap). What happened during those circa 60 years? We have no script. What does Torah tell us? By not telling us, it is recorded in clear unequivocal manner. Torah itself simply doesn’t tell!
It is a time when G-d covered His face. If we are judged on Rosh Hashanah on face value only, without considering extenuating circumstances, who can win? The whole concept of Rosh Hashanah is changing "Din" (strict justice) into "Rachamim" (mercy). Not even the Archangels can win and will be found wanting. But there is another aspect which is worse than "Midas Hadin" -- strict justice. It is called "Hester Ponim" -- hiding His face. "He has turned His back on Israel; there is no confrontation. We address our prayer; He doesn’t listen! This was the historical experience which the Jew underwent in that period. It was tragic.
We find in Parsha Vayelech of Chumas Dvorim - Chapter 31 - sentence 17, the following statement. "And My anger will wax hot against him on that day and I shall avoid him and hide my face from them and they shall be for prey when the many evils shall befall them; And he shall say on that day, "Behold it is because G-d is not with me that these evils have befallen me!" This is exactly what happened then to the people, "Hester Ponim". Why were they slaves is a different problem and does not concern us here. He executes the world in perfect justice and none said a word. They worked as slaves in silence. That is why Torah doesn’t record. His face was covered up.
Moshe wanted to become acquinted with his brethren about whom he learned from his parents Amram and Yocheved. It was not only, "Hester Ponim" on the part of G-d but on the part of Moshe on account of what happened. In Parsha "Shmosh" chapter 2, line 14, it records, "Ochayn Nodah Hadovor." "Now I understand. I was wrestling with a tremendous problem. Why are the Jews deserving of such a fate? Now I udnerstand; there is no devotion among them. You went and told the authorities; such people do not deserve salvation!" These words of denunciation come from the mouths of Jews against Moshe, their loving, devoted friend. For him, it was not only flight from Pharoah but flight from his brethren. He broke up his relationship with his brethren. "It is not what I hoped for or imagined. I thought I would find the doctrine and morality of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They are not ready! Thus, he broke relationship and wanted to remain in Midyan as a permanent resident, not a temporary sojourner. Jacob in his twenty years with Laban always had in mind to return. "Garti" (I was a sojourner); not so Moshe. In the same Chapter of Shmosh -2- line 15, the word "Vayeshev" is written twice. "He dwelt in the land of Midyon - he dwelt at the well." This double "Vayeshev" is the proof of his intention of remianing there. "Chazal" (sages) tell us taht the prince Moshe carried the burdens of his brethren on his shoulder while he was in Egypt. He would have lived with them and left with them. This incident, however, caused him to doubt if they were worthy of leaving. He was confused and settled in Midyon -- settled at the well. Moshe’s prayer was very important and never rejected by G-d (except for his own misdeed). This, however, was one silent period -- "Hester Ponim". Thus, the Torah tells us a story not by screaming but by silence. A motion of the hand sometimes tells more than a long story. Silence is the best story teller of suffering. The people who slaved in Egypt already felt that this is life; such should it be.
Yayhi Bayomim HoRabim HaHaym "And it came to pass after many days." What does this mean? -- Those days which have not been recorded -- the days of silence. It is interesting that the Torah says, "HoRabim HoHaym". Only G-d could interpret "how many days". People who suffer the torture of time lose the concept of time -- day, night, hour. Time becomes abstract! You cease to feel time. Sometimes it goes quickly, sometimes slowly. When one is a slave or one is in fear there is not appreciation of time. To people who are in danger or are very sick, time becomes a heap of minutes, days or hours. "HoRabim" -- there was nothing to count. It was same humiliation, the same ridicule. It was many days of silence. The only differentiation was that day was light, night was dark. Thus was it in the German concentration camps. They were days which merely piled up. Thus Torah uses this condition to convey a long time without significance. We Jews have experienced it not only in Mitzraim but much more in the Holocaust. This picture is projected merely by the few words. "Hayomim HoRabim HaHaym". What happened? "Vayomos Melech Mitzraim -- the Egyptian King died! Why is this so important for us to know? Rambam explains that quite often when the Jew meets with hostility or enmity, he is inclined to assume that merely a certain government leader displays hostility and calls it "Coincidental". People said it couldn’t happen in Germany because there had been good interrelationship for so many years. "How about Hitler?" The answer: "Merely coincidental! Once he achieves power, he’ll forget anti-Semitism!" However, unfortunately it isn’t so.
The same was in Egypt. They believed that once there is a change in government the new King will be progressive -- a different type of individual. Instead, according to Rambam, the old dies and the new is worse. I believe the answer is simple. We know what the death of a King in Egypt meant. They built pyramids and enshrined the royal dead. Now the Jews were assigned the job of building the pyramids. The job was assigned to them and that which was bad previously became unbearable now. This was in addition to their other labors. Torah is not merely a script but has a beautiful fragrance.
"Vayaonchu" -- and they sighed. We are told that they moaned; those were sounds emitted by people in pain. What Torah tells us is that "Vayaonchu" was unbearable. The same was in Germany. "To the right - to the left" - life or death according to the whims. Why "Vayaonchu"? It is a strange sound -- not intentional. I cry when I want G-d to help but "Vayonchu" is not speech. It is the sound which can be produced by animal as well as man. It is the defense mechanism of survival. G-d granted this defense mechanism to all creatures. Before the "Melech Chodesh" - the new King, there was not even a sound.
What is "Vayizaku"? Is is complaining! It is part of the defense mechanism. It is the natural instinct. "Vayizaku" is "asking why". These are the various stages. First, there is no complaining at all -- complete silence. "They night of silence". Second is the death of the King - "Vayaonchu"; they felt pain and began to moan. Third is "Vayizaku" -- they complained -- resented, protested. Suddenly, they regained human dignity. Dathan and Aviram were subhuman because a human doesn’t complain against one who is ready to help. Fourth was "Acceptance". "Vatal Shavosom" -- their appeal, their prayer arose. Once their prayers came up, He gave them credit for all the steps they had gone through in silence and G-d shortened their stay. These are the semantics, the fragrances of the text.
Now Torah should say, "Vayared Hashem L’Hatzil" (G-d descended to help them). Instread, Torah now begins to tell us of Moshe. "Vayar Elokim Es Bnai Yisroel" (And G-d saw the children of Israel). Of course, G-d saw the children of Israel. What is imparted to us? A few sentences later - sentence 7 - it says "Ro-oh Roisi". "You saw them superficially with one eye; I see them as well with both eyes!"
Moshe, you made a terrible mistake because one individual wronged you. You stil remember but after sixty years you should forget already. But you were wrong in your evaluation. They are not bad. Their surface may have been bad. Sometimes they do not display the "Chesed" of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov but deep down they are different. I looked deeply. Three months after "Yetzias Mitzraim" you will be confronted by a new people who understand "Onochi Hashem" (I am G-d). This is "Ro-oh Ro-Isi". I see them through and through but your estimation is wrong. They are worthy. You must awaken them, teach them! You escaped not only from Pharoah but from your brethren. These two words represent the finest words of Yahadus and T’Shuvah - faith and repentence. If the sin has penetrated the deepest recesses there is no possibility for "Tshuvah" except for the two words, "Ro-oh-Ro-Isi". I see deeper and more profoundly.
Then there is "Vayada Elokim" (and G-d knew them). "Yizaker" means to be concerned to to feel. We say on Rosh Hashanah "Habayn Yakir Li. Yeled Shaashuim." "It is a beautiful child to me -- my baby; every time I speak of him, I recollect, I feel, I share his trouble. I am restless when he is in trouble. I mention him with a tremor in my heart!"
Going back to Egypt, therefore "Vayada Elokim", "He suffered with him -- he felt with him. "Vayada Elokim" follows "Vayizaker Elokim" G-d liberated Himself with Israel. Liberation meant also liberation of G-d. This is confirmed by the double expression "Vayizaker" and "Vayada". He suffered with them and was freed from bondage with them. The whole drama of Yitzias Mitraim and the whole vision will be the final redemption.
All that depended on one thing, something which meant a lot to G-d. If this condition had not been met, it would have prevented the "Geulah" the redemption. Only if Moshe will accept the mission! -- providing Moshe accepts. If he refuses there is no redemption. G-d is the redeemer but likes to have the tool for redemption, the man to do the mission. Why did G-d have to explain all this? "Laych" (Go) would have been sufficient. Because G-d wanted Moshe to acquiese. A person cannot be a "sheliach" or an agent if he doesn’t want to accept. A mission must have the consent of the "sheliach". What else is Ro-oh Ro-Isi indicative of?
What new institution is introduced? What was Moshe doing? He was a shepherd;
he had forgotten the people. He wanted to forget, he tried to forget and
erase it from his mind. They were not deserving to be represtatives of
G-d. Moshe was not ready fro them and tried to get further and further
away from their sufferings. As long as he is merely "Roah Tzon" (a shepherd)
he cannot be the redeemer. When G-d wants to punish or to save, He doesn’t
send an angel but a human. He sends him as a "sheliach". Therefore, He
made everything dependent upon Moshe. He must change his opinion of the
people; he must change from shepherd to redeemer. That is why G-d spent
so much time, seven days, speaking with Moshe. And Moshe did not give in
until the final day. When he finally said he’ll go, G-d accepted. G-d’s
job was not to persuade Pharoah but Moshe.
We spoke last week of the "parsha" which tells the story of silence - "Hester Ponim" - G-d hides His face. Extreme despair is best described by not telling anything. Here we have an interim, a separation of approximately 60 years time. We know that Moshe accepted Yisro’s offer but much we don’t know. What he did. What he said. What events occured are not revealed. But is is not important. After the matter of keeping the flock of "Kohan Midyon" (the priest of Midyon - Yisro) - there is a strange word (Chapter 3 - line 1 of Shmosh) "Vayinhag Es Hatzon Achar Hamidbar") - "And he led the sheep towrads the wilderness". Instead of "Achar" it should be El Hamidbar which meant "to". Some interpret that Moshe actually kept the flock in the furthest part of Midyon - therefore "Achar" (after). This was in keeping with the principles of Abraham, namely removing one’s flocks from "G’zayla" - infringement upon other peoples properties.
In the previous sentence we find: "U’Moshe Hoyo Roeh Es Tzon" (and Moshe was keeper of the sheep). The word "Hoyo" teaches us that it is not past tense but rather a participle. It is not a statement about what he did but who he was, his work, his occupation. It is a description of the person - "Moshe, the shepherd". "Vayinhag Es Hatzon" and he led the flock, "Vayovo El Haar Elokim" (and came to the mountain of G-d). This is the past tense. "It once happened." He came to Sinai - to the place where he shouldn’t infirnge on other people’s territory. However, this is to mean, "Hu Hoyo Nohages Hatzon". He used to always come to the "Har Elokim". Thus Rashi informs us that it was always his custom to go there so that the sheep shouldn’t pasture or graze in other people’s place. This would be "G’zayle" - robbery as the conflict between Abraham’s and Lot’s shepherds. Abraham’s shepherds were trained to be careful of other people’s money. However, if you interpret the word "Vayinhag", it means he reached it only once in many years.
My suggestion is that the whole "posek" should be interpreted as a participle. If so how can Rashi make such a statement? It would seem that it were merely an accident his reaching the Mount.
Now the question, "Vayovo Har Elokim". If you interpret it in terms of a participle what does it mean? After all, why is it called "Har Elokim?" It did not have that connotation yet; it would only be so inthe future. If the whole "posek" is a participle (many, many times) why was it necessary to bring them here to a mountain? (Certainly not much of a place for grazing.)
The ansewr to this we find in Sedra "Shlach" of Chumash Bamidbar - Chapter 13, line 22. It states, "Vayalu Banegev Vayovo Ad Chevron". "Vayalu" (They all come up in the south - the 12 spies) - Vayovo (and He Caleb) (singular) came to Chevron to offer prayers that the counsel of the spies should fail). Otherwise, instead of "Vayovo" (singular) it should state Vayovou (They all came to Chevron). We have to understand taht here with Moshe it was identical. He was not the only shepherd of Yisro. Yisro was a rich man, had a very large flock and many workers. They were the other shpeherd with whom he left the sheep constantly and would go up himself to be alone at "Har Elokim". What did he do? It was the same objective as Caleb -- to pray for his people, his brother whom he left behind in Egypt. At the beginning, he wanted to leave them, to divorce himself from them. "Now I understand! Are they worthy of liberty?" They informed the authorities knowing only too well that he was defending hsi brethren. "They are not worthy." This is what prevented Moshe from accepting at once! Therefore, he was praying that his brothers should rise spiritually, with dignity -- not to inform on their own people. We understand from the Holocaust the principle of informing. When the Germans formed the "Judenpolizei" some gave their lives to save their brothers, many could not rise to the occasion and informed. Moshe was startled! "A Jew should collaborate with the enemy?" So he came always to Har Elokim to pray. How long Moshe prayed, we don’t know any more than Caleb. He also prayed concerning the Egyptians that tyrants should understand basic human rights. Converting people into slaves is not only immoral but this type of a society will eventually decay into ruin. He wanted to inform the Egyptian government of pragmatism. Thus, Moshe constantly made a pilgrimage to "Har Elokim".
What answer did he receive? It was silence! It was the time of "Hester Ponim" (hidden face). Hakodesh Boruch Hu has given us only the promise of hearing prayer, not answering Tefilah. This is applicable to all peoples and even to animals. Thus, no answer. What happened? Once after many years, on a routine visit -- this time something great happened. "Vayara Maloch" (An angel appeared). I would interject two words, "Pa’am Achas" (One time it happened).
When I interpret this posek the best I can, I turn to the "M’forstum" -- the commentators. There are two problems! At the very first revelation, when Moshe reached the "Har" and began to pray he saw the "Sneh" - the bush. "And an angel of G-d appeared to him in a flame in the center of the bush, etc." It tells us that an angel revealed himself, not G-d. Then it says, "And G-d saw that he turned aside to gaze, and the L-rd called to him from the midst of the bush, etc." Now, instead of angel, G-d Himself appears. What happened to cause this change, "Malach" to G-d? In fact, I’ll analyze it but first want to tell a story which occured in Europe. The Gaon of Vilna excommunicated the Chassidim of his time because of their desire to change certain vital tenets of faith. The letters urging excommunication were sent out by the Gaon of Vilna and his council to many European communties that the rabbis should sign the excommunication. There was one notable exception. Rav Rafael of Hamburg, a great halachic scholar received the letter and refused to sign. An argument commenced, a delegation was sent to him to convince him and yet he refused. Subsequently, in defending his stance, he employed the following rebuttal. When the Al-mighty sent Abraham on the mission of the Akedah of Yitzchak, who was it who sent Abraham. It was G-d Himself. When it came to the critical moment of saving Yitzchak it was the Angel who called to Abraham. The anser is that to kill a Jew only G-d can order it. To save a Jew even an angel can do it. The same applied here. "The Vilner Gaon may be an angel but in effect, excommunicating is tantamount to killing. For this I need the order from G-d!"
Also at the "Sneh" we have the same application. The first call was to liberate or save the Jews. This could be done by the "Malach". But we find directly the posek, "He (G-d) said "Do not draw nigh, remove the shoes from your feet for the place where you stand is holy.’" To draw too close to the "Shchina" of G-d could have been Moshe’s death. Therefore, G-d had to speak. Interestingly, the Torah tells us that the "Sneh" burned but was not consumed. "HaSneh Aynenu Ukol". It should say, "Maduah HaSneh Aynenu Ukol". (Why wasn’t the bush consumed?" Instead, the words are, "Maduah Lo Ivar HaSneh"? This was not just a unique event but a great event as far as events are concerned. He attributed great significance to this. Moshe already felt intuitively that something great was happening, that which he waited for many years. If he were merely interested why the bush was not consumed, he wouldn’t be so intrigued. What he saw was a fire in the middle (Mitoch) but did not spread to the periphery. This is what is meant by "Lo Ivar HaSneh". What kind of a fire is it which is limited to the center and doesn’t spread to the periphery? It is restricted only to the center.
Why did G-d do this? There are two separate miracles! In order to draw Moshe, to catch his attention is "Maduah lo Ukol" -- why isn’t it consumed. The second is "Lo Ivar" -- why is the fire limited to the center. Basically, it is the same answer. The "Sneh" didn’t burn; it retained its characteristic. The fire was limited to a center point. The point is, why didn’t the fire spread? This was a test of Moshe. If he merely asked, "Lo Ukol" , why isn’t it consumed, he might not receive the leadership. But, "Why doesn’t it spread," shows his capability to be a leader. "If I were looking for a diplomat, for an ambassador, I wouldn’t have chosen you. Ther are better qualified! But I am not looking for a military marshal; I need a teacher. I need someone to take a people, degraded by torture, by slavery, by humiliation and to elevate them. The time alloted is short -- merely three months. They are degraded. Some are informers. They didn’t cry loudly enough! Only one man can do it. It is Moshe despite "Kvad Peh" -- slowness of speech. Moshe understood at once what G-d wanted. This represents the quality of "Yahudus" - faith. Often G-d is far away but from the distance communicates with man. When G-d told Moshe to build a "mishkan", Moshe was frightened. "Is it possible that I shall build for a an abode of twenty foot square, Master of the Universe? " Shlomo Hamelech asked the same question. The founders of "Chabad" says that here we find Chassidus. G-d declares, "If I want, the Heavens cannot contain Me. But ‘Im Rotze’ - if it is My will, I descend from the transcendental world and compress Myself into one cubic foot of the "Kaporos" -- the cover of the Ark. This is waht G-d wants to teach Moshe. In the center of circle there is no dimension. G-d can expand ad infinitum and if He wants, He occupies no space at all.
Basically, what does Torah want the Jew to do? We must imitate G-d. Why is there slavery in the world? Because humans want power, to expand - more space, more space. "Midas Hatzimtzum is how to occupy space. This is humility. Moshe said, "Osuro Noh" - let me turn aside and see the great wonder. As G-d contracts let man contract. Let man demonstrate humility, smallness - let him contract, shrink. This was the Serpent’s wrong advice to Adam and Eve. "Expand like G-d!" What does G-d want? The opposite. "Contract." Sometimes ambition is good but only if guided by Divine law. In inter-human relationshiop absolute honesty is required. Contract yourself; do not try to grab all you can.
In Chumash Devarim - Sedra V’Zas HaBrocho, Chapter 33, line16, there is Moshe’s blessing to the tribe of Joseph, " Urtzon Shochni Sneh" (Him that dwelt in the bush). G-d who first dwelt in the bush. This was the blessing to Yosef, the most capable of the brothers, the greatest businessman and innovator. "G-d should grant him that he never forgets "Midas Hatzimtzum" -- humility. "Enjoy this world, be attractive, be successful, pass it on to your generations, but remember -- G-d does not just reside int he entire universe but in the "Sneh" -- the lowly bush. Try not only to satisfy all desires but learn humility!" Thus with Moshe! G-d could have spoken from thunder and lightning -from the entire universe, but it waas not so. It was from nothing. Yes, try to improve yourself but always keep in mind the "Sneh". Now Moshe realized at once why the fire didn’t spread. Now he learned humility and this is how he was appointed!
Lecture delivered by Rabi Soloveitchik Saturday evening, February 10, 1979. "Parsha B’Shalach"
In today’s Parsha B’Shalach we come across strange words in the first 5 P’sukim. "Vayhi B’Shalach Paroh Es Hu’om, V’loh Nochom Elokim Derech Eretz P’lishtim, etc." In all parshas, G-d is referred to by the name "Shem Havaya" -- the Tetragrammation (Yud Kay Vav Kay). Here it is written "Elokim". There in the entire Sedra we find the name "Hashem" straight through except for the very beginning. We find a similar question in the encounter between Hashem and Moshe at the "Sneh" -- the bush. (Shmosh, Chapter 2, line 23). "Vayhi Bayomim Horabim Hohaym"; we find again "Elokim". Also in Shmosh (Chapter 1, line 17), "And the midwives feared G-d and did not do as the King of Egypt bade them and saved alive th male children) -- again Elokim! Again at the "Sneh" in sentence 4, we find angel of "Hashem" and then "Hashem saw that he turned aside to see and "Elokim" called to him. Further in sentence 11, "And Moshe said to Elokim, who am I etc". Finally in sentence 14, G-d granted Moshe permission to call Him Hashem. "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh". We’d like to have clarity why Torah changes it several times.
Let us analyze why Hashem and why Elokim. The name "Havayah" was revealed to Moshe when G-d was about to send him. Moshe asked His name and was answered, "Havayah". Before that we always imploy Elokim. The following was evolved by the great commentator Kozaya. After Creation we always find the "Havaya". When G-d reveals Himself to man it is through two media. There are for example the ideas of Y’hi Ohr (let there by light). It was called into existence and it does exist! Secondly, this also includes the function and existence of light. It is always constant; it never changes. A philosopher declared that he couldn’t see a tree changing its phenomena in a fraction of an instant. In other words, a tree cannot be barren one minute and covered with leaves the next. Such is with light. It is a steady identical performance. Creation is not only the beginning but the continued function. If there were Cosmos instability, there’d by no scientific research. This is "Y’hi Ohr". This is Elokim. As Elokim, He created, carries and sustains the world. And He makes it function constantly. We find this idea expressed in the 104th Psalm of Tehilim - "Borchi Nafshi". What is the idea in Sedra Haazinu that Moshe should invoke Heaven and Eearth? One interpretation is that he invoked longevity -- something which exists for ever as witnesses. Rashi quotes another interpretation. "Did heaven ever change its activities? Did the sun ever reverse its course, rising in the west and setting in the east? Did wheat planted ever produce rice or oats? There is a routine in nature and now should follow. Thus, Y’hi Ohr is not only creation ex nihilo but constancy. G-d supervises function of the Cosmos. This is basically the function of our daily Brochos. G-d reveals to man through the Cosmic nature. This is simply His dynamics. He is the Bal Hakochos -- master of strength.
Then there is the "Shem Havaya" as Kuzaya says. It is relationship of G-d and man. As two people become acquainted, G-d calls man and reveals Himself. "I am G-d!" It is the principle of prophecy. "Havayah" is direct relationship to man. The Alm-ghty befriends man and makes man talk to Him. This is Maimonides idea. There are two aspects of prophecy. "He inspires man -- man establishes a relationship. After the conversation ends man is burdened with a load. "Maaso B’yad Hashem" -- burdened by hand of G-d. One does not turn away just as that! It is not light, it is a heavy load for man. Thus Moshe was not eager to accept and the same was true of Jeremiah. Moshe’s burden was not as onerous but Jeremiah had to come to the people, tell them that the people will be killed, that their King will be blinded, that their Temple will be destroyed. It was not an easy job and it was easy to see his reluctance. Neither Moshe nor Jeremiah were eager to accept. According to Maimonides, prophecy (the state of it) should be the final objectiv for which every man should aspire. It is to reach a level spiritually at which "N’vuah" (prophecy) could be possible. When you meet with G-d, man is burdened a great load. A covenant is signed! G-d calls man often. We find ion scriptures, "Abraham, Abraham! Shmuel, Shmuel. Moshe, Moshe." In Abraham’s case he searched for G-d a long time- many years but at the end of the revelation it resulted in a covenant. No more was Abraham a free man! Thus not only a nation was formed but a great nation (Goy Godol). When he wants to redeem man, he will do it not by Himself but through the medium of man. It lasted seven days because G-d needed the "Sheliach" the messenger. Now G-d makes a promise, in spite of suffering the individual or antion will be redeemed and rewarded. If redemption is not possible in the natural way, G-d will suspend the Cosmic order for a fraction of a second to implement the promise which He made to the covenental founder. This is represented by the Tetragrammation - the "Shem Havaya". It is the "Shem Havaya" which suspends the natural. We find this in Exodus! There was no war. If there were, Israel would have lost, In today’s Sedra we find 600,000 Israelites against 600 Egyptian chariots. Why the great fear? We find this with Amalek. Amalek was not a major or powerful force. But here the Israelite had to fight. If G-d did not suspend the natural Cosmos the Jews would never have left. If it were postponed there would not be a community left -- died to assimilation. This suspension of the natural -- this speeding process is represented through "Shem Havaya".
Elokim works through a slow process. The people would not understand this. A basic change had to take place in their personality. Under these conditions of natural process it would have taken hundreds of years for them to be ready for "Kabalas HaTorah" -- receiving the Torah. "If I have to wait for them to repent and come back, they never will." "Midas Elokim" (natural order) should have been the entire 400 years. Instead, we find it in four generations (Moshe, Amram, K’hos, Levi). Rabbi Akivah says that the 400 years were converted to 4 generations. This is "Midas Havaya" the speeding process. Thus Moshe said, "It is too soon!" Medrash says, "When I tell them of redemption they will say, ‘It is too soon!’" G-d says, "if not now, it will never happen!"
"M’Karetz al Heorim." "Havaya" acts instantaneously it eliminates the slow process. If they acted differently, (no danger of Avodah Zorah). Elokim would have prevailed. Instead, "Havaya"! This is why the name told to Moshe was, "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh." Thus they will be able to say in such a short time, "Naase, V’Nishma". The same will also apply in the days of Moshiach.
Events which are happening today - the painfully slow process, the accusations and counter accusations can be appreciated from the standpiont of Elokim. That is one explanation. Another explanation is that if you extend the idea of "Havaya" it should be extended to Esther. The idea that the megilah should be incorporated into the holy writings and that Purim should be accepted by Sanhadrin is indicative of "Havaya" - a sudden divine change. There have been instantaneous reactions in everyone’s life. That which profoundly changes our lives is "Havaya". We find in Torah, Etzba Elokim (a slow process) but at the sea they saw "Yad Hashem" - Havaya.
In today’s "Shira" not a word is mentioned about Mitzraim. There was no "Shira" about Mitzraim. The only one who praises G-d for Egypt is Yisro. "Blessed is G-d who saved you from Egypt!" Moshe only said "Shira" about that which the people saw and were impressed. The people didn’t realize "Havaya" at Egypt (the process was too painfully slow). They did
realize it at "Yam Suf". G-d can get along without thanks if we are not impressed. Moshe did not feel that "Shira" was necessary until the people were impressed, until they accepted G-d’s kingship. Then he said Shira! "Eser Makos" (the ten plagues) did not impress them.
The same applies to each person! Some are sensitive; some find Havaya every day. "The fact that I can walk, I can speak -- I can still teach Chumash every Saturday at my age!" It all depends on how we look at it. We need the double approach. Everything is natural and many are supernatural. It depends on the individual.
In Sedra "Vayera", in the first few lines, Rashi says: "They (the Patriarchs) knew me as "Kal Shaddai". (It is sufficient that I promise you). I was not known to them "B’Midas Hashem" -- the attribute of Havaya. They didn’t see the absolute truth! I made promises and I didn’t fulfill. (I promised them the entire land. Yet Abraham had to pay 400 Shkolim for a grave site. Yitzchak had to struggle for wells. Yaakov had to pay 100 pieces of silver for a parcel of land in Shchem.) It means their era was the era of promises. There is the era of promises (short - it is quick to promise) -- and the era of fulfillness (it takes long to fulfill). As humans, they die before the realization of the promies). "You Moshe are fortunate that you live in the time of fulfillment. Abraham knew me as Elokim. I could burden you as I did Abraham. It will take a long time! Those are the promises which we find in Sedra "Haazinu" - for the Messianic future. That which I promise now will come quickly because I reveal myself as "Havaya". "Havaya" has no patience. That which shall happen comes instantly.
Now reverting to the opening statement - we have all the Elokims in the first few sentences. For a short time, for a few seconds He availed Himself as "Elokim" - the circumventing of the land of the Philistines, the trek in the desert, the roundabout route. He took them out with "Havaya" but here there are tremendous risks with "Elokim" - with the slowness of natural order. He changed the route from straight to circuitous. Had the Havaya been used, then Bnai Yisrael would have reached Eretz in 10 days. There would have been a change in history. If Moshe would have brought them in, the Kings of Canaan would have given up instantly, there would have been no Temple destruction, no expulsion. The whole history would have changed. But we don’t understand and have no right to question! The risk of taking them by Philistia was dangerous. They might have returned. It is hard to reconstruct the route. Why so circuitous? Under "Havaya" they would have been protected - would have reached their goal very quickly. There is the circuitous route of Elokim because Moshe couldn’t entre and it is very tragic. Moshe wanted the kingship, not kingship as we know it for he was a King. He wanted the "Messianic Kingship" and G-d said "no". This is the kingship which was denied to him. Had he taken them by the "Plishtim" as "Havaya" it would have been completely different.
Now in Shmos (Chapter 3, line 3) why does does "Havaya" change to Elokim? G-d saw that Moshe turned aside (to see the burning bush). "Sor" does not mean to move. We find similar wording in Bereshis (Chapter 19- line 3) concerning the angels at Lot. "Vayosuru Aylov" - (they turned to him). The angels departed from the usual route to zig-zag -- to come through the back way in order to mislead the people of Sodom. Here we find with Moshe, "Osuro No" (I will turn aside). Not only Moshe saw the burning "Sneh"; -- others saw it and disregarded it. Their philosophy was simple, materialistic approach. Theirs was not to see miracles. To them, there would be some explanation why the bush didn’t consume faster. Only Moshe saw it as a G-dly process. Moshe said, "Osura - Hamarah Hagodol" -- "I’ll turn, I’ll study it; it is out of the ordinary. It belongs in the category of "Havaya". G-d declares "There is someone cpapble of representing me as "Havaya" -- not in natural terms but in transcendental terms. G-d addressed Himself as "Elokim" because Moshe would be confused. "You Moshe, will be the representative not only of Elokim -- the natural order, but a representative of "Shem Havaya". "I am the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I’ll have to change the order! You’ll have to represent me as "Havaya". All promises will be quickly revealed.
Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday night, Feb 17, 1979
There are some questions connected with this week’s Sedra of Yisro. The last chapter of the previous sedra B’Shalach ended with the story of the attack of Amalek. This week’s sedra commences with the advent of Yisro, Moshe’s father-in-law, and his advice to Moshe. What is the continuity? It is hard to understand. Another question is that we call it, "And Yisro heard" but basically the parsha is devoted to his coming to the desert, being received by Moshe, his introduction to the elders of Israel. The major part of the sedra of course is devoted to the giving of the Ten Commandments. Yisro was the first one to praise the name of G-d in connection with "Yetzias Mitraim". It is said that it is a shame that Moshe, Aaron and the 600,000 Israelites didn’t sing the "Shira" as soon as they left. They "Shira" at the sea doesn’t mention Mitzraim. The entire description is of the miracles at the Red Sea. Gemora is critical of this. The first one to praise the Exodus per se was Yisro.
First, it is strange why Moshe didn’t mention it. Second, the Torah is eager to single out Yisro as a great personality. He also intuitively guessed at the judicial system which the Torah was to incorporate and which G-d would sanction. Even now we have the same judicial system as recommended by Yisro. It is interesting that in sedra Devarim - Chapter 1, line 9 - Yisro is not mentioned. "And I said to you at that time, I cannot carry you alone!" This system would have been introduced even without his advice, but why is it recorded? The fact of his advice apparently is of great importance! He is described in positive terms. Moshe begged him to remain with Israel. According to Chazal, Yisro did join the community because it is recorded that the children of Kenites (Yisro’s family) lived in Eretz. Why didn’t the judicial system occur to Moshe? Why did it occur to Yisro? The following is why "Hashgocha" (Providence) precipitated the series of events on the strength of Yisro’s advice.
The main theme of today’s sedra is "Matan Torah" to the community which was started by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They were already a great nation at the Exodus but at "Matan Torah" they became not only great but holy. "Kedusha" was added on Sinai. The purpose of elevating Israel to the exalted position has a universal aspect. Yisro was charged with passing on the Torah so that humanity should accept! It is yet a long distance to the goal but a goal it is. We have the vision portrayed by many prophets. Many peoples dislike that the Jews were charged with the mission. Whether we have fulfilled our part is a different story. "My spirit will flow over every spirit, every flesh!"
An entire prayer revolves about this theory! The Torah was given exclusively to us but for a limited time. At the Messianic age it will then be for all. This Tefilah is the one of "Machroysanu" of Rosh Hashanah, of which "Aleynu is part". "And it is said the saviours shallup on Mount Zion to judge the Mount of Esau and the sovereignty shall be the L-rd’s. And it is said the L-rd shall be King over all the earth; and in that day shall the L-rd be One and His name One!"
It means the Torah will bcome the universal book of morality. These "Tefilos" are based on the prophet Isaiah and others. At present, the Torah is the exculsive possession of Israel but at the Messianic age ti will be passed on to the entire world. That is why the Torah was given amongst thunder, lightning and noise. The whole world trembled! All the creatures taht came into the world were frightened. It started with a universal affair and ended with a private affair. After all, the 600,000 was a small group in relationshiop to the world. It was cvenant similar to marriage between man and wife; it was pirvate. Yet all knew it was of cosmic proportions, including not only the 600,000 ex slaves but all mankind. All knew although they didn’t understand. But basically it was a private affair. We have both propositions in "Shofros". Not only the human beings but all creatures were involved. It taught all of nature how to live together! The Torah will teach "Chesed" and kindness not only to humns but to all elements of nature - in the eschatological era of Moshiach! All will become cooperative. Question: was it private or for all? Answer: Yes -- but in the future. It is to redeem the world -- not only the Jewish people. For a limited period of time it is limited but ultimately it will become cosmic. When this will be we don’t know. Jacob wanted to reveal the "Eschatological Era" but it was removed from him. The element of "Chesed" will be injected into the cosmic nature. The Torah will become the guiding book of all nature. But again, for the present time it is a private affair.
This is why thunder and lightning accompanied it! Why? If it was a privated affair why not give it quickly and in solitude? Rashi says in sedra "Ki Sisso" that when G-d told Moshe to ascend and He will inscribe the second Tablets it was different. The first ascent was accompanied with thunder and lightening but the second time, "No one shall accompany you." It will be complete secrecy. Why? "Publicity caused the failure, the evil eye." Modesty is better. Then why the first time with alarm, audible throughout he cosmos? Because the peoples of the world had to know that this giving will have great significance for the entire world. The world had to be notified. Therefore, the second time the world know already. "Now I don’t want a single soul to know." There is a question to be raised! Who posed the question? Amalek! According to Chazal, G-d sent agents to several nations concerning acceptance of the Torah. All rejected. It is related "Lo Sirtzoch" - (do not kill). Esau rejected - "Do not steal - commit adultery" - others rejected. There is a low in "G’ayrus" (conversion). You cannot impose it unless a person is ready! A man cannot become a "gayr" unless he feels he is able to comply with it. If a person declares, "I am not morally strong enough, you cannot impose it! This in effect is what Esau and Ishmael declared and the Al-mighty accepted it. If you do impose it, it is invalid. Now is "Yehodus" (providence) ready to give this doctrine to the whole world? Is the world or mankind ready? Do men have the spirit to accept this? It means "losing money in the strict matter of honesty, etc." It is a very costly affair economically. The peoples are not ready. Is humanity per se ready to accept our way of life? Actually, we the teachers are lacking too. We engage in "Loshen Horah" (slander), we are not above chaeting the government, etc. Economy is very ruthless. Karl Marx criticised our form and introduced his own which is even worse. Many of the people today are not ready to accept the "Choshan Mishpat" (the breastplate of justice). If he is not ready, why should he be converted? Is the world ready to accept this kind of a Torah? This doubt was aroused with tremendous impact at the "Milchemes Amalek" (the war of the Amalekites). Is Amalek ready to accept the Torah? "The Throne is not whole as long as Amalek (evil) exists. Can this evil power accept the Torah? Pharoah said, "We are guilty." It was possible to convert Pharoah! But Amalek? Therefore it was a necessity to introduce to the people someone else - a non-Jew - Yisro! - who will be ready to accept. Intuitively, Yisro was a Jew. The Torah purposely left out Moshe at this instant. Yisro guessed the judicial system for a definite reason. The whole concept of "chesed" was instituted by Yisro, the non-Jew. This teaches that despite the unfortunate incident with Amalek, Yisro ahd to come to dispel the idea that an outsider cannot accept the Torah. Actually, Amalek knew nothing about Israel. It was merely irritated by a small group of people. This was the basic trait of Naziism. They were inspired by murder, inspired by "R’Tzicha" (evil). Doing a good thing is a source of inspiration; evil is also a source of inspiration. "Mitzvah gorereth mitzvah - Avayrah gorereth avayrah." (Good inspires good - evil inspires evil.) This was Amalek, inspired by doing evil. So, how can they be inspired by Torah?
We have to teach by deed - not by book. If a Jew is engaged in proper activity, he enjoys te respect of the world and this is the concept of "Kiddush Hashem" (Sanctifying the Holy Name) - and prohibition of "Chilul Hashem" (profaning the Holy Name). Why is "Kiddush Hashem" so great and "Chilul Hashem" so bad? If our ethical deeds are good, they bring others closer. Otherwise, it teaches others to do evil. You won’t be able to be "Mamleches Kohanim" (a priestly nation) unless you are members of "Goy Kodosh" (a holy nation).
Thus, Torah introduced Yisro! If there is one Yisro, there can be many Yisros, the antithesis of Amalek. Mankind will be converted to the Al-mighty. Will mankind ever be ready? Yes! Yisro confirmed it! Israel, in order to implement th message of Sinai must be on one hand the teacher and on the other hand the warrior. Are the two missions compatible? Yes! The idea that, "Yehodus" is absolute pacifism is wrong. Yes, we are for pacifism but not when we are threatened. Therefore, we have parsha Amalek befroe "Matan Torah". Even though "Asseres Hdibros" (commandments) has the injunction "Lo Sirtzoch" -- do not kill -- on the other hand, we often have to fight Amalek (evil). But there are people like Yisro! Why did Moshe send Yisro to proselytize other peoples? Because through a man like Yisro, the whole Torah assumes cosmic proportions. Even though Moshe would have known of the judicial system by word of the "Hashgocha" still it was Yisro who introduced it to make known that it will be possible by all - non-Jews alike - to accept the word of the Torah at the appointed time.
Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik Saturday evening, February 24, 1979
Last week, we discussed the link between Yisro’s assignment with "Matan Torah". Tonight, I would like to continue in this vein by calling attention to the comments of Rashi and Rambam. Yisro basically asks Moshe two questions (chapter 18, line 14). A) "What is this thing that you do unto the people? It is obvious that although Yisro embraced Judaism, he didn’t fully comprehend the Jewish way. "People come in droves to you from morning till night! What do you do? What is your function? What do you accomplish?" He couldn’t understand it.
B) "Why don’t you distribute and delegate power? Why don’t you organize and delegate a hierarchy of pwer?" Yisro couldn’t understand that a Rav has to do it. Moshe gave one answer to their two questions. "Vayomer Moshe L’Chosno" (And Moshe answered his father-in-law) "Because they come to me to inquire of G-d. When they have a problem they come to me and I judge between one man and his neighbor and I make known the statutes of G-d and His Law." He told him what a Rav is supposed to do amongst his people. As to the second question, apparently the answer is not here. Where can it be found? There is one slight distinction. He didn’t quite implement Yisro’s program. Yisro indicated that Moshe should handle only the important cases, but I’ll return to it and show why Moshe did no implement all Yisro advised.
What is Moshe’s first task? "They come to me to inquire of G-d!" Onkelos in targum declares, "They come to me to inquire knowledge of G-d." Thus, the first task of the Rab is to teach. It is the best task! It is the best as far as effectiveness is concerned and the best regard of heartaches. (When I first came to Boston I became involved in Jewish politics and quickly discerned that one can sink spiritually to become involved in political problems. One is drawn away from Torah, forgets Torah and there is no reward of L’Olam Habah for political activity.)
The first task of the Rav is to study (without studying he obviously cannot teach) and to learn. The task of the King of Israel was to study and to teach. It was not to exercise political power. It was the same task as the Kohanim and the Leviim, homely teaching. The Prophet Moshe had the same power as a king -- to teach. This is Onkelo’s interpretation and Rashi sanctions it. The Rav asks enlightenment from "Pi Hagvorah" (Alm-ghty).
Rambam’s interpretation is a little different. Rambam says, "Moshe explained that the people come to me for many reasons. "Mispalel Al Chalayhem". I should pray to Hashem for the sick." In Hebrew, this praying is "Lidrosh Hashem". It is employed in Sedra Toldos. Rivka went "LiDrosh Hashem" -- to pray. Shlomo Hamelech defines "tefila" under the varied terms "sickness, exile, many crises with which man is confronted. This is what Rambam says Moshe answered, "Bikur Cholim" (visiting the sick). Many times the only recourse is to pray to G-d.
"Bikur Cholim" has three distinct aspects. A) ‘Tefilah’. In Tehilim we have the "posek" - "G-d will nurse me!" The first thing which the sick person wants to achieve is "help". A "talmud" of Rabbi Akivah had a severe infectious disease and all refused to come close to ehlp him, except Rabbi Akivah himself. The Rabbi nursed the sick person and brought him to health so that the person proclaimed taht his life was spared only through Akivah’s work.
B) Allay the feeling of loneliness. There is no lonelier person than the sick man and this has nothing to do with his family. Sickness generates loneliness. It is the job of the one who visits to show interest. The feeling of loneliness is, "I am not needed anymore." Thus he is told by the "M’vaker Chole" (the visitor), "How much he is needed."
C) The sick person desires that the visitor shall pray for him. "He shares in his distress, in his misery." Chazal says, "One should take sick in an imaginary manner and to understand a person’s suffering." If you help the person suffer by suffering with him, one is entitled to say a prayer for him. Otherwise, the "mish’barach" is very limited in effectiveness. Thus Rashi and Onkelos stree, "Teach". Rambam stresses "Bikur Cholim" in all its aspects. Is there a common denominator between Rashi and Rambam? Both are good and semantically alright. Is it different or the same, the teacher and the one who prays? They both must care for the person! They must possess the ability to love the "Talmidim" (students). A teacher cannot fool the "Talmud". The "Talmud" will discover the weakness of the teacher very quickly. If the "Talmud" feels the teacher loves him there are no limits to the accomplishments. Otherwise, the greatest teacher will accomplish zero. The same is the one who prays, "I must suffer and co-suffer." Thus Moshe had both roles, the great teacher and the greatest one to ask for salvation. That he was a great teacher we know for we call him, "Moshe Rabeynu". How do we know that he loved the people?
"V’hispalalti" (and I prayed for you) - He was ready to sacrifice himself for his people. He possessed both qualities - to pray and to teach. He had a supernatural passion for his people. Chazal says that Moshe not only prayed at the time of the golden calf for the forgiveness of the people but he "took hold of G-d’s garment" so as to speak. "Take leave of me," said the Al-mighty to Moshe. Thus this became the day of Yom Kippur, the day of forgiveness and of love. It all evolves about "Ahavas Yisroel" - love of Israel.
A) The next function which Moshe felt he should discharge was the implementation of justice! He was a judge and it was his function to perform. It is interesting that when Rambam discusses the function of a king, the first function of the "Melech" is study. The real mitzvah of study is first learn and then pass on the knowledge. Of course, if you don’t study you cannot pass it on. This is no mitzvah of plain study! Instead, it is "study and pass it on".
The next is "fill the world with righteousness and twist the arm of the "Chatoyim" - the sinners. Moshe was the greatest of all kings. If there is conflict and controversy, they come to me and I judge between one and another.
B) Next according to Rambam is teaching. According to Rashi, you start with teaching and go to justice. According to Rambam, it’s prayer, justice, and Talmud Torah. It seems to be a duplication and would appear to be redundant.
Many mitzvoth were given to Moshe with which he came and enlightened the people. If was not their request but he was the "Sheliach Hashem" and he had to pass it on to them. (On some mitzvoth he had to make inquiry; it wasn’t told to him. In this category we have "Pesach Sheni" and the daughters of Zelophchod (regarding inheritance). He had to inquire himself. Then there are some which the Torah doesn’t even mention and have to be evolved from the scripture. Even now in Talmud Torah there are different aspects. I satisfy my own curiosity on my own problem -- searching in depth, analyzing for the answer. Now we do not have the privilege of "Going to Hashem". Thus the peple are curious I have students who distinguish themselves by curiosity. There is another part of Talmud Torah - to know the known, to find out for myself that which is already known. Thus we have A) to be inquisitive; B) to know that which is known -- available.
Interesting is a laughable thing. In our own history since antiquity, since Abraham, Jewish people have developed three-fold leadership: The "Rav or Dayan" (rabbi or judge) - the "Rosh Yeshivah" (Rambam calls Moshe, Rosh Yeshivah) - the "Chassidiser Rebbe" - the Bal Shem Tov. If you define the task of the three, why is the Rav or Dayan necessary? His job is to resolve "Din Torah" (litigation of the Torah). I remember in Europe when people didn’t go to court. There were no lawyers and they weren’t missed. If two people quarreled or had a legal problem, they were brought to the Rav, a fair, honest, sympathetic judge. The Rab may not have been worldly but was extremely honest. There is a story which transpired in Brisk involving my grandfather which illustrates the honesty and impartiality. There was a man who gave a great deal of money to Reb Chaim for charitable purposes. Reb Chaim owuld not even count the money but place it in his pocket and embrace the philanthropist. It happened that this person died and on the very same day a poor woman, the wife of a shoemaker died. The Halacha is that the Tahara for a woman must take precedence. However, due to te respect which the philanthropist enjoyed, the officials went to his house to atttend to his body first. Reb Chaim went to the house of his dear friend and forced them to stop the Tahara until they had completed it for the woman, despite knowing the feelings of his family. This illustrates the justice of the Rav. In my own father’s case, he would spend the entire day on the judgment of one case.
Another illustration! There was a man who had a maid servant and she owned an expensive bracelet. Once on an occasion the wife of the master asked the maid if she could borrow the bracelet for an affair. Later, when the mistress came home (before she could return it) the bracelet was gone, stolen. So ordinarily, the man would have to pay the assessed amount of the jewelry. However, the law of Torah is that the employer is relieved of duty to the employee. This is a "Chok" (ordinance) of Torah and we cannot understand it. However, the parties came before the Rav and he asked both to touch the handkerchief, a legal gesture which now allows the Rav to make any decision as he deems correct. Once you touch the kerchief you are at th legal mercy of the Rav and the man refused - demanding strict "Din Torah" (literal interpretation). However, the Rav coerced him to touch and the decision was 90% for the maid, 10% for the master. Considering the litgant parties, it took great courage for the Rav to do this.
There was a time in Czarist history where young Jewish children were actually conscripted into the Russian army for 25 years service. In effect the were kidnapped, sent far away and converted to Christianity. The rich bought their way out, the poor couldn’t afford to. But with their strict sense of justice many a rabbi fought heroically with the rich over the issue, thereby often losing his job.
The job of the Rosh Yeshivah was simply to talk Torah. But there was no one to pray, to talk for the poor. This institution was begun by the Chassisher Rebbe. The Rebbe tood those who became sick and prayed for them. So we have the Dayan (justice), Rosh Yeshivah (teacher), and Rebbe (the person who prays). This is the three-fold mission which Moshe described to Yisro. The son of Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakai became very sick and he asked Rabbi Chanina Ben Dosa to pray for him. Rabbi Yochanan’s wife asked him, "Why ask him? Aren’t you surely as great or greater?" He answered, "I am the prime minister before G-d. Rabbi Chanina is the butler. A prime minister needs an invitation to go before a king. A butler can go in and out at will!" This was Moshe’s explanation to Yisro.
"Zdakah is mishpat." (I settled mishpat among them.) Now, the second question: Why didn’t Moshe institute the judicial system? Of course, it did occur to Moshe, however, he felt it was wrong. Why was it necessary for Yisro to introduce such a simple plan? I believe that Moshe had a different approach to the heirarchy of justice. It rests on the assumption that a big claim needs special attention. In other words, a small amount in litigation needs smaller attention; a higher amount need greater attention. This is what Yisro implicated. "A million dollars needs a greater court!" This halacha does not exist All requirements of jsutice -- large amount of money is applicable to a small amount. Corruption of a million dollars is the same as corruption of ten dollars. In Jewish law, the amount plays no role. It is not the amount, it can be insignificant. According to Yisro, the assignment was not to be brought to Moshe unless it involved a lot. It is not the amount, it is the complexity. Moshe’s reply is, "This cannot be answered. This must be determined by Moshe. If according to Yisro it is the amount, he is right. Small litigation to small judges, large amounts to Moshe. But if it is the complexity, the substance, then the clerk cannot assign the court. It must be only Moshe. Therefore, all cases must first be brought to Moshe for disposition. Also, once you have already brought it to him for disposition, he’ll settle it also.
To determine what is complex you must be a great scholar. I say that often I am presented with cases which the party thinks is minor and apologize even for calling. In reality it is so complex that in olden times it would have involved Sanhedrin a long time. On the other hand, often what a party thinks is complex can be answered in minutes.
Basically, it remained as Moshe felt. But "Yahadus" (providence) feared that one man should sin and say, "Guilty - not guilty!", even if that one person were Moshe. If so it would be paradoxical. No man is worthy to hold Damocles sword over another man’s head.
Man is weak. Man is frail. To say that man has no place in the world to judge is to turn the world into a state of anarchy. Thus, when Moshe came with Yisro’s plan, G-d answered, "You are right!" But it is a concession to human nature which cannot institute perfect justice. Therfore, you must accept his advice. This is a concession which Torah made to human beings knowing his frailities and weaknesses.
Are we superior to the animal so that we are worthy to slay it and eat its meat. Actually not! But is a concession of G-d to man. Therefore, Yisro’s plan, a concession to man was partly accepted.
Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday night, March 3, 1979
Should the sedra of Teruman be worded "V’yikchu Li" (And they shall take to Me) or should it say "V’yitnu Li Terumah" (and they shall give to Me the offering). The problem is resolved by the next few words. "From every man whose heart is willing shall you take the offering." "Don’t use force or any method of coercion to take my Teruman if he refuses to give even if he is able to do so!" All other mitzvos were given to all people alike. For instance, ‘Machazis Hashekel," giving of the half shekel was a command to all alike. The rich shall not give more, the poor less. This Terumah, however, is voluntary, not coercive. The question is regarding Tzdokah. T’zdakah is not an act of charity but an act of justice. We must supply persons who are starving. The mishkan ( Tabernacle) is a part of T’zdakah. It is like a Yeshiva or a Bas Hakneses, individual and institutional T’zdakah. Why has the Torah eliminated the Mishkan from that class, that which must be given to and "come to collect only from those who are ready to offer." Those whose haert and spirit was kind, whose spirit was elevated, came and brought money. The answer lies in certain problem which rises as soon as you start to read the parsha. Why is the "Mishkan" necessary right after leaving Mitzraim? This was raised by "Shlomo Hamelech" in his famous prayer. "If the heavens cannot contain Thee, how will the 20 cubits do so? Whenever you come across "Bas Hashem" (G-d’s house) it should not be the House of G-d but the House of Man. G-d contracts Himself. He limits Himself from infinity to a small house "between the two ‘Kruvim’ on top of the ‘Kapores’ the cover of the Ark." "I’ll communicate with you from between the "Kruvim". From here He engaged Moshe. Why did Hakodosh Boruch Hu do it? Because man basically is a homeless being. No matter how his home is fortified he is exposed to the vicissitudes of life. The animal is also exposed but the animal has no concept of time. Concept of time is a wonderful gift but also the source of endless suffering. To anticipate the future, rain, snow, cold, heat - is very difficult. The purpose of man’s home is to shelter him. But until Messianic times such a home has not been built -- a home to afford man total security. Only one home can give him security; it is G-d’s home. "Hashkifo Mim’on Kodshecho Min Hashamayim" (Devarim, chpater 26, line 15). "Look down from Your holy habitation from heaven." G-d is greater than the universe. Thus, the only home where man can find security is G-d. Thus, when G-d told Moshe to build a "Mishkan" it is a home not for G-d but for man. Man who feels G-d, is close to Him. G-d feigns loneliness but it is not for Him; it is for man. Everyone who cam to the Bais Hamikdosh ( or to the Tabernacle) saw the Divine Shechina greater than from the outside. Outside we see G-d’s nature -- the flower bush in the backyard is merely a reflection of hte Divine Glory. When I see the rising sun, the beauty of nature, the stars of the cosmos, I experience G-d. All the "Brochos," as simple as a "brocho" over a glass of water, reflects the glory of G-d. This is the cosmic experience of G-d. This we find expressly described in Psalm 104 - "Borchi Nafshi" (the earth is full of the fruit of Thy works, who causes the grass to spring up for cattle - to bring forth bread from earth and wine that maketh glad the heart of man, etc.) - there, there is no supernatural but the beauty of nature in its primitive form. When one sees the beauty such as David, he sings a hymn of beauty.l
Gemora says that if one recites the Hallel every day, it is blasphemous. This is reserved only for the special holidays - Pesach, Shvuoth, Succos. And yet one should and does say "Hallel" every day. The Hallel we do say is the "P’sukei D’Zimrei" (the psalms of praise - the "Hallelukahs" in prayers each morning). Why was one strictly forbidden and the other one allowed each day? Because the two differ in their nature. One describes the cosmic order in every blossom, in every drop of water. This should be said daily. The Hallel of suspending natural order, should only be recited on special occasions. So there are two ways to approach G-d, through nature and through supra-natural. We see G-d on this world and in the distant planets. The miracle, the supra-cosmic is not every day. This, however, was seen at the Bais Hamikdosh. That’s exactly why G-d told them to build the Tabernacle. "It will be your home but will be calle dthe home of G-d. How did He desribe it. "It will be the Tabernacle of Appointment - Ohel Moed -- the tent of meeting - of appointments. That is why Rambam says that the mitzvah of Bais Hamikdosh becomes binding if the people want it. That is why G-d warned, "No force. No constraint." If the people want it, they cannot be forced for the appointment from time to time through their agent, Moshe. "From whoever will bring it, accept it." That is why it doesn’t say Vayitnu (give) but Vayikchu (take). "If you want G-d as your next door neighbor, to say hello to in the morning, give. If not, don’t give."
Rambam ways that there are two mitzvas only which are binding on the people: Choosing a king and making the Bais Hamikdosh. These mitzvos become binding only at the request of people. If they are lonely and want a house where to meet G-d, it is binding on them but only if they desire.
What does the Bais Hamikdosh symbolize as a home? It symbolizes the universe in miniature. The "Ramah" makes a parallel between "Bereishis" (creating of the world) and the bais Hamikdosh. G-d created the world to reside in this world -- not to be far in a transcendental world -- to abide in the midst of humans. But the "Chet Akadmah" (the orginal sin) drove Him - forced Him to retreat. "And they heard the sound of the G-rd G-d walking in the garden and the man and his wife hid from before G-d amongst the trees of the garden (Bereishis, chapter 3, line 8). The "footsteps" were those of G-d - leaving the garden and departing into infinity. Hadn’t they sinned, G-d always would have been close. There would be no need for T’shuvah. Everyone would have been able to communicate, not only the prophet, the "navi" and then only when the occasion was meet. By the fear of Adam’s communication, G-d removed His "Schechina". Man could have seen the beauty of G-d instead of trying to interpret it scientifically. Had they when confronted said, "Chotosi" - "I have sinned", nothing would have happened. They would have lived together. But by their procrastination they "heard the steps," leaving the garden.
The purpose of the "Mishkan" was to restore the relationship. "V’Shochanti Besochom" - And I will dwell amongst them. Thus, the purpose was to perceive the closeness of G-d, but again it failed due to the "Aygeh" the golden calf. It must await moschiach! The remainder of the entire sedra is devoted to symbolism.
I’d like to investigate something else! What actually is important in the Bais Hamikdosh? What is the springwell from which "Kedushah" - holiness, flows? What does man have to do to aquire the attribute of Kedusha? What is unique about the Mishkan and Bais Hamikdosh? How can a man lead a holy sacred life? Where was the first Bais Hamikdosh?
It was not the "Mishkan" but Mt. Sinai. How do we know! It was the first place that had boundaries, dividing the line into different areas. The Torah emphasizes that the boundaries must be respected. "V’Higbalto Es Haom" (Yisro, chapter 19, line 12) - And you shall set bounds for the people. The second time Moshe was warned again. "Rayd Hoayd B’om" (sentence 21), "Go down and charge the people." Moshe answered, "The people cannot come close." G-d answered, "Go down to them! You come up with Aaron." What is the most important principle of Yehadus? What is the price that Torah demands of a Jew? It is respect for a boundary line! The animal, the beast, if you want to contain it, can only be done if you surround your land with a fence. The human if he is a decent person does not need a fence; a sign suffices. What does the Torah require? It requires that we be capable of respecting certain boundary lines which the Torah introduced.
We respect the law in two ways - B’ahava (love) and V’yira (fear). Basically, if you observe laws because of sanctions, it is not Kedusha - holy. I do not achieve moral personality if I am afraid of punishment. I only achieve it if I love doing it. Emperor Andreas said to Rbbi Yehoshuah Ben Chananya, "Your scriptures declare that a living dog is superior to a dead lion. You call me a dog so I who am alive am superior to Moshe who is dead!" The Rabbi said to the Emperor, "Are you ready for a test? Give instructions to all of Rome not to light any fires for a period of 24 hours on the threat of execution." These instructions were issued and the two ascended a hill overlooking Rome. From there, they saw smoke arising in various localities indicating that some had lit fires. Then Rabbi Yehoshuah declared, "Msohe told the Jewish people not to light fires on the Sabbath. Go and see the Jewish community. You will not find a single one lighting a fire on Sabbath. So I ask you, who is stronger?" There was another example in history. The Bereditchiver Rebbe asked two groups of Jews to do different things. One group was asked to gather Turkish shawls. (Apparently a forbidden thing in his time for although it could bring money, it could also cause arrest by the authorities.) The other group was told to bring bread just before Pesach. Despite the risk, one group brought shawls. Of the second group, not one handled bread before Pesach. The Jewish people respected the law of the boundary with merely a word or two of G-d. Perek says, "Make a fence around the Torah." The Jew is not afraid of a real fence. We are not afraid of that which is not a principle of Judaism. The other one (from Perek) is an imaginary fence. A Jew cannot step on a bed of roses. It arouses a feeling of ugliness. He does not abstain from violating Shabbos merely on account of the threat of stoning. With the exception cited in the Torah, no Jew was ever stoned for violating Shabbos. But is is our feeling of happiness, enthusiasm to observe Shabbos. G-d says, "There is one virtue indispensable to the Jews -- that of watching, observing, and not violating the boundary." The "Goal" the boundary is not visible. There is no need for sanctions. This is how the Jew survives! Interestingly, before "Matan Torah", before He began, He said to Moshe, "Warn the people!" Moshe answered, "They cannot; once is enough." The Jew cannot do an "Avarah". The Jew simply couldn’t kill people even when he was in the Holocaust. To make it forbidden is to make it so that people find it impossible to do so. Their physical capacity to climb the mountain or "Matan Torah" was taken from them. This is the survival of the Torah. "I simply cannot eat breakfast before I put on Tefilin in the morning. The same law applies to eating before "Mincha". This has not become a disability -- a part and parcel of us. Tefila Shacharis is so engraved taht it is an impossibility. Violation of Shabbos is similar. I have an intuitive feeling of what is forbidden without having to look it up in the "Shulchan Aruch". There is no serpent or reptile to kill us, no sanction - but we have the inner feeling that makes it impossible. Thus, Moshe says, "It is impossible for them to come up to the Mount." The line, the imaginary one is stronger than a fence. Thus, G-d told him twice. The ability to respect the imaginary line is the basis of Yehadus. Thus, the "Kedushas Hamikdosh" - the holiness of the Temple are the "Mechitzas" the dividing lines. Thus, Rmambam says that the Kedusha is still there (after 1900 years). Not to climb the Temple Mount despite the desolation. It is because we were warned not to trespass. The Kohan went so far, the Levi so far. We had the separation of "Tomah" - uncleanliness.
The same applies with the mechitza of the Erub. It consists of 4 poles with a string on top. It is not a fence but an abstract boundary. Yet we respect these boundaries. It is the principle of Yehodus.
Reading today’s sedra, I found an answer to a problem long bothersome. When G-d met Moshe for the first time and charged him with the mission to Mitzraim, "Go tke them out of Egypt." He didn’t even tell him how to do it. One detail, however, He did tell Moshe to relay to the people. "When you leave you will not leave empty. The women will borrow beautiful clothing from their neighbors and put them on their children. Why is this necessary to tell them right away? He gave Moshe no details of the plagues, "Dom", "Tzfadaya", but when you leave, you will leave loaded. Then later again, "You will take gold, silver, etc." A third time, "The people listened and borrowed clothing, etc." Why is this so important before Matan Torah to be told three times? I believe the posek, "The people found favor in the eyes of the Egyptians," has great importance. First, there is the procrastination on the part of Pharaoh, his lying -- the entire story -- what impression do you get? What did G-d want? G-d could have taken them out of Egypt in one hour! But G-d wanted that Pharoah should liberate them! Of course, some times you must stimulate Pharoah! But He wanted that Pharoah should send them -- that the Jews shouldn’t liberate themselves. Also, G-d shouldn’t liberate them immediately.
There is a law concerning "Eved Ivri" (the Jewish slave). "Do not send him away empty handed. Why is this necessary to send the "Eved" away laden with gifts? Because basically you give gifts to one who is your equal. Heads of state give presents to the White House because it is an expression of being satisfied, mutual respect, sense of equality. G-d wanted Pharoah not merely to liberate the Jews but to liberate them because he felt they were his equal. The "Shaloh" is not borrowing. It is merely a request. At the beginning, Moshe was not respected. "N’rpim Atem, N’rpin" (Pharoah said to Moshe and Aaron - you are lazy). At the end, he was highly respected. Now the people were eager to give gifts. At least, for a while Pharoah recognized them as equals, to leave as free men -- equal to the Egyptians.
There is another answer. A slave has no property. Whatever he has passes on to the master. In Egypt, they had absolutely nothing - not utensils or anything. Clothes tell the plight of the people. In Egypt, while they wore rags, the Egyptians wore the finest silks, linens and raiments. Suddenly, they were liberated with so much beautiful clothing and wealth. They suddenly could put on the same clothes as their mistresses. So, they could become greedy. However, at once there is a new request, "Vayikchu Li Terumah" -- take to me an offering. What were they asked for? The very same things which they just got. He let them fondle it for a while and then asked them to give it. But the way it was taken from them had a tremendous impact!
Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday night, March 10, 1979
The topic for tonight is the story of Esther. Whoever does not study the "Hagadah" -- the problems involved, does not know the complete story. I could explain the entire megilah but it would be too involved and so I have selected a few "maman" - sayings or teachings of Chazal. Chazal declares taht it is full of intrigue. Ahasverus was a usurper to the throne, that which ahd belonged to Belshazzar and he succeeded through money in obtaining the mighty throne. They derive it from the word "Hamolaych" - present tense - instead of "Moloch" (reigned - past tense). It means, "He imposed himself - elevated himself." "Hamolaych B’atzmoh" -- lifted himself up. They felt that the present tense is indicative of the form of government. It is parallel to today’s history of Iran (the Ayatolah Halmeini (pronounced Cholmeni) is Haman). Chazal laid down the first premise - the events to let us know he was not a legitimate heir but an upstart. This fact was embarrassing to him -- not fit to be a king but gained it through violence or bribe. It is a negative portrayal of him. There are others who say that he was capable and conquered the throne.
An interesting fact is that he entertained the important officer ofhis empire for half a year (180 days) while the ordinary people of Shushan he entertained for a week. Which should have taken precedence?
He was a king over Persia but held sway over distant lands and entertained the distant gentry, those who had their own heads of government. He invited them and brought them because if he had trouble locally, he should be able to bring together those from other lands to support him! In this respect, some declare he is right. Others declare he should have invited the local citizens first so that they could support him in case of trouble.
Which is correct? Did he act wisely or not act wisely? He was a man of contradictions. He was at one time smart and at the same time a fool. The fact that an upstart could take over the scope of such a kingdom (known world a the time) proved him to be smart. In other actions he was foolish.
The third fact is also very strange. How many letters did he send? There were a total of three. The first letter was the advice of Memuchan (later Haman) that all men be masters in their domiciles. The second was the instigation of Haman against all Jews. The third was that Jews have a right to self-defense. Why was it important to tell us of the letters? In fact, Megilas Esther elaborates on these letters! Why was it necessary to tell us of Memuchan’s famous speech (how Vashti wronged not only Ahasverus but all men, etc) and the sending of "Sforim" (letters) to all the provinces? And yet we know there is not a superfluous word in the megilah. We are told by commentators taht were it not for the letters of Memuchan, the Jewish community would have been entirely destroyed. If not for the letters neither Moredecai nor Esther would have prevailed.
The fourth "maimor" or item -- When Vashti refused to appear, she not only refused but sent a letter to Ahasverus, "The servant of my father Belshazzar could drink with a thousand men and not be drunk." Here Ahasverus drinks a little and becomes drunk. He was insulted.
Basically, Ahasverus was smart and stupid - sometimes scheming and sometimes as a child. When the incident with Vashti occured, he should have commanded, "execute her!" Instead, he didn’t and rather acted as a constitutional monarch. He consulted with the great men. This was his habit, his custom to consult with the great of Persia. It was indeed meritorious. Then why didn’t this fool consult about the Jews instead of taking of his signet ring and giving it to Haman? This was a greater involvement - a whole nation - than one individual, Vashti. Haman when later confronted by the enraged Ahasverus (at Esther’s charge) "Mi Zeh Hu" (who is the one who has done this) could have said, "Majesty, it is your ring!" Thus, for a single individual he acted like a gentleman while for a whole nation he acted as a fool.
"Vayhee B’mai Achashverus" (it was in the days of Ahasverus). Chazal says that wherever it begins with "Vayhee" it means trouble. (V’Hoyo indicated happiness). Basically, Chazal says, "Whatever I am going to say was made possible only because Ahasverus was king." Would it have been another king, it would have been impossible. It was either drunkeness or egotism that these events took place. The irrational is due to Ahasverus. It is tragic-comical. It is all due to his being king.
Let us investigate the first problem of the entertainment. Did he act correctly? Whom should he have invited first? Those who held he was clever said he did well to entertain the distant because he could win a war over the closest at any time. Those who say he was foolish maintain he should have invited his own metropolis so that if others rebelled, they could have supported him. I believe it is different. In fact, he was both at the same time -- clever and foolish. He had to entertain generals and leaders because he was afraid of them. They could have liquidated the empire if they felt hurt or slighted. He could easily have been demoted by revolution. Often the crowd is not involved. The military control; the financiers control. Ahasverus knew this very well. They were involved in his ascension to greatness. He utilized the help of military and aristocracy. Rebeliions are precipitated from above. The crowd didn’t know that the Czar had been demoted. The modd was, of course, rebellious but it was the military which felt that Rasputin was vulgar. The certain clique has to be feared. Thus, Ahasverus had to invite the guests. Those of the high echelons are very sensitive. Had he reversed the order the latter would have a grudge and there is no predicting the outcome. Now, how not to antagonize the citizens of Shushan.
Revolutions in Rome we’re instigated by the populace. There, the crowds made and removed Emperors. He paid tribute to the aristocracy but, on the other hand, it is dangerous to frustrate the mob. Yet, the mob is not as sensitive as the aristocrat. They are slow in formulating revenge. Thus, he attmepted to prove that although he entertained the aristocrats, he remained a folkman. "I don’t like the aristocrat! I am your borther! Emotionally I am part of you but I had to do it. Here I am at home amongst you. You know their sensitivity! You, my brothers, would not care; I love you! But the biggest surprise I reserve for you." How do you count seven days? When he celebrates with the crowd, here he will bring Vashti. There with the aristocrats he was afraid to do so for it was too vulgar and they would object. To them (aristocrats) he displayed "Chesser Malchus" (the ornate or riches of the kingdom) but not Vashti. After all, they would be hurt for she was the daughter of Balshazzar. Therefore, he got drunk on the last day of the citizens festivity. They will be drunk and will appreciate his feeling towards them. This is exactly how he resolved the problem. Thus, by bringing Vashti he shows them that he is with them. Actually, he didn’t satisfy anyone for he made a mistake about Vashti. She couldn’t take it. Nt only did she refuse to come but spelled it out why. "He is a plebian and lacks knowledge about his own queen. This is the limit which Ahasverus didn’t know -- not to make a woman do what she doesn’t want to.
Our rabbis pointed out that Memuchan is Haman. Why is this emphasized? Because it throws light on the events. Ahasverus was confronted with a powerful opposition -- that he was an upstart and worked amongst Belshazzar’s horses. Apparently, such a person is haunted by one fear -- assassination -- afraid to lose the "prince" is not so afraid as the upstart. This fear drives the upstart to madness. He develops a paranoid complex. He suspects even the people who are his closest. This is indicated in Kruschev’s memoirs of Stalin where he was forced to taste Stalin’s food for fear of poison. Memuchan knew Ahasverus very well and his paranoid fears. What he did was to interpret Vashti’s actions not of human dignity but in terms of political rebellion. "It is not one person; it represents the masses. It is an organized movement against the throne. It is the first sign showing that rebellion has begun. It is the green light. It is a conspiracy." Ahasverus listened and did so carefully. It is easy to do so to a sick person (witness the workers of Howard Hughes). The Bigson-Sheresh episode enhanced and convinced him. Therefore, who is supposed to guard him? The one who informed him -- Haman. Thefore, if he is so snesitive, he is the logical one to be the security chief. He is the best one. Therefore, directly after the matter of Vashti and Bigson-Sheresh, Haman was elevated. The security chief invariably enjoys the greatest power as exemplified by the late Beria of Russia under Stalin. Here Haman says, "I’ll sacrifice my life for the king." It must be interpreted in terms of modern politics. Such was Himmler in Germany.
Why was it necessary to send the letters to the provinces, "Man is superior to woman?" Chazal had a problem! It is obvious that those who would murder the Jews could take over their properties also. One thought bothered Chazal. It was sent out on the 13th day of the month of Nissan and the letters were addressed to those people they knew were "Sonay Yisroel" (enemies of the Jews). The obvious thoughts to the enemies would be, "Why wait till next year? Why not kill at once? Why such a long time? Answer! They were not sure of the king’s competency. In essence, the absurdity of the first letter said, "No man shall anymore peel potatoes and diaper babies." Now, suddenly comes another foolish letter! Thus, the meaning of Chazal’s words: "If not for the first letter, no Jew would have survived!" Otherwise, the slaughter would ahve begun at once. They could have taken the property at once, not in eleven months. But they doubted te sanity of the first letter and consequently the second one. It is interesting: before the whole drama was staged, Memuchan already saved the Jews inadvertently; it was his letter. IF there is a question whether the emperor is sane or insane you stay away!
What was Esther’s scheme? She didn’t want to appear before Ahasverus concerning the royal edict because she knew very well that no amount of appealing would help (when you are dealing with a paranoia). The answer was to discredit Haman -- turn the suspicion towards him. Why did she invite Haman? She wanted to arouse suspicion of Ahasverus towards Haman and herself despite the fact that it ws extremely dangerous to her. She was ready to accept sacrifice to cast suspicion on Haman. Of course, G-d helped her. Hashgocha - Providence - was on her side. Between the first "mishta" (party) and the second, something occured to simplify her task - so she could extricate herself from the plot.
Ahasverus could not sleep! Why does Megilah have to record this? Because G-d "suffers insomnia too." Ahasverus couldn’t fall asleep. One thought bothered him. "Why did Esther enter my courtyard uncalled for? Didn’t she know the penalty? There is something she knows which she must tell me personally. Did she come just to invite me? She had a message but didn’t dare to tell me. She is cryptic; she didn’t tell me all. Why did she come? She saved me from Bigson and Sheresh; now she must know something else, someone very important. It must be the security chief! He is not my friend but my enemy. Simultaneously, there was a noise! Who is it? Haman in the middle of the night. Why wasn’t Mordecai rewarded? It was Haman’s job. Apparently, he is a rebel coming to arrest me!" Ahasverus was a paranoic and confused. He was confused and figured that Haman was involved with Bigson and Sheresh. Therefore, when Esther pointed the finger at Haman ti was not difficult to convince the king. We must understand the Megilah in political terms. It is interesting that when Esther spoke to the king about the Jews, "If Haman is concerned about a rebellious community, he should not recommend death but a ocncentration camp such as Pharoah. "Get them later." Thus, Haman is not interested in the king at all.
People have misinterpreted the megilah intentionally or unintentionally. Some say is it a subhuman document that the Jews should slay all the "Goyim". This was impossible. There were too many "Goyim". Esther asked that the letters be cancelled. Had Ahasverus agreed the story would have ended then and there. The matter would ahve been closed and there would ahve been no conflict between Jew and Gentile. Instead, Ahasverus refused saying that even the king cannot do this. Instead, he advised, "You wirte whatever you desire concerning the Jews." In essence, Ahasverus gave the Jews to defend themselves. Before this permission the Jews had no right and would have been punished as a murderer. Thus, the letters -- that Jews can defend themselves against those who wish to harm them and if necessary to use weapons. Jews did not wantonly kill non-Jews; if a non-Jew attacked him, he defended himself. If the enemy laid seige to a city and a Jew was there, before the change he could do nothing, had no rights and no ammunition. Now, he had the right to fight. During the British mandate, a Jew had no right to weapons -- only the Arabs. During 1948, a Jew in America caught sending weaopns could be arrested y the F.B.I. In that era, knowing that one wanted to kill, the Jew in Shushan used the element of surprise.
Purim as a holiday was not established immediately by Mordecai. There were three stages of development as far as the festival was concerned. Firstly, the festival was celebrated spontaneously. The next year, they felt the inner need to celebrate. The halacha was that if a family was miraculously saved they could celebrate the occasion each year. We find in chapter 9 - line 19 of megilah ("Al Kayn") -- That is why Jewish villagers who lived in unwalled towns clebrate the 14th day of the month of Adar etc -- It was a voluntary spontaneous holiday. Those who lived in open cities felt they should celebrate. Those of the cities didn’t celebrate! Mordecai wanted that it should be fixed by law into a mandatory holiday, not merely spontaneous. What they did spontaneously should be a statute. Those who had lived in the far-flung places understood because for them the danger had been more acute. It should be a holiday for all on the 14th and 15th day of Adar. Thus, Mordecai effected three changes: a) institutionalization; b) the 15th day; c) exchange of gifts (on an equal basis amongst equal people).
There was, however, a difference between the demands of Mordecai and the demands of Esther. Mordecai was satisfied that the holiday be authorized by Sanhedrin! Esther, however, desired that it be introduced into the holy writ - the 24 books of Tanach. This is a higher level than Mordecai’s desire. It is different than Chanukah. Purim occured several hundred years before Chanukah; this was still during the time of prophets so it is nto merely a holiday but introduced on a prophetic level. Her fear and the reason for her demand was that another Beth Din might arise which would overrule this Sanhedrin. There was such a possibility. But if it becomes part of Tanach then not a single word can be amended. "It shall be part of Tanach -- not just a Beth Din holiday." This is what Esther accomplished. Thus, the three stages following the first Purim were: a) spontaneous celebration; b) rabbinical (Beth Din) sanction; c) prophetic (permanent - unchangeable). This is why it is called Megilas Esther - not Megilas Mordecai. He would have been satisfied; she, through an exchange of letters proved her point!
There was one change between the "spontaneous" and hte "permanent". If those who observe the 15th day (Jews of Shushan and walled cities) didn’t obeserve, there would be no "Matonas L’evyonim" (gifts to the poor). Every city had to use all means to protect itself. The Jews of the walled cities were not as exposed as the open places. Thus, the "exposed" Jews rejoiced while the walled city ones did not feel the miracle. Thus, the following year they didn’t feel like celebrating. One group wanted to rejoice but the "walled Jews" lacked smpathy. This was the same psychology of the German Jews. "It can’t happen here; it can only happen to the Polish Jews." They didn’t share in the distress. They didn’t give "Matonas" (gifts) -- they were naware of their common destiny." Why after the whole megilah is Haman mentioned again at hte very end. Chapter 9 - line 24 - "Haman Tzorayr Kil Hahudim" (Haman, enemy of all Jews). Mordecai wrote a letter. "All shall observe because Haman is Tzorayr Kol Hahudim" the enemy of all Jews -- no matter where you live. That is why both the aristocratic and the ordinary must observe. The socially elevated must supoprt the poor Jews also.
This is how the megilah became the legalized prophetic holiday -- part of the twenty-four scriptures.
Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday night, March 17, 1979
There is something very important here. Parsha Ki Sisso in full of "Y’hadus" -- our faith. We want to fix the event when this took place. Rambam says that Moshe is superior to all "Neviim" -- prophets; he had a special article of faith. What prompted him to place Moshe as above all prophets -- to formulate Moshe above all? What motivated him to do so? Of course, we have the story of Miriam and Aaron in their criticism of Moshe in which G-d describes Moshe as a different kind of prophet. "I engage him in conversation, ‘face to face’!" Torah tells us, "Remember what G-d did to Miriam." Why is it so important for a separate commandment of remembering? We can understand all the other "remembreings" -- Shabbos, Amalek, etc., but why Miriam? "Rember and don’t forget!" The answer is because a new dogma or article of faith was formulated -- that Moshe is a separate "Novi" who cannot be compared with any other. "If there are others I speak with them in dreams. Not so my servant Moshe." This was formulated by the Alm-ghty in His conversation with Aaron and Miriam. "He is above -- on a completely different plane." This is why Rambam counted Moshe on a different level of faith. Now when did this happen? Did this include even previous prophets -- Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or just from here on? In sedra "Voayrah" G-d says, "How I regret that the patriarchs are gone."
When Moshe began he was an ordinary prophet. G-d introduced Himself as the G-d of his ancestors. It was in sedra Ki Sissor - Chapter 33, line 11 taht we find: "And G-d spoke with Moshe face to face (Ponim El Ponim) as a man speaks to his friend." It is a conversation between two equals. This is how Hakodosh Boruch Hu addressed Himself to Moshe. All other prophets couldn’t stand the fear at Revelations; not so Moshe. It happened after the "Aygel" (golden calf) after the giving of the second set of "Luchos". After the final 40 days, he received not only the tablets but he unique status "Above all prophets". "And Moshe came down the the tablets and was unaware that his face began to radiate (chapter 34, line 29). It reflected the "shchina" of the Alm-ghty. The other prophets didn’t speak face to face and so therefore there was not the same illumination. The Alm-ghty addressed Himself to Moshe straight. Now he was the most singular "Novi" when he returned to the community from Mt. Sinai. Why was it postponed until after the second giving? Why not at the first giving? Tell Him he was an ordinary "Novi" whose job it was to teach the people. Now he was half angel -- half man, achieving the apex of "Nevuah" (prophecy). Something happened and it is for us to discover. This is ‘Talmid Torah" -- studying the Torah.
What happened was that when the second "luchos" were given, he received both "Torah Sh’Biksav" and "Torah Sh’Bal Peh" (the written and the Oral law). The first time he only received the Written Law (Biksav). We are told taht when he brought down the first tablets (and saw the Aygel) the writing disappeared. Yet he carried them. He suddenly realized that they had no worth. He couldn’t ask for "Slicha" (forgiveness) while the people still had the "Aygel". All he could ask for was reprieve. "Please, delay the execution." Yet, he still accepted the "luchos". Therefore, why did he get excited when he saw the "Aygel"? G-d had told him! On the way to the camp he realized he had merely two tablets of stone -- not a single letter. What disappeared? The "Torah Sh’Bal Peh" (the Oral Law). Therefore, he shattered them. The second time he found the tablets inscribed and the Torah Sh’Bal Peh entrusted to Moshe’s mind and his intelligence. The Written Law he delivered -- the Oral Law was in his mind. In fact, "Zman Matan Torosaynu" is Yom Kippur -- when he descended. Thus, half of the Torah (the Oral) was entrusted to Moshe. Moshe’s role the first time was not as teacher but rather to announce to the people such as a town crier makes the proclamation valid. He was te go-between -- the proclaimer the first time. Then it was not "Toras Moshe" -- it did not belong to him yet. The second time when both were given, it was written in his memory. Then he became the teacher and Yisroel the Talmidim (pupils). Moshe was the greatest teacher the community ever had. Now it became "Toras Moshe" and he was elevated to the status of "Greatest Prophet" and his face began to shine. This is what elevated him to most exalted status.
Interestingly, what articles of faith are mentioned different from all other "Neviim"? Moshe’s practice could not be compared with Miriam or the others. What article of faith is introduced in Ki Sisso? The whole message of "Tshuvah" - repentence - was formulated here - the 13 "Midas" of Chessed (the principles of forgiveness). Of course, it makes sense but how do we know? Because, we recite it all day on Yom Kippur - the Tefilos (prayers) - the selicha and Mechila (the forgivenesses). The fact that the second tablets were given indicated that G-d accepted their repentence as genuine and re-accepted them into the covenant.
When Moshe heard the 13 qualities of forgiveness he prostrated himself as "Erech Apayim (long suffering). "Chessed" (abundant in goodness) is for the person who engages in penitence. But when the person is not ready - not on that plane then we need Erech Apayim - long suffering. So we have in Ki Sisso three formulations: a ) Nevuyah - prophecy; b) Torah Bal Peh (Oral Law); c) T’Shuvah (repentence). Moshe’s status rose from messenger to teacher. Thus, he was raised to a most exalted status.
Is there any connection between T’shuvah and Torah Sh’Bal Peh? Is it just coincidence or a conceptual link? Yerushalmi says, "What shall we do with a sinner who wants to change his life?" The answer is that he should show readiness for self-sacrifice. The prophets say that G-d declares, "I’ll accept all!" The classic answer is the t’shuvah of King Menashe who was a great sinner and whsoe path to repentence when he was in captivity was blocked by the angels. G’d opened the door under the Throne to accept him. It means taht if we should judge by human standards we cannot accept, but by G-d’s standards we accept. It is enigmatic for, after all, he sinned and the evil he caused cannot be rectified such as the murderer of a person, a father or a family. Can he effect "Tchias Hamaysim" -- revival of the dead? How can he ask t’shuvah? But G-d accepts. What do we understand about the t’shuvah? What is the very foundation? Because a Jew possesses "Kedushas Haguf" - corporeal holiness - it penetrates his very personality. It is a misinterpretation of personality. One thinks he has great powers but has none. What waws Job’s sin that he was punished by G-d? After all, he was a counselor to Pharoah we are told and a great person. He saw himself as a wrong personality. But deep down the true personality was never involved. It is the corporeal sanctity which can never be involved in sin. The fact that t’shuvah originates in sedra Ki Sisso tells us that it is involved with Torah Sh’Bal Peh. G-d removes the psuedo-personality. If there were no Torah Sh’Bal Peh (Oral Law) there’d be no t’shuvah. Thus, they are connected.
Now there is a problem raised byt he "Chachmai Hadrush" -- the scholarly interpreters. How could a golden calf be made a handful of weeks after "Matan Torah" or a few months after "Krias Yam Suf" -- crossing of the Red Sea? Suddenly, in 40 days they were able to declare "Ayla Elhecho" - there are your gods. This was raised by the Barbanel and others. Rav Yochanan declared, "If ‘Elohehco’ (gods) had been written in the singular, the whole community would have been exterminated (if they had said ‘Your god’ instead of ‘gods’. By declaring two deities, it saved Knesseth Yisroel. Moses prayed and they were saved. Otherwise, Moshe could not have been effective. They didn’t look for a god to replace the Alm-ghty. They wanted to replace Moshe. "Make us a leader."
They said, "Ki Zeh Moshe Ha’Ish" -- Moshe is a human used by G-d as an implement. He has disappeared and we need someone to replace him." How did they imagine it should be implemented? They couldn’t rely anymore on a human - an Aaron, a Joshuah or a Hur. They’ll make an "Aygel Hazohov" - a golden calf - a residence for G-d - as a mediator - as a broker. They wanted a temple in which G-d will reside. Whenver they need G-d they’ll come to this "temple" -- but not to man. This was their philosophy. This was the ideology of many idolators - to arrest the Deity in four walls. Thi is how Bur Halevi, Barbanel and many other commentators interpreted this. How can one who saw the "Shchina" at the sea want a golden calf to replace the Alm-ghty? It was to replace Moshe. Our way is to replace one leader with another. The ancients’ philosophy was to arrest the divinity in an object. If so, what was the difference between this and the "Mishkan" -- the Tabernacle? This was not commanded. The classic answer is to be found in sedra "Pekuday". Repeatedly, as each article of the Tabernacle was assembled, and as Moshe introduced each item in its place, it reads "Ka’asher Tzivah Hashem Es Moshe," (as G-d commanded Moshe). Each move was commanded. Otherwise, he would not have authority.
All cultic performance, ceremonials -- if introduced by humans, guided by human sense of esthetics, comes under this category! We don’t try to approach the Alm-ghty by esthetic experiences. For example, today we have the organ for religious services. It was introduced not to enhance the service but as an esthetic experience. If the Torah commands us it enhances the experience -- "By G-d’s command." Using esthetic experiences leads to "Avodah Zorah" (strange or foreign service). Introducing foreign aspects is nothing morethan esthetics.
Modern man lives in an empty world! No matter how his house is clogged up with paintings, artwork, furniture, etc., he is faced with a certain emptiness, boredom and monotony. He suffers expecially when he doesn’t have to worry about "Parnassa" -- earning a living. So modern man is ready to be irreligious. He feels only one thing can give him relief. In "Kriya Shma" which we recite upon retiring it reads, "Sixty warriors surrounded him (Solomon) of the warriors of Israel. Each wore his sword of war against "Mipachad Halaylos" (the fears of the night). What was Shlomo afraid of that he needed 60 warriors? This is the disease of modern man -- insecurity. "Shlomo Chochom Mikol Odom" (Solomon wisest of all men) -- But when he retired and recited "Shma" did not know if he would arise. These are the "pachad Balaylos" -- the fears of night. The best way to get G-d, is to get Him to listen to us. Do what He wants mie to do! He tests me often to do what I don’t want to do. Other times, it is the opposite. He tells me not to do what I desire. "Yehadus" - faith - is divine discipline - eating, drinking, life in general. It is very difficult to accept. It was hard for those who accept Christianity and Mohammedism to accept "Yehadus" with the restrictions of food, Shabbos, sex, statutes. Modern man is ready to accept certain disciplines such as modern medicine - but not our discipline. What is required? Tefilah (prayer)! But modern man wants the cultic, the esthetic.
We are told that the Bereditchever Rebbe of saintly memory on the night before Succoth was so restless for dawn to come in order that he could "Bench Esrog" that he couldn’t sleep -- continuously awakening to see what time it was. Finally, at the break of dawn in his rush to take the Esrog he accidentally put his hand through a pnae of glass sustaining a cut. This was religious! But to engage a great singer (Chazan) - it is esthetic - but not a religious experience. You cannot take an external motif and claim that you enhance the religion. It leads to "Avodah Zorah". It becomes very dangerous!
This then was the "Aygel". They intended to do the same as the Mishkan did only one - the "Aygel was motivated by esthetics and it became profane. This is the basis of reformism. If one arrives home late on Shabbos (after dark) and lights the candles, it is merely an esthetic. Lighting the candles is esthetic but must be done according to halacha, in a religious vein and at the proper time.
Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday night, March 24, 1979
"Vayakhal Moshe" -- And Moshe gathered the entire assembly of the children of Israel and said to them "These are the things which G-d commanded to be done." The first sentence of the Torah speaks "Aylah Hadvarim" - these are the things. Then it continues in the singular, "Six days shall you do your work and the seventh day shall be holy to you, the Sabbath of Sabbaths, etc." In the beginning, it speaks of Shabbos and the building of the "Mishkan". Once Moshe finishes discussing Shabbos then he tells of the other commandment - namely, the Mishkan. It is not often that the Torah should speak of 2 commandments in one sentence. Then it reverts to one matter - Shabbos - then gets down to the matter of the "Mishkan". Let us concentrate on the two expressions: "Ayala Hadvarim" (these are the things) - then (line 4) Zeh Hadavar (this is the thing). We conclude that there is a relationship - a link - a common denominator between Shabbos and the building of the Mishkan. This is not the only place where we find a similar combination. In parsha Ki Sisso after the story of the Mishkan we find chapter 31, line 10 (and onward). He finishes the final details of the Mishkan and immediately "Ach Es Shabbos Ai Tishmoru" -- (Howsover, my Sabbaths you shall keep). Some link! Here we have the reverse - first Mishkan - then Shabbos. Especially do we find the word "Ach" - (howsoever), showing there is a connection. G-d began with one and then on to Shabbos. Moshe began with shabbos -- then to Mishkan. But G-d wanted both to be combined. There is a link, a tie between the two. Chazal asks, "Why does it say ‘Ach’? -- "Don’t get so excited to start building - not at the expense of Shabbos. Shabbos should not be overruled and discarded, therefore, "Ach". In sedra Kedoshim (Leviticus) chapter 19, line 30, we find "My Sabbaths you shall keep and my sanctuary you shall fear." Again, the common link! Finally, in sedra "Behar" (Leviticus, chapter 26, line 2) - again - "My Sabbath you shall keep and My sanctuary you shall fear."
There is one ansewr - a simple one. "Shabbos is a sanctuary -- a Bas Hamikdosh -- just as the Mishkan. You find two aspects - the physical sanctuary (the Bas Hamikdosh) and the Shabbos which is similar but the only difference is its spacial dimension. The Mishkan consists of the two tangible frames. Thus G-d wants the Jew to establish a spacial structure and a time structure. The Jew who is ready to accept the shabbos and light the candles of Shabbos finds himself in the same position as the Jew of 2000 years ago who got ready to enter the Sanctuary. You find references which are almost identical. It is a place where G-d resides. G-d resides in the midst of Knesses Yisroel. On Har Habais (Temple Mount) is the residence of the Alm-ghty. It is not the history but the sanctity of the place. The Bais Hamikdosh is bais Hashem. It is rooted in the fact that G-d resides in the midst of the people. In the Bais Hamikdosh, G-d revealed to the people that the infinity of G-d can squeeze itself into the finity - into "Bain Hakruvim" (the space between the two cherbim on the Holy Ark). This was Moshe’s argument: "How can you do it?" The answer: "My intellect sees it differently. It I want, not even the universe can contain me. And if I want, I contract -- self-contraction. I leave infinity and set myself up in the little finite world. It is self-contraction in the one square cubit of th "Kapores". This is the Bais Hamikdosh. It depends on our behavior! On the one hand, infinity separates us; on the other hand, He is very close to us. What is the idea of Shabbos? It is the same idea! On Friday night, we have the "L’cho Dodi" prayer (Chassidim include K’Gavno) -- (Come my friend to meet the bride). It means that G-d pays us a visit. There is a differnce between Shabbos and between Yom Tov. On Shabbos, G-d comes to us; on Yom Tov He declares, "Come to me." Therefore, when we say ‘L’cho Dodi’ it is the "Shchina" knocking on the door. Therefore, when we turn around to face the door we take a few steps to greet the "Shchina". If you are a gentleman as in olden times, you walk out to the edge of the field to greet the "Shchina". There are two versions of the custom of Rab Yonai. One says he used to turn and say "Bo-Chalo" and the other is that he’d walk to the edge of town. So, Shabbos is a holy day. It is G-d’s presence, the "Shchina" -- the "kedusha" come to us. That is why the Torah combines in four places the "Kedushah" of Shabbos and the Sanctuary. It is a "Mayreh" -- not fear but reverence and this reverence is by abstinence from work. There is, however, one distinction between Shabbos and the Bais Hamikdosh. Even though the "Mikdash" is destroyed, the sanctity is always there because the Shchina cannot be destroyed. It is always there. In "Shir Hashirim" (2nd chapter) it reads "Mashgiach Min Hachalonos" -- (He peers down through the windows). This is in reference to Shabbos. But there is a difference. The "Shchina" of Bais Hamikdosh is transcendental. We find it at the very end of sedra Pekuday. As soon as the Mishkan was completed, a cloud of glory filled the Mishkan -- a cloud by day and a fire by night. Also, Moshe could not enter. This was the Shchina. It was during their travels a perpetual light, an emotional experience. Thus, in the bais Hamikdosh it was outside of nature. It was outside the law of causality. This was a miracle; it was not justified by the law of causality. It was an expereince above nature.
On Shabbos, what does the Shchina exist of? Shabbos is indicative of the presence of G-d on a natural level - the beauty of being able to operate, to think, to do. This is the presence of G-d. Thus, there are two ways -- when G-d defies the causal order and when on the contrary G-d reveals Himself through the causal order. The latter is exemplified by the blue sky, the flowering bush, everything we know -- the beauties of life. It happens every day but we can enjoy it, experience it better on Shabbos. The coolness of rain, the heat of day -- it is the extra awareness of the day of Shabbos. Where is it? Right in our house. This is why we say "Bo-i Chala" - (Come to us). Chazal says that G-d does not like to overrule natural cause. But when G-d sent Moshe ion his mission to Mitzraim, He said "Roah Ro-Isi" - I have indeed seen the pain and I come down to save. Here was an interruption of causal order for an emergency. But G-d does not wish to interrupt the cosmic order.
When G-d sees that man cannot possibly repent, rather than to destroy, G-d employs the method "M’aale Min Hataveh" - above the law of the ordinary. He overrules the natural. After all, it was G-d who established natural order.
G-d said, "Moshe, I know it is unpleasant for you -- your experience with the two men Dothan and Aviram. It is degrading for me to punish Egypt with water - plagues. But I must save. If I can accept degradation, you must also. Also, we find at "Dor Haflogah" (tower of Babel era) "Let us go down." It is degrading but I am ready to accept insult. The "Malochim" - angels - are not ready to accept insult. Therefore, Shabbos and Hamkdosh are natural and supernatural Shchina. On Shabbos, we see G-d in every niche of the universe. Thus, when He gave Moshe the blueprint for the Mishkan we find "Ach". It (the Mishkan) is not the most important one. We have survived 1900 years without the Bais Hamikdosh. We have survived without it but could never have survived without the Shabbos.
Thus, the words of G-d to Moshe fit beautifully. Tell them, "Their survival is not tied up with the Mishkan! Yes, it is beautiful - they experience Me, they feel Me -- it is important -- but "Ach" -- howbeit . Sine qua non -- not without Shabbos. Shabbos is stronger! We hope for both.
Now, "Ze Hadavar" -- let us speak about the Mishkan. Rashi says that Moshe told them about the construction the day following Yom Kippur. Moshe had just returned iwth the exciting news of forgiveness. It is nice but how does Rashi kow it was the day following Yom Kippur? Why are we told that Moshe assembled them? Undoubtedly, he did so many times! Why did he assemble them instead of telling them individually? There is a strange feature. If a Jew does sin there are two wasy: a) publicly - defying public opinion by eating trefa in public; b) hidden in his home -- out of public sight!
The "Ganev" (thief) should be punished worse than the "Gazlen" (man of violence). The "Gazlen" by his public action leaves no doubt about his intentions. The "Ganev" gives a good impression of himself to others but is insincere. Thus, rules Rav Yochanan Ben Zakai.
But Shabbos is the reverse. One who sins in the house is not an apostate. But one who sins in the street commits a form of apostacy. Here, in public, it is worse than privacy. Arrogance is worse than hypocrisy. There were those who rode on a horse (Elisha Ben Avavah) in public on Shabbos and Yom Kippur to defy public opinion. Shabbos should not result in apostacy. If I observe I have a "mitzvah"; if not I commit an "Avayrah". But Shabbos had another aspect. Shabbos gives testimony that G-d created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. The Jew who observes gives testimony that G-d created and G-d is master of the world. Who is the court? It is the universe itself.
Therefore, there is a double sin. Writing as much as two letters of the alphabet per se is a desecration. Secondly, I become a false witness. He purges himself and therefore is equated to "Avodah Zorah" idol worship. He denies the mastery of G-d by denying the creation of the world. It is arrogance. Now we understand why "Vayakayl’ -- he gathered all the people. Elazar the Kohan, Aaron -- could have taught the people the 39 prohibitions of Shabbos. But Moshe assembled them to teach the great aspect that the Jew is charged to act as a witness. It is his mission. Therefore, it reads "Vayakayl Moshe Es Kol Hadas" -- not "haklal". "Haklal" would mean the "mob", but Hadas is the historical community - commensurate with "Adas" - witnesses -- the aristocracy of Israel. The aristocrat is one who is capable of giving testimony -- the man who remembers. He assembled them all confined them into an assembly of witnesses. A true witness is one who observes; an apostate is one who doesn’t. Therefore, Rashi’s deduction that it come the very day after Yom Kippur, the time when they were all pure because they had jsut been forgiven and were capable and worthy of being called "true witnesses" to the mastery of the Alm-ghty.
Lecture deleivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday night, April 7, 1979
Tonight, I shall concentrate on a few lines of the section of the Hagaddah "Arami Ovad Avi". However, I want to remind you of the construction of the Hagaddah. Constructionwise it is a very difficult book considering the sequences and events. It can be divided into either 3 or more parts (that is the section which precedes the meal). It is not merely the first half but rather more than the first half. It is the narrative or story-telling which constitutes the first half. It is sort of a "masoreh" or tradition told to younger peope than ourselves.
We can say that hagaddah consists of 3 or 5 parts. The first part where emphasis is placed are the laws or "hilchos" pretaining to "yetzias Mitzraim" beginning with "Avodim Hoyinu". We say, "there is a Mitzvah ‘sippur yetzias Miztraim’ -- declaring the Exodus; we identify the halacha. We state the basic law. We say that in essence even if we know the story, the reason it is a "mitzvah" for us to recite Yetzias Mitzraim, is because it is the study of Torah -- like "talmud Torah," we never know it all. We never know all; there is always something to learn. The more a person will study, the more he will learn and know. Therefore, the first part is not contingent upon erudition or knowledge but is a positive commandment.
Next, we are told of the five "Rabonim" of which none was greater. Yet, they learned something new, apparently. Nextg follows "Omar Rav Elozor" (Rabbi Elazar, son of Azariah said). This identifies the "time" for "Sippur Yetzias Mitzraim" (declaring the Exodus). Next come antohre halacha, "Boruch Hamokom" (Blessed in G-d who gave the Law to His people Israel). Why is the Bal Hagaddah overcome in an ecstatic mood? Why does he get so excited, praising G-d and telling of the four sons, including te skeptic and the agnostic? Why this ecstatic enthusiasm? The answer for the rejoicing: Each one has a share! The great scholar cannot say tot he ignorant man, "My share is greater." The man who was not blessed by the Alm-ghty with a great mind but who puts in a sincere effort is recognized as an equal to the great. There is a separate text for the great mind, the simpleton and even the one who refuses -- the skeptic. A Jew has greatness and we don’t know when it will emerge. It is derived from the prophet Ezekiel "Boruch Shaym K’vod Malchuso" (Blessed is the Name, the glory of His kingdom is forever). We are all in the embrace of the Alm-ghty. "Boruch Hamokom" -- Everyone, everything is in space. As one cannot escape space, so can he not escape "Hakodosh Boruch Hu". When He gave the Torah, He did not give it just to the great mind. For istance, although some minds cannot understand science and therefore have no share in science, in Torah everyone has a share. It is perhaps more important to tell the simple child than the great mind. G-d embraces the whole world as a mother embraces all her children, no matter how many. He embraces all mankind, especially the Covenental Community.
Next comes "Mitchila" (orginally our ancestors). What kind of a statement is this and what does it tell? There is not a superfluous word in the Hagaddah. Therefore, why was this recitiation from the prophet Joshuah introduced? It tells of our humble origin -- our low origin. According to mythology, people came into the world due to a love affair between a god and a human (Greek, Roman, Nordic). Not so us. We tell of our low origin. "We would have remained there in Egypt." "My parent was a simple idolator." The fact that we introduced such great standards is not due to us but the initiative belongs to G-d. Our greatness is due to a special act of grace from G-d. It could have been any nation. We were chosen because of an act of grace -- a special favor. We are not deserving. Gratitude is the very basis of our faith. He invited us to come nearer. It is an act of "Chessed" - loving kindness. "You didn’t display any specific traits of character to make you worthy. I selected you due to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
Next. The thought is very cryptic - short about Mount Seir for Esau - and Jacob to Egypt. They were two brothers; their destinies should have been identical. How did Esau get "Har Seir". In sedra Vayishlach - chapter 36, line 6, we are told: "Esau took his wives, sons and daughter, livestock - all he had acquired and went to a different land." He didnt’ eat manna in the desert for 40 years. He merely took over the land because G-d promised it to him. He took it over quickly rather than waiting a long, long waiting period. The same promise was made to us! Did Jacob get it? For a while he did -- not quickly -- and even not now. Eventually, yes! So what idea is expressed in this short terse statement? It is the uniqueness of this statement. No other nation has received such a promise which took so long to implrement. The gentile writer Ibsen said, "What is a Jew? He who waits!" No other nation knows how to wait as the Jew. This is the characteristic trait of the Jew. Therefore, there are two ideas in this paragrah -- grace and waiting.
Next is the leap! Let us start telling the history of our desting. Now begins the history -- "Arami Ovad Avi" (either my father was a wandering nomad or the Syrian almost killed my father). Relating Yetzias Mitzraim is not a narrative. It is a study in depth every Pesach; it is Talmud. We find this statement in sedra "Ki Sovo" of Deuteronomy. It is a statement or recitation made in the Bais Hamikdosh and was adopted by the Hagadddah. This they said every time they come with their gifts. Here in Hagaddah it is not merely a statement but is analyzed in depth. We employ comparative analysis between the two places. Up to this point, we merely stated halachos and the traits of our people - humble origin, etc. Now by stating these principles we start to tell the story. "Sippur" is not to tell but to study. It means "semantics in depth". In Bais Hamikdosh, it was merely a statement.
Where does the analysis end in the Hagaddah? It ends at "Rabbi Yehuda Hoyoh Hosayn Bohem Simonim" (Rabbi Yehuda assigned to them initials Detsach, Adash, Beachab". Rabban Gamliel that the 3 symbols Pesach, Matzo, Moror - be identified. Then the final "Boruch Atoh --- Asher Goalonu" (Blessed is G-d who brought us forth to this night).
Therefore, how many parts? 1) Halocho (laws). 2) Mitchila (short recitation - Jew was elected - Kabolas Ohl Hashomayim - (We accepted our role!). (It is strange that the struggle which began 3500 years ago still has not been resolved because Esau went to Seir (Rome) and Yaakov waits his destiny). We are eternally indebted to Him no matter how long it will last. This is Kabolas Ohl Hashomayim. 3) Sippur - Arami - not merely "told" but studied and understood. 4) Then we come to Hallel -- only the first 2 chapters before the meal. Why the division? Because Mitzraim is not mentioned in the second half of Hallel an dit belongs to "Pesach L’osid" - the Passover of the future. Therefore, we ahve four (4) parts.
Tonight, I would like to pick out four comparisons. A) Vayorayu Osonu HaMiztrim. (And the Egyptians ill-treated us). Again, this is taken from sedra Ki Sovo - the statement made by each person who came to the Bais Hamikdosh and then introduced into the Hagaddah. In the Torah, we find the same passage twice described but in slightly different language semantically. There is the famous epistle in which Moshe sent messengers to the children of Esau in order for the Israelites to pass through their land. In sedra "Chukas" of Bamidbar, chapter 20, line 16 "Vayorayu Lonu Mitzraim" (the Egyptians ill-treated us). In sedra "Ki Sovo" of Devarim - chapter 26, line 6 - "Voyorayu Osonu HaMitzrim". Again, it has exactly the same translation - Lonu - Osonu both mean "to us". Yet, there is a choice of different words. Moshe employs Lonu - the Israelites say Osonu. What did Pharoah say? "Let us act with cunning because the Jew is cunning. Let us outwit him." He considered the Jew disloyal, one who will eat the fat of the land but will not defend the land. Pharoah created a reputation for the Jew as a deceitful being. It has accompanied us through the ages but was begun by Pharoah. He has made us to be "bad fellows". He has maligned us, he has blackened our personality. "The Jew cannot be trusted."
There are many verbs in Hebrew which might occur with several cases. For example, we have "Asher Bochar Bonu" (in the blessing, "He who chose us.") This is the ablative case. It also comes in the accusative or objective case "Asher Bochar Osonu." Both mean the same superficially but what is the difference. Semantically, between the ablative and accusitive case, when "Bochar" is in the ablative case, it means no consolation possible. It cannot be revoked or altered (Therefore, in Bochar Bonu - it means for example that G-d chose us and it is irrevocable.) Rambam says that the Kedushah of the Bais Hamikdosh cannot be altered. It is absolute, irrevocable. If it is accustaive it is weaker. It can be altered and undone. Irrevocably, we have the following: a) Torah; b) Nevuah (the prophecies); c) Eretz Yisroel; d) Yerushalaim. Therefore, ablative is strong and cannot be cancelled.
There is another way of expressing the article in Hebrew grammar. It can be expressed B’(Baze) or L’ (Lamed) or we can use the article Es before the noun. "Es" is stronger. It is the ablative. B’ or L’ is weaker - accusative. How do we know this? This is a classic example in Torah referring love of man towards man and love of man towards G-d. Concerning love towards man it is written, "V’Ohavto L’Rayacho Komocho" (and you shall love your neighbor as yourself). Concerning G-d, it is written "V’Ohavto Es Hashem Elokecho". Towards man it is objective, weaker. Towards G-d, accusative, irrevocable. It is impossible to be absolutely dedicated to even a brother. It is not humanly possible. There is the controversy of two people in the desert with a small pitcher of water. If they share, both will die because it cannot sustain two. If one drinks, he will live, the other die. The sage Ben Peturah advocates sharing. Rabbi Akivah says that the one who has the pitcher drinks and lives. Why does he say this? Is Akivah heartless? It is because he illustrates that one cannot love another person’s life as his own.
For G-d is is "Es" even at the cost of your life. This is the difference between L’ (Lamed) and Es. Therefore L’Ryacho for man -- Es for G-d. Do help your brother but not the same degree as yourself. Therefore, it does not say Es Rayacho. If it is a human problem, I come first. To G-d it is unmitigated love.
Now concerning Pharaoh’s treatment of the Jews - If it said Yorayu Lonu it would not be as strong. It would mean he made life a little unpleasant, irritated us, but did not want to destroy us. Osonu means to enslave the entire people, to destroy because he hated them. The same was Hitler’s decision of the "final solution" at Vansee. The Germans thought he meant "Lonu". The "heads rolling in the dust" meant Osonu. This is the "Hava Nischakmo Lo" - let us be cunning. It was the same language of Goebbels. "They acted as naive children. We won the battle. It was the "final solution". Why say Pharaoh? Because they are a security risk. They will make us leave the land. The Osonu, therefore, is complete destruction. This is how "Bal Hagaddah" interprets this.
Vayanunu. They tortured us. They caused us pain! What does it mean? It is physical forced hard labor without compensation, where each individual must deliver a certain quota. It is either the daily quota or the whip. It is either a brick made or a child entombed in its place. If I don’t profit by meeting the quota it is psychologically very hard.
Vayar Es Onyanu - He saw our affliction - the enforced separation of man and wife. What prompted the Bal Hagaddah from interpreting differently between the verb of "Vayanunu" and the noun "Onyanu". It says He heard our voice. Then why does it say, "And He saw our affliction?" - our burden - our oppression. Apparently, these things were not included in their prayer. In addition to their prayer, G-d recognized things which they themselves didn’t know and didn’t include. What did they complain? The work! There are many forms of slavery. The most obvious is chicanery - making people work without pay. They only felt the physical aspect but not the spiritual. The other phenomena they didn’t realize. Their cry rose to G-d but was limited. Otherwise, if according to their prayers, He would have saved them physically but would not have changed them to spiritual greatness. It is said that if He merely listened to our prayers, it would have resulted in half a redemption, indeed, bad for us. Therefore, "Vayar". He took a good look. He understood that which they couldn’t understand. Therefore, the "Vayar," in addition to "Vayishma". They were aware of the torture bu of the different level in store for them, they were unaware!
Kol Habayn (all the sons you shall throw into the water). At the time of "Yetzias Mitzraim, this was already long, long forgotten. It was a statute which was once on the books perhaps 2 or 3 generations before. It existed once for 3 months when Moshe was born, eighty years ago. It had been abolished by the "Melech Chodosh", the new king. The people themselves had forgotten that their children had been killed. The statute of limitations had expired. They forgot to mention it in their prayers. The same applies today. From 1944 to 1979, people have forgotten Treblinka, Maidenek, etc. Everyone forgot. They mentioned only labor in their prayers. But, G-d didn’t forget. The mind of the tortured becomes physically exhausted. It is hard to imagine but survivors of the death camps whose children were killed say, "If he or she had not been killed, they’d be around 50 now. Many people die at age of 50 anyway. The martyr’s deaths were not mentioned in the prayers.
"Lachatz" - oppression. The element of "lachatz" is what tipped the balance in favor of Israel. What is decisive about "Lachatz" which is not in "onyanu" and "Vayanunu" etc? It means, "Action is imperative now." They had to spend there 400 years and were there but half the time. G-d accelerated it as much as possible. "It is now or never." There are pain thresholds of which some have high thresholds and some have low ones. The same applies to persecution thresholds. Some people may easily be shattered by persecution.
G-d had to act quickly because of the tremendous pressure for assimilation.
They were severely threatened. Chazal says that "Yetzias Mitzraim" was
as taking a baby from the mother’s womb. It was now or goodbye. Otherwise,
let us forget the promise to Abraham, the eschatological future, the messianic
future. "But I cannot do it, I have already promised Abraham." Worthy or
not, it must be. "The Jew can fall very low but can rise very high." It
was declared by a philosopher we don’t at all care for -- Zeresh, wife
of Haman. "When Israel falls, it is as low as the ground, but when she
rises it is up to the stars." Thus, the problem must quickly be resolved.
Torah says, "Despite all of Israel’ faults, it is still my child." She
can rise as high as the sky.
Today, I shall deviate from my custom of the previous years and shall speak of the Succah and Shemini Atzeres from the historical rather than the halachic aspect.
The question arises, "Should one sit in the Succah on Shemini Atzeres or should one not?" After all, the Torah directs us that "Shivah Yomim" etc., sthall you sit in the Succah and Shemini Atzeres is the eighth day. Perhaps, the difficulty arises from the stance adopted by Gemorrah itself in resolving this issue. The halacha from Gemorrah is taht we should sit in the Succah but not to pronounce the "brocho," "Layshav Basuccah" as we do the previous seven days. The division in compliance occurs between the Chassidim and the Misnagdim. The Chassidim do not sit in the Succah on Shemini Atzeres; the Misnagdim do. This is not to minimize the Chassidim. From the inception of Chassidism, they have had a share of great teachers, talmider Chachamim. Certainly, they have many very "Ehrliche Yidden" who observe the Mitzvos very carefully. We, therefore, must analyze why we, the Misnagdim, do sit in the Succah and why the Chassidim do not.
We believe that during Succoth there are two days during which it is completely obligatory to sit in the Succah; on the first night and on Shemini Atzeres. During the intermediary days, we are excused from the Succah if conditions are such as to make it uncomfortable and unfavorable. But on the first night, even if it rains or snows, if it is raw cold or we are plagued with mosquitoes, we must make the brocho therein. The same applies to Shemini Atzeres. Of such great importance do we attach to sitting in the Succh on Shemini Atzeres. The fact that a brocho is not pronounced, in actuality should also apply to the second seder of Pesach. Here we make a brocho "Shehechiyonu," a brocho over eating matzo and morer, quite the same as the first evening. The reason that we do it is because the Rabbanan feared that if these obligation were removed, the second seder would become light in the eyes of the populace and that in time, Chutz L’oretz (out of Israel) it would become abolished altogether. Therefore, it was enacted that it should be observed exactly as the first night, in no way less.
I have given this matter much thought and I believe that I have resolved the problem for the difference of opinion.
If we are asked the question, "which is the very greatest holiday," we would have to answer that it is Shemini Atzeres. Despite the fact that Yom Kippur is called, "the great day". Shemini Atzeres is even greater. We are reminded of the story of a king who became separated from his son through fate and they had no contact for years, not knowing if either was alive. The king sent out emissaries to search for his son and after much effort both father and son were informed that the other is alive and ready to be reunited. The question asked is, "which is the greater moment? Is it the moment when they are simultaneously informed taht the other is alive or is it the moment when the two are ultimately reunited and meet for the initial time?"
We have the classic example of Jacob and Joseph. Was it a greater moment for the old Jacob when he learned that Joseph lives or was it when they made contact? Each occasion is described in Torah as a momentous event. There are those who maintain that learning the other still exists is greater. (Others maintain it is the actual contact.)
What is Yom Kippur? It is the day when the Jewish people are told, "The old father is still alive! He waits with love for you to return to him!" Not so Rosh Hashanah! Rosh Hashanah is a day of "Din", of "Pachad" - judgment and fear. Yom Kippur is a day of great love. Father waits for you to come back to him. His arms are wide open. "Just come back!"
Therefore, so is it with Succoth and Shemini Atzeres. Thsoe factions who believe that the joy is greatest at the moment of inception, at the moment of hearing the good news, have chosen nto to sit in the Succah on Shemini Atzeres because Gemorrah does not specify a "brocho". The others feel that although the esrog and lulav have been stripped away and we are left with the least significant Haddassim, the joy is greater on Shemini Atzeres for at the moment we are truly united with our Father.
What basis do we have for the assumption? The fact is that during the seven days of Succoth in the Bais Hamikdosh, a total of 70 bullockhs were sacrificed, thirteen the first day, twelve the second, eleven the third, etc., until a total of 70 was reached. This was an atonement for the 70 recognized nations that existed. The fact is that Succoth is not a holiday for Jews alone but for the entire world. Therefore, the Haftorah of the first day of Succoth speaks that the shame of Egypt will be that it will fail to come to Jerusalem to observe the holiday of Succoth. Likewise, one of the chief reasons hwy we read Megilah Koheleth on Succoth is because it is addressed to the world. We do not find the "Shem Havayah" was just given to the Jews. "Elokim" is for all people.
However, on Shemini Atzeres suddenly it speaks of "Par Echod, Ayil Echod" - one bullock, one ram. The Alm-ghty declares, "Finally, my people, we are together alone. We have clebrated for all the nations. Now, let us sit down together, Father and son. If is a a private affair for no one but us." This, then, Misnagdim feel is the great moment of togetherness -- of meeting with Father. This is why it is of such paramount importance to go into the Succah on Shemini Atzeres even without the "brocho".
There is also an halachic approach on which the Chassidim base their decision. A "Chasan and Kalah" (groom and bride) are exempted by law from the Succah adn must celebrate the Yom Tov in their "Chupah". Therefore, if we have just become reunited with our long lost Father, it is as if it were a reunion of bride with her bridegroom and she is exempted from the Succah.
Also, there is no comparison between the celebrating of Simchas Torah of Misnagdim and Chassidim. I remember that as a youngster in Europe, I could observe the different celebrations for I lived in a small community which was equally divided between Chassidim and Misnagdim. Those people frmo either faction would come to take my father to their shul to celebrate. In our Misnagdische shul 20 people could enter the Succah and dance with the Torah with plenty of reserve space. For Chassidim, their joy was so great that the world was not big enough as is evidenced today. This, therefore, is my evaluation of the issue of sitting in the Succha on this holiday between Chassidic and Misnagdic Jews.
Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday night, November 10, 1979
I shall commence the season by discussing a few p’sukim from sedra Vayera. "Vayera Alov Hashem B’aylonay Mamre" (And G-d appeared to him at the Terebiths of Mamre and he sat at the entrance of his tent in the heat of the day.) Rashi says that the Alm-ghty came to pay a sick or courtesy call. Rav Chona ben Chanina says that it was the third day after circumcision and the most painful day. The Alm-ghty came to inquire how Abraham felt. How does Rav Chona get this idea? It should have read "Vayera Hashem El Avrohom" instead of using the pronoun Aylov - to him.
What is the difference in using the pronoun instead of the proper name of Abraham? If the phrase read that Hashem came to Abraham it would be a different subject from that which closed out the previous parsha, namely the circumcision of Abraham. It would be speaking of an entirely new entity. Who is the "Aylov" (to him)? We are not told so it obviously means the same person previously metioned, namely Abraham and the story of the circumcision. The fact that Torah does not use the name Abraham means that you know hwo is spoken about and that is is a continuation or extension.
In the previous parsha, G-d is referred to as Elokim from the beginning of the prophecy concerning the "Milah". Right after the "Milah" the prophecy is in Shem Havayah. Something happens during this circumcision. Sometimes it is Elokim; sometimes Havayah. Thus, the relationship between G-d and Abraham and the revelation is different.
In sedra "Voyehra" of Sh’mos, Rashi asks: "How does the text declare, ‘And I appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as the Alm-ghty G-d but My name Havayah I did not reveal to them,’ (In view of the fact that Havayah is used here in today’s sedra)?" The answer is that G-d never used to the patriarchs "Anyi Hashem" - this was used only to Moshe. It means, "Trust Me; I am faithful to repay a kindness." To the patraiarchs it was not necessary, "Anyi Hashem". They believed and trusted without proof or assurance.
When the word Elokim is used, it is the relationshiop of G-d to the entire universe of which man is a part. It is the relationship of g-d to creation in general of which man is a part. This includes the entire cosmos. Havayah, however, emphasizes the unique relationship of G-d to man. The journey of man to G-d is close through Havaya; it is much longer through Elokim. He listens and hears to prayer without traveling an endless journey. During the first six days of creation, we have Elokim. With the appearance of man it is Hashem. Man enjoys a certain privilege of lcoseness! Thus, when Abraham performed the "Milah," he achieved a closer relationship, directly and quickly.
There is something else. When we say Elokim, we are not referring that G-d wants man to follow His footsteps or imitate Him. "Elokim is Bal Hokochos" -- the master of power. The cosmos exists because Elokim is the source of the physical existence. The organic matter follows certain rules. It is all under the term Elokim. Under Elokim, He fashions and causes the universe to function and perpetually exist. We say on Rosh Hashanah, "V’Kayom Lo’ad." It (universe) should exist and function for always. He supports and sustains and causes the universe to exist. This is the creation of Rosh Hashanah.
Havaya is different. It tells man, particularly the Jew, to be like Him. A lot is written about Hewish ethics, morality. What is morality? Whatever G-d does is moral; what He doesn’t do is immoral. As Rav Yose said, "I’ll be like You." We should travel the same trail as Hakodosh Boruch Hu. Abraham, by the circumcision, suddenly was elevated to a higher level from Elokim to Havaya.
Thus, we find at Sinai: "Onocho Hashem". The implementation of Hashem Havaya came when G-d gave us the Torah. It is the duty of man to imitate. It had its beginning in part, not completely, when Abraham performed the circumcision. This is why Chazal combined Lech L’cha to Vayera -- the transition of Elokim to Havaya. This implements the thought that when G-d appears to man, He wants to teach him M’vaker Cholim (visiting sick), Rav Chessed (Mercy), V’Emes (and truth). He nurses the sick, comforts the mourners, clothes the naked, feeds the hungry. G-d says to Abraham: "You are greater now than you ewre before. I want to teach you to imitate me all I do -- Bikur Cholim -- visiting the sick. Hashem Havaya is the source of all morality. Thus, by using "Aylov" the entire emphasis is on Hashem; otherwise the emphasis would be on Abraham.
When G-d reveals Himself as Havaya and teaches man Bikur Cholim, what does it consist of? Basically, it is a threefold teaching: A) It is nursing man. Rabbi Akivah personally nursed a student hwo was dangerously ill back to health when all others dreaded approaching. In Tehilim, we declare, "G-d shall support and sustain me." B) Visit the ‘choleh’ to pray for him. There is no comparison to seeing a man in pain and praying for him than making an anonymous Mi-Sh’Bayrach. My tefilah will be warmer. How can this apply to G-d? Rabbi Yehoshuah Kohan Godol said: "I entered the Kodshe Kedoshim - Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur and saw a vision of "Rom V’nisay’ (G-d on a lofty throne). In the vision, G-d declared: "I need someone to pray that the Midas Rachamin - the attribute of mercy should overcome the Midas Hadin - the attribute of justice). C) Man who is sick becomes extremely lonely. Only the sick can expereince the solitude that no one cares for him. The message is: "You are needed! We need you!" This is what G-d demonstrated to Abraham and wanted Abraham to be like He is. For this, he needed the revelation of Havaya on the day when the pain was the greatest. G-d left him a "small book of morality." The book was sealed with the four letters of Havaya.
Posek II: B’Aylona Mamre. Apparently, Chazal didn’t understand why it was necessary to designate the place. Rashi quotes the medrash that Mamre was the one who advised Abraham how to comply with the request of G-d. It is a strange medrash but what forced them to say so? It is indicative of something great; this individual apparently did something great. Mamre was a farmer in whose land Hashem appeared. The only answer is that he was responsible for Abraham being circucised. There was some reluctance on the part of Abraham, a problem which troubled his mind. In chapter 17 of sedra Lech L’cha, line 1 it reads: "And Abram was 99 years old when the L-rd appeared to him and said ‘Ani Kal Shaddai - I am the Alm-ghty etc.’" And Abram fell on his face. Later in line 17 "He fell on his face and rejoiced."
The question is, when G-d told Abraham to leave his land, it was a short sentence. There was no waiting, no dialogue. Abraham up and wnet. Again at the Akedah, there was no questioning; Abraham took Isaac and went. Here, apparently, Abraham questions and engages G-d in a dialogue. The greatness for which Abraham is famous is his great unquestioning faith. So why did he engage G-d in dialogue here? Medrash tells us that apparently Abraham asked questions not recorded in the Torah.
Abraham’s concern was: Before I was circumcised, people came to me, joined me, did business with me and spoke with me. If I circumcise will they continue to come? All communication lines with people, with those loyal to me will be terminated and Ill be lonely." Medrash declares that G-d answered: "Abraham, are you worried? You won’t lose me! It is enough that I will be your defender. It is not only enough for you but for the world that I am the "dayan" judge of the world. The word "Dai" (from Shadai) is - cut off - limiting the expansion which would have continued. Before people come; now they stop as evidence that he set up a chair outside his tent to see if strangers would pass by.
Abraham was not reluctant but he wanted to understand and Jewish history later verified it. Abraham was under the impression that G-d wanted him to convert the entire mankind. He thought his mission is a universal one. What is the meaning of a "Hey" in his name from Abram to Abraham? It means the father of a multitude! In his wanderings, what was the idea of his entering from the north, the Golan Heights, going to the arid south and onto Egypt? It means if Mitzraim will accept monotheism the mission will be complete for the center of mankind was Mitzraim. If you convince the center of humanity, paganism will be eradicated. The same is true with Christianity for it conquered Rome, the center of humanity. Abraham misunderstood. He reasoned that it will happen at once in his lifetime and that the multitudes will accept. In fact, many thousands did accept. He wandered from place to place, from kingdom to kingdom. "El Haaretz Asher Arekah" - to the land which I will show you. The same is true with the Akedah. Maimonides says, "You will go from place to place and you will teach."
However, this was not the plan of G-d. The plan was to develop a little nation that knows Hashem at least for the time being. The quantity plays no part. "You are the smallest of nations. However, you are "Am Segulah" - outstanding. It is a gradual growth where you become a great people in Egypt. "Mitzvonim Shom" - great in stature - not numbers but quality. Through them the whole of mankind will change as we pray on Rosh Hashanah.
Abraham began to think that this process oculd be shortened. Yitzchak wante to go to Mitzraim but G-d stopped him. "No, it will be a long process. You’d accomplish; don’t go!" When the Mitzvah of Milah was addressed to him, Abraham was taken aback. If there was a Mitzvah not understood by the gentile, which made the Jew esoteric adn removed, it is "milah". Till the Holocaust it was "milah", which identified the Jew and, therefore, more women were saved. If it were not for "milah" the entire Middle East would have been converted to Judaism. "Milah" has isolated and locked up the Jew in solitude. "Milah" splits; it is the dividing symbol.
Abraham asked: "After ‘Milah’ do you think they’ll be the same friends, the same partners? We won’t be one people; they’ll treat me as a distant stranger." This is what Abraham asked. He was not reluctant but wanted to understand. G-d declared: "I want you to be different. We are different. They write left to right; we write right to left. They calculate time around the sun; we calculate around the moon. Our observation of "Avaloth" -- mourning is completely different. So is our kindness in giving zdokah, our modesty. Of course, many have dropped this uniqueness. There is some charisma which is different. It is an individual personality. This is what Abraham asks: "Will I be the same?" G-d answers, "It is not necessary to be respected or beloved. What is the creation of the world? It is "Dai" - self-limitation. He retreated and gave space to the world. It is self-contraction!
Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday night, November 17, 1979
Today’s parsha, Chaye Sara, is unique. It has a feature hardly found in the Chumash. Two other parshas are similar in their presentation - sedra "Miketz" and perhaps sections of "Vayeshev". There is something which Chazal noticed and Rashi calls attention to it today. This unique manner, Chazal say, is the characteristic trait of dialogue. It presents to use the very detailed and most complete dialogue of Eliezer, that which he had iwth Rivka at the well and then it is repeated inside her house before Besuel, her father and Laban, her brother. It is compared to "Miketz" for there the dream is elaborated to Pharaoh. (Also, the dream of the officers in the prison to Joseph is Vayeshev.) It Torah wished thsi entire account could have been presented in a few P’sukim.
How much is devoted to Shabbos in the Torah? At the most, Shabos is described in 10 or 15 sentences. Here we have Eliezer’s thoughts, waht he said, how his prayer was implemented. Here it is complete and also it is complete where Joseph conversed with his brothers. Sometimes, Torah is very brief! It tells us very little about Abraham’s early life. Maimonides is the one who gives us the biography of Abraham’s life and actually it is not Biblical.
What is the answer? The answer is rooted in a certain concept of Jewish morality as I mentioned last week. What is ethical and what is not ehtical? For instance, how humble should a person be? Rambam says a person should not be too humble and naturally not too assertive. It should be the middle of the road. The answer is that whatever the Alm-ghty does is moral and correct. What he doesn’t do is immoral. What does G-d accet and waht doe He reject?
I once asked my father when I was a youngster. "What is the role fot he ‘Neviim’ in the 24 books of th Bible?" The prophet has no right to change one iota of Toras Moshe. For instance, in a Halachic debate it must be conducted by the scholars and according to the Torah. If, for instance, the prophet says, "Rabbi ‘X’ is right - Rabbi ‘Y’ is wrong," then he is no prophet at all. He cannot add or eliminate a precept. If he comes and changes then he is false. The "Neviim rishonim" - the prophets, tell us the footsteps of G-d -- what is correct and what isn’t. They tell us what the actions and performances on the part of G-d are. For instance, "Bidrochai Taylaychu" - (In My footsteps shall you go) - be good - honest, sincere, helpful, give zdakah! However, waht is good? How much zdakah? There may be alternatives! It is hard to decide hwich alternative is correct and fair.
For instance, Russia lets 52 or 53 thousand Jews a year emigrate from its country. There was no actual agreement but Jewish agencies through the White House have effected this implementation. Why was this done? To get Jews to go to Eretz Yisroel. You must have a visa to enter Eretz but not the United States. Now, 73% of these emigrees refuse to go to Eretz but rather to western-oriented countries. By their doing so the major part of the money collected here goes not to that which it is intended for. The question is, should this financial aid be suspended? Of course, it would be better to see them go to Eretz but it is better to see them leave the hell of Russia than to stay there. This is the category of "Bidrochai Taylaychu". What these "ways" are we don’t exactly know and cannot go to Shulchan Orach to ifnd the answer. Here we must go to the prophets. What are the "Drochim" - the ways? It is to be found in Neviim - the prophets.
Now, what the partriarchs did - their actions is very important. They were the Neviim Rishonim - the earliest prophets who explained and made understandable the ways of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. Therefore, so much detail is expended. Apparently, "Chaye Sora" is rich in these problems and in this parsha there is much to learn. Chaye Sora is the source! It represents an idea which often we don’t understand and often violate the basic concepts. It is the highest virtues of life which if we observe and follow, we walk in G-d’s path.
What is the central idea? Which dominates or guides us to understand the "Drochim" paths of G-d? There are three important units or parts in this sedra. "A" the death of Sora. "B" The story of Eliezer. "C" Turning over the role of Abraham to Yitzchak! The minute Rivka entered the tent of Sora, Abraham lost his role. Again, what is the dominating idea? It is the idea of "Chessed" -- kindness. Eliezer used the phrase "Chessed V’Emes" - kindness and truth. There are two kinds of "Chessed". First, there is a "chessed" which people do in the full grandeur - sacrificing their lives to help others. Then there is a "chessed" in small matters, by being polite, being kind and being helpful. Here, Eliezer’s task was to choose the mother of the nation, someone to take over the tent of Sarah. This does not literally mean the tent but the lifestyle of Srah. Apparently, Hashgocha had chosen her because she personified these qualities, of gentleness, kindness and patience. Actually, in his effort to insure that he was choosing the right person, Eliezer did not employ tactfulness and we learn this from the words he used in his approach. He declared, "Hagm’ini Noh, M’at Mayim". This is translated not as "May I have a drink," but "let me swallow directly from you pitcher." She, however, was tactful in that she gave him water to drink and went back separately for water for the camels. She acted in accordance with decency. Torah shows us that there are many ways in how one can be tactful and how "Hachanosas Orchim" can be practiced.
Firstly, we have the example of Abraham and his guests. Torah tells us that Abraham went away from G-d -- from the "Shechina" to attend to those he thought were simple idolators and spent so much time iwth them, even to the point of accompanying them on their way. It could have taken hours. Meanwhile, G-d "stood and waited". With Rivka we again see "Hachnosas Orchim" hospitality to strangers in that she practically assured a place for them. Although, she was not the boss and had not the authority. We find this also with Lot. To employ the Yiddush, "Kein Mensch Ist Er Nicht Geven," -- he wasn’t much of an individual and he had no "sachel" - no common sense. But he was good! He had a certain goodness which he had inherited from Abraham. He was good by nature. The goodness hwich was implemented from the family of Abraham was great but his fault was that he lacked the courage to shake off the paganism of the time. Which "Midah" - attribute was developed in him? It was "Chessed" - kindness - willing to sacrifice his family for others.
Thus, the "Hachnosas Orchim" the basic quality of this family was "chessed" - kindness and goodness. This is why Eliezer adopted this as the standard to determine if Rivka could take over from Sarah. She had to possess the virtue of chessed; not a heroic action but the "chessed" of everyday life. It was not the heroism of war. This is what he discovered in Rivka and this is why Torah repeats it and is so loquacious because it wants to impress upon us the virue of "chessed".
Now we go to the beginning of the sedra, the death of Sarah. It is the only place where the Torah records that Abraham cried. He never cried when he thought that he would be childless or in any of his other travails, only when Sarah died. It is recorded that Moshe cried but twice, when he was an infant, which is natural and the second time at the incident of the daughters of Midyan, in his final year. At the golden calf, at the incident iwth the spies, etc., he prayed, he supplicated. However, at the end of 40 years, having brougth up a second generation, having educated them and then seeing them fall to temptation, he wept. At the beginning, he knew that they couldn’t change at once but now he saw failure.
Abraham didn’t cry during 100 years of waiting. Some think that you must cry at prayer but it isn’t so. We are not accustomed to tears on Abraham’s face but he did cry at Sarah’s death. A great man prays with passion. Apparently, Torah wants to tell us something.
A child cries because it is a reaction to suffering. Rambam writes, "Who does not mourn the passing of someone dear?" Emotional neutrality is equated with being cruel. However, if he grieves excessively he deomnstrates stupidity because he testifies that the world is imperfect in its way. "Avaluth" -- mourning, expresses - not too little and nto too much because excess testifies against Hashgocha - the Divine Will. It is not sinful but foolish. Sometimes if man cries he enhances his personality as evidenced by Joseph and his brothers. A few tears enhances the riches of man and washes away the ugliness of man. A man cannot be neutral unless he is cruel. (Note: perek tells us that neutrality was the trademark of Sodom.) An animal can be neutral. This doctrine was written in today’s parsha. "Avaluth," crying -- yes; but not excessively as demonstrated by Abraham. Why does Torah state: "Vayokom Milifnai Maso" (He arose from his deed). After his crying, it should say that he "spoke with them, the children of Ches." If he didn’t have the "vayokom" the ability to rise from his lowly state, he wouldn’t have the courage to continue in his actions. This man was on the ground and this is the halacha. The "Avol" - the mourner sits low near the ground. The "Vayokom" shows that he can arise from the ashes to take charge. We say it on Friday night in L’cho Dodi. "Arise, shake off the ashes!" Abraham arose, shook off his ashes and took over. It is self-discipline. Yes, he cried a lot but did not surrender to despair. He who surrenders loses his personnel dignity. He didn’t want B’nai Ches to see this for they would belittle him: "He is not the father of mankind," they would say.
"Sarah is the strong personality; he is weak!" He had to demonstrate his strength to them. He shook off his ashes and then spoke with them. His demand bordered on impunity. Why should Efron sell the best of his property? What gave him the courage? It was the fact that he felt that he’d be able to carry on. They said to him, "You are the divine prince." For a moment, he was completely defeated but it didn’t last too long. This is why he carried so much weight with them.
Also, "Kever Yisroel" - the Jewish cemetery - goes back to Abraham. It was the first time that Abraham told them: "My way of life is different." He had to rise as a leader and stand his ground. "I am a stranger but consider myself an old timer."
Lispod V’Liflod. First, you cry and then you begin to assess. Abraham was mourning! What did he lose by Sarah’s death? It was motivated by two facts. First, he was loyal; he loved her. How do you love a person? They had lived through all the crises together, the persecutions, the criticism, the waiting for a son which G-d promised. The common experience is the morality of developing friendship, of sharing together happy and tragic moments. This is loyalty.
For example, my brother died in 1967, the same year my mother died. He was four years younger than myself. My mourning is greater for him than for my parents because we grew together. He never had a friend who was not also my friend. The same is here. They shared their moments together. This motivated Abraham to mourn for Sarah. This is Livkosa - crying. However, he had to mourn for a different reason. He mourned for a companion, a "rebbe" -- a teacher. Not only was he the father but she the mother of all nations. As soon as Abraham is mentioned at the end of Noach, Sarah is mentioned. His whole life can only be understood in the personality of another person, Srah. Together, their names were changed. Until that occurence, he was the father of a clan. Now he becomes father of all mankind, to be implemented in the messianic age. Her mission was inexpendable. Both appeared in Jewish history together. With her death, he loses his leadership for afterwards not much is told about him. From hence, he passes on the "Yerusha" the inheritance. He did not leave a "yerusha" as is common but he passed it on. It is said that G-d has no patience with he who gives all away during his lifetime. This refers to material wealth. However, the giving of a teacher to a pupil is different. This is the care here. What is the common denominator of today’s haftorah? It is not the choice of a king! It is the turning over of the throne during his lifetime. Here it is: "The King lives and the successor lives!" It is not "King dead - King alive". Basheva (mother of Solomon says: "Thank G-d that you see your successor while you are alive." Abraham himself said he’d be staisfied with Ishmael but G-d gave him Yitchak as the successor. Why did he cry? He was lonely! She was the teacher, superior prophet - companion! "In retrospection, I begin to see what I lost."
Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik Saturday evening, November 24, 1979
I have three thoughts on today’s parsha and one is a very important one frmo last week’s parsha.
(I) "Ayleh Toldoth Yitzchak" - These are the generations of Isaac. "Avrohom Holid Es Yitzchak" - Abraham begot Isaac. Of course, the question is, why the duplication? One "pshat" (explanation) is that Yitzchak was born to Abraham after the name was changed from Abram to Abraham. The emphasis is placed on the "Hey". The emphasis is that Avrohom begot, not Avrom. Yitzchak was thus born as a prince, not a plebian. Abraham is the father of many peoples, an international community. Abraham, himself, was not born a prince but he strove and he conquered and he deserved to be a king. As a youngster, he knew nothing of G-d but was a pagan, searched for the truth and discovered it. This is why G-d waited so long to change the name (till Abraham was 99 years of age) - so that Yitzchak should be born into royalty.
Secondly, everyone acquiesed that Yitzchak was the son of Abraham, not an adopted son. It is strange tat Torah paid attention to gossip here. The faces of father and son were identical; no one could deny the fact because the resemblance was so close.
We find the same Rashi previously when Sarah gave birth (Hashem Pokad Es Soro - G-d remembered Sarah). Who would believe that she would nurse children at her advanced age! Everyone brought infants along on the given day of the celebration to discredit her. "An adopted child" did they proclaim. They brought children and she was capable of feeding many. Again, it was gossip. In that sedra of Vayera, the facts are denied that both Abraham and Srah could sire a child. Today’s "rechilas" (gossip) in sedra Toldoth was different. Sarah as the mother was accepted - okay, but not Abraham the father. Now they claimed that Abimelech was the father. How was it to be proved? "Avrohom Holid Es Yitzchak" - the faces were identical. Interestingly, here Rashi call them the "mochers" of the genreation but not there in sedra Vayera. Rashi terms them here as "Letzim" - evil persons - one who commits harm. Why was he not impressed there but definitely impressed with their remarks here? There it makes sense. Sarah was old and it is logical that she couldn’t bear children. Here, Abraham should be no problem. He had already sired Ishmael when Sarah was still barren. Here te "letzim" imply - "Abimelech, the father." Here, they simply wanted to destroy Abraham and Yitzchak. Here, they imply there is no such thing as a covenant with G-d and that it’s all false. Torah here is interested in denying the malice so Yitzchak’s countenance becomes identical. Henceforth, no one dares to deny it is "Avrohom Holid Es Yitzchak."
Ibn Ezra and also Onkeles give a different interpretation. They say that "Holid" is not begot but educated. The first one is biological, the second is teacher. Apparently, Abraham neglected the education of Ishmael. All that was given to Abraham was conditional that a father is not only biological but that he is a teacher.
As long as Joseph was alive, he was not only theviceroy of Egypt but the teacher of the nation viz his grandsons. The proff of this we find in chapter 50, line 23 of sedra "Vaychi". "And Joseph lived to see the 3rd generation "Al Birkay". This ‘Al Birkay’ means teaching the generations. What did Abraham teach Yitzchak? He taught the same doctrines which he tried to teach Mitzraim and which he tried to teach Sodom and Gemorah. With these he failed; with Yitzchak he had "hatzlocho" success.
Interestingly, it is the basis for the interpretation of the Bikurim, bringing the first fruits to the Bais Hamikdosh and the recitation of "Arami Ovad Avi" as found in sedra Ki Sovo (Deuteronomy, chapter 26, line 5). Yearly, each person brougth the first fruit in a basket, laid it down before the Kohan and recited, "My father was a wanderer, etc." It is a recitation of thanks, of gratitude for bringing him to the promised land and for the bountiful produce. There is a ‘machlokos’, a controversy between Rabbi Yehuda and Chazal as to what shall a ‘gayr’ declare ( a convert). Can he say, "we prayed to the G-d of my fathers?" The sages say that he should eliminate the statement. Tosefta mentions that Rabbi Yose declared: "He does recite; he does say ‘G-d of our fathers.’" When he recites the silent prayre "Shmono Esrei" he also says "Elokanu, Vaylokay Avosaynu" - Our G-d and G-d of our fathers. Rambam decides as does Rabbi Yose. He says that Abraham is father of the entire world, of all who join the Covenental Community of G-d. Chazal meant well! Tosefta says nothing. But Rambam clarifies it. The father is the ‘rebbe’, the teacher. The ‘rebbe’ is the father. Where is it derived from? The answer is: "He will be the father in that eschatological messianic age when Abraham’s doctrine will be universally implemented. Everything a son does for a father -- feeds, clothes, shelters, cares for, a pupil is obligated to do for his teacher. This is the concept: "Rebbe - father". In "V’shinantom L’vonecho" - you shall teach your children, the equation of father-son, Rabbe-student is formulated. This is the central motif of Yehadus -- Jewish theology. This is the concept of Avrohom Holid Es Yitzchak. The importance is not so much biological but teaching and it is the basic halachic thinking. The fact that one is a son of Abraham is no guarantee in the genetic code. As an example, we have Ishamael. Also, we have Yitzchak and Esau. This is the best proof. Why didn’t Abraham educate Ishmael? It doesn’t say, "Avrohom Holid Es Ishmael." The education of Ishmael was handed over to his mother Hagar and although she was a fine woman, apparently she was not a proper teacher.
Interestingly, there is the haftora of Yom Hatzomos -- fast days. The prophet speaks about the efficacy of repentence and declares, "let him turn from his sinful ways." Actually, the damage has already been done. By the person shouting, "Chotosi" - I have sinned. Can this undo that which has been done? Yet, the Alm-ghty declares, "Change! Do Tshuvah! Your thoughts are not my thoughts. T’shuvah is efficacious!" We find it in the prophecies of Ezekiel where the people say, "We are overwhelmed by "Chet". We cannot change after so much evil!" G-d answers, "Observe the law and my salvation will come despite the fact that you don’t understand the efficacy of T’shuvah.
Biologically, man is connected with his parents even though they are dead throughout the millenia. On th other side, he is connected with the future generations even though we don’t know who they will be. The "Gayr" or convert is only connected with the future. Let him not say "Havdayl Yavdilani Hashem" - G-d has cut me off from my people. Neither let the eunuch say, "I am a dry tree!" The eunuch is connected with the past but not with the continued genetic code. If they say this, it is as the Bal T’shuvah who declares, "I cannot come back!" The "Gayr" wants to feel that he has no share. "Yetzias Mitzraim" - the Exodus from Egypt. However, their share are those whom they will teach and will bring up. The same answer goes back to the Bal Tshuvah. The same as the "Gayr" in retrospect becomes connected with the community, so is the Bal Tshuvah. If not so it would be impossible for the "Gayr" to fit into the picture, the experience. What makes "Garus" the possible experience? It is the "Hey" in Avrohom and the "Hey" in Sarah. It is the greatest relationshiop -- not the parental but the scholastic. Therefore, Abraham is not merely the father but the "rebbe".
A very interesting episode in Jewish history was the case of the man referred to as the "Gayr Hazedek" -- the righteous convert, Graf Patotsky. His father, the graf (count) Patotsky was of great Polish nobility and to him belonged a tract of land which included the entire Vilna in the 18th century. He had a "ben Yoched", a single son who was drawn close to Judaism and he came to the Vilna "Bes Din" -- the Jewish court to be converted. This was very dangerous both for the Jews and for the convert for the penalty from the church was death. Therefore, he was advised to go to Amsterdam for conversion where the laws were much less stringent. There he went, became a devout convert to Judaism and sat and studied for a goodly time. However, he become lonesome for his land and so he returned and chose a small village to reside in around 50 miles from Vilna. By now, he was a "Lamdan" and he sat and studied. No one knew him or inquired about him. Once while he was either giving a Shiur or was studying, someone created an interruption and he chastised the youngster, telling him to be quiet. The boy went home, told his father who in turn took offense and declared, "that "Meshumed" (convert), I’ll fix him. The authorities were informed. Patotsky was arrested at once as were the rabbis of the locality. The rabbis could not be prosecuted for "Garus" for they had nothing to do with it but Patotsky was sentenced to death. The populace tried to bribe the archbishop and the police but it was impossible for they wated to show their strength. On the first day of Shavuoth, Patotsky was burned to death. I visited his grave and saw a peculiar phenomenon. There grew a straight tree by the gravesite but one branch had curved out in a sweep, covering the entire grave to show that "Someone protected the grave." The night before the execution, instead of going to "Tikun Shavovoth" the Vilna Gaon went to visit the "Gayr Zedek" and found him crying. "Why are you crying?" he asked. "Are you afraid of the pain of death?" "No," he answered. "I cry because I’ll be lonely in the world to come. I have no past and I leave no future." The Gaon answered from scriptures. "Ani Rishon V’ani Acharon." G-d declares, "I am the first and I am the last. I am the first one if the person has no ‘father’ and I am the last one if he leaves no children.’" This is the idea of "Avrohom Holid Es Yitzchak."
II. Vyagayd L’Rivka Divrei Esov - And the words of Esaus were told to Rivka. She spoke to Jacob: "Your older brother is ready to kill you. Escape to my brother Laban and stay with him "Yomim Achodim" - a few days until his bitterness has left him. Actually, "few days" -- Yomim Achodim -- means a few years but, of course, hashgocha had different plans and it was 20 years. The tragedy was that she didn’t live to see him again. "Stay till his wrath will subside and he will forget waht you did; I’ll send someone to bring you back." The problem, of course, is why it didn’t happen. Nothing is told of the death of Rivka. Of Sarah and of Rachel we are told.
"Vatomer LiYitzchak" -- To Yitzchak, she declared "My life is said because of the wives of Esau and I don’t want Jacob to marry the same." Therefore, he called him and advised, "Don’t marry from the daughters of Canaan. Go to Laban." The motivations of the two, Rivka and Yitzchak, are different. She was motivated by fear; his motive was, "Get a wife." The m’forshim raised the question: "She didn’t want to hurt Yitzchak’s feeling and suggest that Esau was capable of murdering his brother. He had apparently a high opinion of Esau and was willing to give some blessings to him (although not the blessings of Abraham. That he intended for Jacob all along.) Of course, she also meant a wife but the dominant reason was "murder".
I believe there is more. One reason is "Kibbud Ov V’Aym" -- honoring father and mother. We know the reasons why Torah states first father when referring to honor and why it states first mother when it refers to fear. One has an inclination to honor mother more so Torah specifically places father first. We genreally fear father more so Torah places mother first. He is very close to mother from the day he is born. The function of mother and father differ. The first consideration of mother is the safety of the child. During pregnancy and lactation she protects the child. The child feels the mother is his protector. It almost becomes an obsession with the mother. Mother often protects the child when he should be protecting her and therefore she often fails to realize he is an adult. The father relationship is that of a teacher. Father wants the child to grow up as soon as possible, from a dependent infant to an independent adult. Also, to marry off the child is the duty of the father. The mother’s tendency is not to marry off the child. One of the duties is that of marrying off the child at the justified age as dilineated in Pirke Avoth chapter 5 - the "stages of life". Rivka was the mother and therefore what bothered her was the safety, the prime reason for sending him to Choron. The marrying role she left to Yitzchak as part of halacha. Therefore, she told Yitzchak a different reason than what she intended.
The beginning of Chaye Sora. Torah declares that her life was 100 years and 20 years and 7 years (instead of 127). The word "Shonah" - year is mentioned after each number. Rashi answers that the 100 should be understood differently than the 20 etc. "She was an innocent at 20 as she was at 7 and as beautiful at 100 as at 20. This is not important. The importance is waht Rashi really wants to impart to us.
Basically, 100 means old age. Twenty means an age of great capabilities and 7 is a child. The ages per se are biological conceptsof tissue groths. What is the difference of ages? Young age helps tissue grow; old age destroys tissue. These are the differences. Man does not die at one time but gradually -- tissue deterioration. Finality is complete death.
There is youth psychologically. It characterizes the human development as a spiritual revelation. What is the difference? "Bas Koof" - a woman (or man) -- 100 years old is old. We have two Bar Mitzvoth, age 13 and 20. Thirteen is the Bar Mitzvah of "Bes Din Shel Maale" - the heavenly court where acceptance of the Mitzvoth becomes binding. Thwenty is the bar mitzvah of physical development. The difference between biological and spiritual development is: "You cannot interrupt the tissues from growing or from dying. They are successive biological stages. Where you use it on the spiritual level, you find in some people that they can retain youth as advanced adults while others can be old while they are young. Quite often the restlessness of youth is experienced in old age. Some people are always restless. Sometimes the quietness of age was characteristic when he was young. Each age is marked by a central capability. The old man is quiet and introspective; the youth is energetic. Physically, a man should not try to be a youngster when he is old or should he be physically old when he is young. When we analyze the "mishna" of ages (Perek) we find the role: "Be, live, experience whichever stage of age you represent." Psychologically, sometimes you meet elderly in whom the child has not left. I believe a great person cannot lose his childhood. The greater man, the greater the child was. For instance, my grandfather Reb Chaim, I recall as an intellectual giant who revolutionized the entire process of teaching Talmud -- the philosophy of it. But he had the virtues, the sincerity, the naivety of a child. He was unable to tell an untruth. Einstein was the most naive person on the globe. He absolutely didn’t understand the subtelties of the Communists and consequently got mixed up in their activities without ever suspecting it when they desired to sue his name for their endeavors.
Interestingly is the relationship of G-d to the Covenental Community. Israel is described in the Rosh Hashonah liturgy as "Yeled Shashuim" -- the "beloved child" although we are very old, three and a half thousand years. We are described as a "baby with whom one plays." This is the ideal personality -- a profound mind, a ruthless mind on one hand. On the other hand, we are naive, devoted, very truthful. You have to be a child for that. If you ar a child, you are naive. It means psychologically you are old -- spiritually you are young. Be frail psychologically but have a strong character. What does 100 years and 20 years and 7 years mean? It means a man can live several lives. As a young girl, Sarah acted as an old person. She had unlimited knowledge of people and could sacrifice her life. At the same time, she was 20 or 7. Therefore, regarding some matters she was 100, regarding others she was 20, while others she was 7.
However, can it be explained "halachically"? You have to introduce proof. This what we say of Sarah, can it be proved of her?
Does her action, her spontaneous joy have a counterpart in Tanach? The answer is found in sedra Shemini’s Haftora. When David was able to move the Ark containing the tablets of the Decalogue, he was so joyful that he rejoiced iwth all his might and personally served bread and meat to all present. When G-d is gracious and bestows Chesed - loving kindness, a person has to thank G-d. If a man has been saved from disaster, there is a mitzvah to thank G-d. There is a difference, however, how a child displays thankfulness and how an adult expresses his gratitude. When a child feels gratitude he thanks G-d aloud. He doesn’t mask his feelings. He dances for joy and makes noisy performances, with kisses and adulation. "I’ll show it to my companions; they didn’t believe I’ll get it!" If things go wrong he cries.
What is an adult’s way of expressing gratitude? It is in a restrained manner. The eyes show waht the lips cannot pronounce. Sometimes, silence expresses what words cannot. A mature person should feel he is obligated to do something. G-d’s kindness generates new duties or aactions on the part of man. Should I act as an adult or as a child? Merely "benching Gaymal" is not enough. David’s wife Michal observed his actions through the window and reproved him for his "undignified" actions. And this was the cause of the controversy between them. David was happy as a child that G-d allowed the Ark to be brought into Jerusalem. He jumped for joy and was exalted. His first reaction was to jump, to dance, to mingle with the people. Michal’s reaction was different! Her opinion was that a person should always be a king, always held in great esteem and never abandon decor. David disagreed! She had contempt for him. What is the halacha, according to him or to her? She became a barren woman. Therefore, he was right -- she wrong. The halacha must be implemented according to the action of David! It must be impleented as a child.
The same halacha was implemented at the occasion known as "Simchas Bays Hoshoeva" or the ‘drawing of water’ on the second day of Succoth in the evening. It is said that he who didn’t experience the joy expressed on this occasion has never truly understood the meaning of joy. At this time, a small amount of water was drawn for the well of Siloom near the Temple Mount and was offered on the Mizbayach. The prayer or petition to G-d was: "We have drawn a small amount of water and offered it on the altar. Grace is with Your bountifulness and grant us a season o fproper rain so necessary for Israel’s economy."
On this occasion in the evening, the entertainers were the sages, the "Lamden" of Israel. They sang. They juggled. They played instruments. The audience conssited of the common people.
A man should rejoice when he performs a mitzvah. Whoever assesses himself too greatly because of the sense of dignity and refuses to participate reduces himself. Shlomo Hamelech says, "Don’t try to practice pride in the presence of the "King" - G-d. The halacha is K’Dovid. If you rejoice, rejoice as a child. In the morning, the Temple srevice already was organized and dignified.
Was Sarah as David or Michael? When Yitzchak was born, Sarah rejoiced. Was there a happier mother? She rejoiced by saying, "Tzchok Olo Li Hashem." This is the laughter of a child; she felt this was the law.
But didn’t she understand the importance of the event? When she saw the business of Ishmael misguiding Yitzchak, she understood the future of Jewish history better than Abraham. She was both a child and an adult. When the destiny of the Jewish nation was involved, she could be old! This is why the three stages of her life are written together as they are in scripture.
Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday night, December 1, 1979
There is a question: We know not more or less about the three "Ovos," the patriarchs, than what Torah tells us. Could you characterize each one? Each one was changed with his own mission, his own station in life. In the Tefilah (shmono esrei) it says, "Elokay Avrohom, Elokay Yitzchak, Elokay Yaakov". It could simply have said, "the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." However, each one did what the other did not. What was the task of each? Yaakov is unique in one regard, vis-a-vis Abraham and Yitzchak. His name ‘Yaakov’ or Yisroel and entity was passed on to the whole nation. It (the nation) is known as Yaakov or more commonly Yisroel. Often the nation is referred to as "Bnai Yaakov" or "Kehilas Yaakov".
What was the task of Abraham. Interestingly, G-d told Yitzchak (sedra Toldoth, Chapter 26, line 5) "I’ll do all I promised for the sake of your father (not for your sake)." In today’s sedra, Vayetze, chapter 28, line 13, we find already mentioned, "I am G-d of your father Abraham and the G-d of Isaac." Apparently, in the first sedra of Toldoth, immediately after G-d revealed Himself in a dream, Isaac did something. He built a "Mizbayach" an altar. It must be interpreted thusly: "G-d said to Isaac, ‘As long as you don’t teach as your father Abraham, do what he did. It will be for the sake of your father." Immediately, the next day he built the "mizbayach". It is interesting that the Torah here never speaks of bringing up a Korbon -- sacrifice except for the "Akedah of Yitzchak". Instead, the ‘mizbayach’ was the symbol of teaching. Therefore, Yitzchak was interested in teaching both the knowledge of his father and that of himself. He understood this very well! He built and began to teach not only the knowledge of Abraham but his own contributions. Therefore, the patriarchs become "Elokay Avrohom, Elokay Yitzchak, Elokay Yaakov." Each one was a separate entity; each taught his own contribution!
What did Abraham actually teach? He taught "chessed" - lovingkindness and "emunah" (faith) in Hakodosh Boruch Hu (the Alm-ghty). Abraham is known as the Knight of Faith -- "Ish Emunah" par excellance. It tells of his "Hachnosas Orchim" - kindness to strangers (the Angels), his intercession on the part of Sodom. The "Akedahs Yitzchak" is a whole entity of ‘Emunah’. In olden times of the Talmud, it was customary to feed "Avaylim" - mourners in the public squares, when there was no time, they used to make "Brochos" and each one spoke of the "chessed Avrohom" - the kindness of Abraham. The Jewish people are a unique people because of ‘gemilas chessed’. Without this attribute, they could not have survived. The history of Jews is chessed and Emunah -- kindness and faith. Every Jew knows that when he is in trouble, the whole antion will come to aid his suffering. Also, ‘Emunah’ is crucial as exemplified by our faith in the coming of meschiach - the messiah. Abraham not only performed it well but passed it on to his children.
What was Yitchak’s contribution? Yitzchak was simple - sacrifice. We are mistaken to say that the "Akedah" was only a test. When the liturgy speaks of the ashes on the altar, it is actually called "Afray Shel Yitzchak", the ashes of Yitzchak. When Abraham was told in the middle of the night to bring up Yitzchak as a burnt offering, Abraham did not sleep already. Instead, he considered Yitzchak already as the "ayleh" the offering. A true sacrifice on the altar took but a matter of minutes. Here, he planned it for the three days they spent traveling together to Mt. Moriah.
What was Jacob’s job? Actually, he was a combination of "chessed and gevurah" - kindness and strength. Jacob was the patriarch who was told by his parents, "Go into exile." The covenant with Abraham was "Eretz Yisroel". With Abraham there was a three sided partnership consisting of Avrohom, G-d and Eretz Yisroel. With Jacob there was no revelation, no "krisas bris" - sealing of a covenant - until he left his land to actually go to Choron. Only when he left and was on his way out did the promise come. What was the contrast between G-d’s promise to Abraham and the promise to Jacob? To Abraham, He promised "Eretz" - the land. To Jacob He promised, "It will never be taken away. He will hold it in trust for Jacob’s children." Jacob was apparently frightened here at leaving his land. "Maybe Esau will take over the land while I am away! Esau will take over the land for good and raise cattle." What is the promise? "I am the shomer - the guard! You go and I’ll be the guarantor." (The fact is that during the 22 years of Jacob’s abscence, Esau with all his men easily could have established themselves but they did not and when Jacob returned, they quietly moved off to the mountains of Seir.) Years later when Jacob was again confined at Beer Sheva on the way to Mitzraim, "Vayera Aylov Elokim B’maras Halayla". (Chapter 46, line 27 of Sedra Vayigash) G-d appeared to him in a dream at night. "Al Tiroh Yaakov" - do not fear, Jacob. You won’t lose the land. However, Jacob’s contribution was made "chutz l’oretz" - outside of the land. On both occasions, G-d comforted him with the promise, "Don’t be afraid; I’ll keep it for you!" Why "Bmaras Halayla" - in a vision at night? Night is tragic, fearsome - dark! "But don’t worry! It will happen though you don’t understand it with a human mind. In my mind it is confirmed. "Geulah" - redemption cannot come without ‘golus’ - diaspora. "I know your fear, your anxiety - but don’t worry! Your stay in Mitzraim will accelerate it."
Rambam says that Jacob was the only one to bear two names. For instance, one cannot call Abraham, Abram. It’s a violation of a command. Jacob, however, had two names. In today’s haftorah in one sentence we find both names, Yaakov and Yisroel. Rambam says that Jacob’s role always was a dual personality. Yisroel means ‘ruler, winner, conqueror!’ What is "Yaakov"? - he who holds onto his brother Esau! In Yiddish: "Er hot sick nach geschlept an sein bruder" - he dragged along behind his brother. This is the verse in the haftorah. Jacob was a fugitive in Aram. But despite his hardships, he also had a good time. Chazal says that he had a Bes Medrash in Choron and that his main purpose at Laban’s was not sheep tending. There he taught people and therefore Rashi says that he responded to his brother on the encounter when he returned home. "Im Lovon Gart" (I observed the 613 commandments.)
It is easy to preach in one’s native town. People will listen albeit not necessarily accept. However, in a strange town people turn away. Did he pass the test? Definitely! From haftora - "Vayivrach Yaakov" - Jacob came as a poor unknown to the fields of Aram. It is explained that Laban ran to Jacob because he knew he had a very rich sister. Jacob must have brought many riches, gifts, valuables. However, he was very disappointed. Disappointed he was but he let him stay one month (rent free). It was not pleasant; he had to swallow his pride and accept the hospitality of Laban. He had come as a poor boy. Had it been asked, "will he emerge victorious?", the answer would have been "obviously not!" But at the end of twenty years, he spoke not as "Yaakov" but as "Yisroel". Laban himself admitted, "you are protected by G-d," even though everyone predicted Jacob would lose to the crafty uncle. Jacob was called upon to prove that he can be "Yaakov" and "Yisroel" at the same time. Jacbo ahd to demonstrate that he can be strong not only in his land but in the other’s land. Who was Jacob’s collaborator in the mission? It was Joseph.
Why was there the tragedy of selling Joseph? It could have been that G-d merely told Jacob, "Go to Egypt." Why the entire episode? It was necessary because Joseph had to demonstrate the same thing. Both had to show that "Yehadus" - faith in religion, is possible to carry on "Chutz L’oretz" - outside the land of Israel. Rabbi Yochanon ben Zakai exemplified it. He showed that "Yehadus" is possible outside of his land by creating the Yeshiva at Yavneh after the destruction of the Temple and the subsequent expulsion by the Romans. We still sit on the ground on Tisha B’Av and tell of the ten martyrs. But the nation was not destroyed. The difference is however that Jacob had to take the test of poverty while Joseph experienced it in poverty and in great nobility. Quite often Jews are tested on both levels. In Europe, especially in my time, to be a Jew meant to be poor. There was no comparison between Jews of Europe and those of America. A wedding there was like beggars. Jacob spoke: "the heat of day and the cold of night didn’t take me from my job." Nevertheless, he continued the "mesorah" - the tradition by teaching his wives and his children.
It is strange but if you read the history of the Jews in the nineteenth century, in times of suffering the Jews found sources of heroism which he couldn’t find in normal times. We have found documents describing how the Jews survived in time of the crusades and we certainly know about the heroics of surviving the holocaust. It is ture that many Jews tripped and fell, were they German, French or British. But the nation survived. This is what G-d told Jacob. "Don’t worry, you’ll [does not continue]
Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday night, December 8, 1979
Tonight, we shall concern ourselves with a few problems of the sedra. We read today of the confrontation between Jacob and Esau. Of course, we have read of many confrontations, larger, stronger adn more cruel ones. There was the confrontation of Noah and the people of his generation at the flood, of Abraham and those who opposed him. There was the confrontation of Yitzchak and Abimelech. Always it was tension. Also, we ahd the earlier confrontation of Jacob and Esau. In general, the story of the patriarchs is tension and confrontation. Some tried to make peace -- others made it as hard as possible.
However, that which we read this morning, the confrontations between Jacob and Esau -- also Jacob and Shechem is unique and different in one regard -- that of regarding the final end or disposition of the struggle. The answer to this struggle we find in the last line of today’s haftorah from Ovadyohu. "V’olu Moshyim" - (And the saviours shall come up on Mount Zion to judge the Mount of Esau: And the kingdom shall be the L-rd’s). We find it also in the liturgy of Rosh Hashonah. It is the confrontation which will be terminated on one given day!
All the negotiations of Abraham and the rest were temporary. They met; it was resolved. Crisis and crisis came and was settled. Temporary! Here it is Jacob versus Esau. When will it stop? When th messianic age will come. There is something else which I could quote to support this. It is almost an eternal problem. Whether it is to be described physically or spiritually it will be a permanent confrontation.
It is strange that Jacob is ready to meet Esau the next morning. Esau is ready to fight. Why was it necessary that the night before a "mysterious figure" engaged Jacob in a struggle which lasted all night -- until day came. G-d wanted to teach Jacob a lesson: "Tomorrow morning you will emerge victorious as a gentleman. There will be no trace of animosity. But don’t make a mistake; there will be plenty of confrontations with strange and mysterious people during the long night of diaspora and it will be terminated when the ‘daylight’ will come in that eschatological era of the messiah." "Bayom Hahu - Hashem Echod U’shmo Echod." - On that day will G-d be recognized as One.
We are still engaged! The best ones do not understand us. We are told taht Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi under the Roman domination, whenver he went to see, to appeal to the governors of Rome, always studied this sedra to prepare for the confrontation. "It will be resolved but very late. Those confrontations of the early patriarchs were temporary. This is metaphysical."
What is the struggle actually about? It is a serious struggle! He (Esau) was convinced that he couldn’t destroy Jacob. But why is Esau so opposed? We must consider how the Torah describes the birth of Esau. It gives us an insight to the great portrayal of these two people, Jacob and Esau. It is not merely a descriptive picture because Torah is not concerned with objectiveal descriptions. Rather Torah tells us pertinent facts about these individuals who will be the forerunners of the world’s great forces. "The first one came ruddy, completed and covered with hair and his name was called Esau. The other was smooth! Whey they grew up, one was a hunter -- the other a dweller in tents."
The Torah describes their professions. The word "Admon" is not necessarily red but could be blonde. Although, it would appear that Esau actually was red. What does it mean that he came red and hairy? What does it have to do with Esau? Normally, at the age of 13 with the advent of puberty, hair appears and an individual’s status changes from minor to major. Here Esau was already grown up - a major at birth. Here, he looked like a mature person although just recently born. Jacob looked like a child. Therefore, the word Esev (Esau) is synonymous with the Hebrew word Oso - already complete. What are we told about Jacob? "Ohchezes B’aykav Aysov" - He was a child holding onto his mother’s apron. Esau was mature - completed. Esaus’ attitude was, "I am boss; no one can tell me what to do!" Psychologically, he was ready to play the part of the protector. Esau was an adult physically and mentally. Jacob was a child. Therefore, he (Esau) is described as "red" - the image of an adult.
Because of this difference, history records their parting of the ways. Also, the struggle in the night is the difference of two personalities, later reflected in the confrontation. What is the modern philosophy of all of this? What should a mother or father decalre on the day of birth? What should the child be? It is incumbent upon parents to see taht t child is educated. I believe the child should be "Esev" - Oso - complete. He should be an adult, should know and be capable of doing things. Basically, a man is born to do things but he should do it well. When a child is born, the father’s prayer should be, "the child should do things and do them well." Modern man wants expertise -- good performance. Whatever you do, whatever your work -- Do it well.
Evil as they were, the Nazis did things well in that they produced fliers who were expert. Their mistake was taht they underestimated America, believing that it could not produce just as well. It is the philosophy of Communism and Socialism. It is not only the economic theory but the theory of expertise. One should be very good or not at all. This applies to medicine, physics -- all fields.
This is the basic philosophy of "Esev" - "Ossu". Skill can be learned through the brain or through primitive means. The error is that for instance we say that so called inferior nations cannot operate skillful undertakings. It was said that Egypt would not be able to operate its giant dam because it is an inferior nation. But it is an error. For though even primitive, one learns to operate and to overcome. Also, success can be reached by scientific learning. This is the class of the scientist. In Russia, for instance, we have the superior and the inferior citizens. In Russia, the great scientists may receive as much recompense as the great politcos themselves because the government is overawed by the "Osso".
What is Jacob’ role? A lot of what Esau developed is certainly beneficial to us. We have, for example, the Mishna on Yom Kippur regarding the views of doctors as afffecting the status of a fasting Jew. If a person is ill or weak and a Jewish physician declares that the individual can safely fast while a gentile doctor rules that it will be injurious, we must accept the ruling of the gentile over the Jewish doctor. It is possible that the Jewish doctor is influenced by religion while overlooking the safty of the individual. When Yitcha discovered the fact that he ha dblessed the wrong one, he declared immediately, "V’gam Boruch Yiyhe" (May be definitely be blessed.) "Yes, let him have the power of ‘Osso’ too!" He could have rejected and refuted the brochos at once.
Our confrontation originally was Christian against Jew, not Muslim against Jew. The whole history of the Jewish-Muslim confrontation is Eretz Yisroel. Otherwise, there would be no confrontation. The only way to defeat them is with the "M’tal Hashamayim" the blessings intended for Esau. In order to exist, we need the same expertise, the same science, the same weaposn. So why did Yitzchak want to give it all way to Esau? He suddenly realized it and changed his mind. (Note: In a previous lecture on the subject, the Rav pointed out that Rivka’s prespicacity led Yitchak to realize that a Jew can be successful not only in the spiritual world but in the physical world too. Previously, Yitzchak felt that ‘L’olam Habah’ is for Esau’s seed. Rivka felt taht the Jew should be successful in both realms.) However, to Jacob he also gave the Birchas Avrohom. "No you have something which Esau doesn’t, it is Birchas Avrohom. Without this you will be no different than Esau. He (Esau) can never accept the Birkas Avrohom."
Be strong, be decisive, be also a hunter but never forget th Birkas Avrohom for the major principle of these blessing is to listen to Ethical Norms, which you may not understand. To be able to understand and advise people, you must have Avrohom’s principles. You must listen to the "masoreh" (traditional teachings) of those who came before you. How does the child learn? By listening! The "masoreh" of faith ‘Emunah’ is listening to the principles of Avrohom.
Had Jacob only recieved the "M’tal Hashamayim" and not Abraham’s blessings then he would ahve remained in Choron with Laban. Let us consider; he came to Choron completely bankrupt and made his fortune in the manner of Esau "Ossu" (complete). There he made his fortune. Why did he leave and go back to Eretz? Let’s fact it, only an idiot leaves a land where he is making a fortune. What was the magnetic pull that compelled him back to Eretz. After all, he had opulence, riches, prestige and society. Emmigration from a land is associated with a crisis. Here, there was no crisis! G-d told him to "go back" to his land because he had a commitment. "Vayifga Bamokom" - and he chanced upon the place. At this place where the Akedah occured and where the Temple was to be built, he felt a magnetic pull which didn’t let him go away. Therefore, "Bamokom" - at that place. Har Homoriah. What pulled him? At this place he felt he could not move further. He had a feeling of compulsion. "Vayifga Bamokom - Vayolen Shom" - There he stopped. Why should he stop? -- Just because my father was offered here as a sacrifice? The reason is that Jacob had a sensitivity for Kedusha - holiness.
For example, Abraaham entered at the Golan Heights from the north and kept on traveling southwards. He was a shepherd and the best part for cattle is the north where the vegetation is most copious. Yet he went south! Why? What pulled him? Rashi says, "because Yerushalayim is in the south." It was the same instinct as what pulls the bird to the south in the winter. There is the instinct which physically draws the bird to the place of sunlight and warmth. This is the instinct of Abraham which dragged him to the south. He discovered the reason, however, when G-d told him, "Take your son to the mountain." This is the Birkas Avrohom. The Jew is lonesome for Kedusha. What brings the Jews there now? Is it economic security? What pulls the Jew? What pulls the bird and what pulled Abraham? The will of G-d.
I often ask, "What is it that makes the dead want to go to Eretz? What is it? There is the story of Baron Edmund Rothschild who died in France during the war of independence and was buried in Paris. Later, when it was possible they decided to transfer the body to Israel and they came to ask permission. James Rothschild got a disturbed call from DeGaulle who asked, "What is a good Frenchman? -- One who lives in France and is buried in France. Now I see he was not a good Frenchman!"
Without the Birkas Avrohom not a single person would want to expose himself to the dangers of Eretz. From the viewpoint of "Osso" - a complete man, Esau was great, but from the viewpoint of Birkas Avrohom, he couldn’t understand. You have to have the ability to listen.
Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik at Talner Synagogue on Saturday evening, December 22, 1979, Eighth day of Chanukah. Talner Rebbetzen Memorial
Last year, I read a few lines and interpreted them from Hilchos Chanukah from Rambam. Tonight, I shall continue. That which I last discussed was the topic of "Lachatz" - they were oppressed. Now we find. "Hoshya Osom" - And G-d save dthe Jews from the hands of the Y’vonim. As consequence, the Kohanim killed those taht defiled the "Hachal" - the holy of the Temple. The plan of the Graeco Syrians was to destroy the entire nation and we must always bear in mind that anti-Semites always have a definite program. Their regimen is - what to do first - what to do next. However, their objectives are very important. Often, we learn a lot from our enemies. There is a time when there purpose is not to destroy necessarily but sometimes to great danger, when the "Goy" says "change your shoe laces," it is significant to the extent of the nation’s survival. Even today their object is the destruction of M’dinas Yisroel. Apparently, there is something which irritates them.
In Bais Sheni - the second Temple, the objective was "Orlah" - circumcision and the Bais Hamikdosh. Especially did they want to destroy the "Kodshe Kodeshim," the Holy of Holies where the Ark of Ten Commandments had rested. There were even spread false rumors about the obscurity of the "Kodshe Kodeshim". Then, if they had been successful the whole community would ahve disappeared because we were not ready for "Golus" - diaspora. In order to be able to survive in "Golus" we had to have the right conditions and these conditions were not ready at that time. This is what Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakai understood at the destruction of the second Temple by Rome when he appealed to Vespasian to allow the Yeshiva to be built at Yavneh. These were the conditions needed for survival. If the "Churban" - destruction had taken place now, 200 years earlier we would have vanished and perished.
They took all the material goods of the Temple and wanted to undermine sexual modesty. This is why three times the Torah tells us the episodes of Sarah and Rivka with Pharoah and the Avimelechs. If they had been violated despite the fact that it was not their fault, they would not have been the mothers of Israel. They would have been disqualified and wouldn’t have entered the halls of history. (The same would have applied to Joseph in his encounter with Potipher’s wife.) Thus, when the enemy entered the Temple, apparently they realized the difference between "Tohor" (clean) and "Toma" (unclean). "Is this Tohor or Toma?" If it was Tohor they touched it and automatically defiled it. They understood. Also, they physically damaged the Bais Hamikdosh. We are not so much afraid of physical damage as spiritual because we are told that even if the Temple is completely destroyed, the Kedusha - holiness - will not disappear.
And the Jews killed the Yevonim! G-d saved the persecuted from the hands of the persucutors. Rambam tells us that G-d had mercy on them and told the "Chashmonoyim" to defend themselves. This was the first act of victory on the part of the Jews - namely the inclination for defense (that which was impractical due the disparity of numbers.) The first victory was not terrestrial. It is taht there was a group called "Chashmonoyim" who had the courage and was determined that no matter how small was their number -- too small actually to declare war, they would take up weapons and attack. G-d inspired this courage and the battle was won before they started to fight. He saved them from the hands of the Yevonim before they even started to fight. How did G-d start it? - by inspiring them to go out and fight. The group was very small - around 800 - yet they had the courage. Nothing else is recorded except the mopping up.
There is something here in Rambam’s text which bothers us! It is hard to comprehend. Rambam uses the same expression concerning the people as which is used concerning G-d. "He saved them from their hands." This is an attribute which belongs exculsively to G-d and here we find it with people. It is troublesome!
At "Kriya Yam Suf" the crossing of the Red Sea, Moshe didn’t take credit for himself. There it is credited solely to Hashem. Of course, they were inspired and encouraged by G-d but it is unjustified to ascribe it to people. At the "milchemes Amalek" the fight with Amalek in the desert we find, "the initiative is ours. G-d will finish it but you must start it." There we find no unusual help. "Bochur Anoshim" - chase men - I’ll just help. Yet in Egypt we find (sedra Bo) "Ani V’lo Maloch" - (I and not an angel will declare war.) "You just recite the Hallel - I’ll fight!" Here at Chanukah apparently G-d desired that the salvation should be named after "Bosor V’dom" - mortal beings.
In my crierion, the difference is: "What is the enemy out to accomplish? If it is physical destruction then G-d will do the entire job. If it is spiritual then the Jew must undertake action. With Amalek, "You have to be active Moshe! I’ll just accept your prayer! Also, here iwth the Chashmonoyim it was spiritual. Many Jew were actually with the Greeks -- accepting the Greek culture and morality. This is why the "Yeshua" the salvation, is named after the Jews. They must fight and G-d will complete. Therefore the attribute of G-d is ascribed to the people. "You will win and it will be your victory." In the "Al Hanisim" prayer which we recite on Chanukah, the action is well defined. "Ravto Es Rivom, etc." - weak against strong. Apparently, the weak had to fight against the strong. "Al Hanisim" describes war between two factions. It is well described: "You gave over the strong into the hands of weak, many in the hands of few, impure in the hands of pure, wicked into the hands of righteous!" The minority which was not expected to win, did win. It is well portrayed, almost in detail.
In Purim, it is different. Esther and Mordecai are not even mentioned save for the fact that it occured in their time. Chanukah was a war for unique spirituality. In such a war, the Jew must participate and this is exactly what G-d wanted them to do. In Purim, the enemy wanted to destroy every Jew. Therefore, at Purim, G-d did it all. Although, Esther did endanger her life, G-d would have done it without them. There it is all G-d’s victory and consequently Al Hanisim is very short.
Maimonides cannot get over that the Kohanim were involved. Israel became again an independent sovereignty. Why does Rambam tells us this? Wy does he tell us that it was 200 years removed from the churban? Of course, we ahve already mentioned that Israel was not ready for the Churban and subsequent Golus. Actually, during the years of the second Temple there were many fasts and many feasts which are not even recorded. There were attacks by nations precipitating fasts and victories resulting in feasts. But with the advent of the Churban, these were suspended. These victories made little difference to our history. The two great exceptions are Chanukah and Purim. These are just as important now as then! Why? Because if not for Chanukah and Purim, we couldn’t have survived the destruction. We have survived persecution, torture, suffering and are still a religious identity. The fact that we have survived 1900 years is due to these two holidays. I’m certain many people ask, "How did we do it?" To be in "golus" adn not lose identity is a tremendous art. "Your desert of the golus is beautiful having been able to survive even Hitler." At that time, when I rode on trains and planes people asked me, "Do you still resist Christianity?" The answer is that we survived because of Chanukah and Purim. The Jew is not only a good warrior but can survive "Golus". It is due to the Chashmonoyim. We have developed a personality which is resistant to pain and torture thanks to Torah Sh’Bal Peh - the Oral Law. If not, the Churban would have destroyed all. Thus, Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakai was able to tell Vespasion, "You will not succeed in destroying the Jews!"
The Kohanim were the fighters, the revolutionaries and after they won the war they were awarded the kingship. Rambam mentions it twice taht it was a miracle that Kohanim became kings. In my opinion, it is that in every age the enemy tries to destroy a specific object. The great hate was the "Mizbayach", the altar, because it was expensive to maintain and the Kohan was the one to protect it because only he had access. Especially as a king was he able to do so effectively. That the Kohan should observe the laws is prescribed by Torah. Thus, all considered the Kohan was hated and tried to be obliterated. It is indeed a miracle that the Kehunah should be preserved for 2200 years hence. I am often asked if a minor should Duchan and I am for it. I am also against asking a Kohan to leave the room when there are only 3 aliyahs available and it is wished to be distributed to others. We are a people composed of 3 groups and the Melech HaKohanim - the king who was Kohan preserved the Kehunah. The Besdin - the high court of that time, not only sanctioned the priestly king but it is greatly praised by Talmud and they formulated many great laws.
Basically, of course, the kingdom is only from the Davidic house but occasionally they deviated and chose from the priests. It is not against the law. It can be from a descendant of any tribe if necessary. Ramban (Nachmanides) says no -- that a king cannot be from Kohanim (as detailed in a lecture by Rabbi Soloveitchik on a previous year) but Rambam (Maimonides) allows it. Thus, G-d allowed that His crown be bestowed on humans and that the victoyr be ascribed to them. The very day taht the "Chashmonoyim" drove out the Yevonim, they walked into the Bais Hamikdosh to appraise the damage and to begin the rededication.
Therefore, the scholars of that generation declared that the candles be lit on the 25th of the month Kislev - every evening near the door and called the holiday Chanukah.
Maimonides started with the night - lighting the candles near the doors of the houses. There are two mitzvas! In the morning, we say Hallel, in the evening, we have "Madlikas Haner" - the lighting of candles. The object of lighting of candles is "Pirsuma Hanes" - publicizing the miracle and is, therefore, useless to light a candle at noon. But basically it is one mitzvah and the publicizing can be implemented in two ways - Hallel and Candle. It is implemented by speech (the Hallel) and sight - the candle. If someone says that he does one and not hte other, then the mitzvah is incomplete. It is not two separate entities.
Rambam speaks exclusively of Hallel on Chanukah. Why not on the other holiday (Purim)? Because other holidays have other Mitzvos while Chanukah is exclusively Hallel during day and lights at night. It is one. Both aspects represent the same thing - Pirsuma Hanes.
It should like to ask the following! I would like to say that public means in a public square rather than at "one’s door". It is a different motif. Why did the sages ordain to light the candles at the door? Gemora Shabbos declares that as one enters the door the mezuzah should be on the right and the candles on the left. Apparently, the door has importance. The lamp should be outside. Now it is different. It is directed to people inside. What is the difference - left or right - mezuzah and lamp? What is the logic? It is almost as leaning to the right or the left hand side when eating matzoh at the seder.
There is a common demoniator between mezuzah and Chanukah! What is the common motif? It is the nature of the mitzvah! There is a group of mitzvoth called, "Mitzvah Sh’Begufa", meaning - those mitzvos which man himself must do personally. Wearing Tzitzis, pulling on Tefilin, sitting in a succah -- I cannot send someone to do it for me. I must do it myself. But hte mitzvos "Lo Begufa" is not necessarily obligatory on me personally. For instance, "Biur Chometz" - the burning of the Chometz prior to Pesach. I must see that Chometz is destroyed but who does it is not important. The same is "milah" - circumcision. Torah says a father shall circumcize hsi son but most fathers don’t do it themselves. Each Bais (home) is "mechuyav" - obligated to have mezuzos. Is my hand required to affix it? No, but I must see that it should be done!
If I live in a house it must have a mezuzah but am I obligated. No, someone else can do it. Yet Torah says, "You shall affix a mezuzah." It means I shall see that it is there! If the candle is lit by anyone who is qualified than I am "Yetzeh" - have fulfilled my duty. It is my duty to see that every night it is done during chanukah and a mezuzah all year on a dwelling. The "Kiyum" - fulfillment is anyone as long as it is done eight days. The same is mezuzah. I am "mechuyav" - obligated; I must see that while I am there it is equipped with both. This is the common denominator between mitzvos mezuzah and mitzvos chanukah. Thsoe that established chanukah extended the mitzvah of mezuzah. Thus, the house msut be decorated with mezuzah all year around and lights for 8 days. Therefore, they are placed opposite each other. They are surrounded and encircled! I don’t know if the mezuzah is missing if the cnadle should be there.
The expression for mezuzah is the same as for Naros - the lights. It should be very precious! The same applies to Tefilin. It is a common denominator. It reminds man of G-d and elevates man to greater heights. He will think only of truth and justice. Whenever he enters the mezuzah becomes visible and the same is true with Chanukah. Man should rise higher and higher spiritually! It is one mitzvah. What should my thought be when I open the door and see the mezuzah? "Yichud Hashem" - the Oneness of G-d. How do I react to the lights of Chanukah? Likewise - "Yichud Hashem". Therefore, when I see it I am reminded of G-d’s unity and G-d’s providence. Therefore, Ner Chanukah must be in proximity to the mezuzah!
Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday night, December 29, 1979
Thoday’s sedra involves the story of Joseph. Interestingly is the coincidence of Vayigash and the fast of 10 days in Teveth. It is not always together such as this year but, of course, always comes after Chanukah. One thing is obvious; it is not only the story of brothers becoming estranged and then reunited, a story of humaness, but it is the story of the Jewish people. If it were merely the tragedy of a private family, the Torah would not have told it to us. Torah does not engage in private incidents but that which affects the entire community. But htis has universal significances for it represent th human destiny.
Today’s haftorah is indicative of it. The story reflects our destiny. The haftorah involves the split between Joseph and Yehuda (the ten tribes represented by Menashe and the kingdom of David) and the nation later was not united. The union will occur at the messianic era. The beginning of the catastrophe of the Bais Rishon - this tragedy is the result of the selling of Joseph. "Mechiras Yosef" is responsible for the Churban (one of the chief reasons for the fall of the first Temple was unwarranted dissension amongst the people). When will the people be liberated and redeemed? When Joseph and Yehuda will be reunited. When they will join, the nation will not be split anymore. Therefore, it is the story of salvation - Geulah. The split is equal to Churban - destruction. The Churban of Bais Rishon was the result of the split between Joseph and Yehuda and the healing will come when they unite. Also, this is the story of T’shuvah - repentance. It is the story of Yom Kippur, promotion of sympathy and love. Medrash speaks of messianic redemption when one Jew will rediscover his fellow Jew, his brother. Thus, sedra Vayigash has a message of geulah and T’shuvah.
Joseph was forced by inner compulsion to reveal himself. The perplexing question is: "What did Yehuda tell him that he didn’t already know?" What motivated him to reveal himself? Basically, he told him nothing new, nothing so startling. "You asked us, do we have a father or brother! He replied that we do, that he cannot leave his father for father will die if he does. I, Yehuda, am his surety. Let me remain in his place, etc.!" Sometimes, you are moved dramatically by the sudden discovery of something you didn’t know before. But here there is nothing new, nothing sensational.
I believe there is something here not explicit but between the lines. He discovered that he must give in because he’ll lose anyway. There is something in the wording which disturbs. It should have said, "Vayigash Yehuda El Yosef" - Yehuda approached unto Joseph. It is a new parsha! Here we have "Aylov". Who is the Aylov - the pronoun? Aylov is used to emphasize. I would place the emphasis on the word Aylov. Otherwise, it would read as before. "Vayigash Yehuda El Yosef." It means: "Yehuda approached the ‘strange’ Joseph, the man he couldn’t understand."
Previously, when they spoke to their father, they called Joseph, "Ish" the man - the Adonai Ha’aretz - the master of the land. The Adonai Ha’aretz is one whom you will not be able to reverse. He is the head; he is irreversible. Sometimes, the expression "Ish Avodoso" means an individual person - each individual. Here, the word Ish means a strange person - not understandable. Why is he strange? Because we don’t understand him or his motives. We find the same mysterious Ish in sedra Vayeshev. When Joseph was sent by his father to visit the brothers, there is no need to tell us all the details. It could simply tell us that he went to Dosan where they were. Why all the details that he went from Amek Chevron - the Vale of Chevron to Shechem where he couldn’t find them. He is the mysterious man - the Ish who told him that they had moved on. Rashi, in fact, questions "the Vale of Chevron" for Chevron is not located in a vale but on a mountain side. However, it means "conspiracy" involving G-d - to ultimately bring Joseph to Egypt and this could only be effected by selling of Joseph. We are told that the mysterious Ish was the Angel Gavriel. Why was this "man" at all interested? Why was he curious? All the assembled details give us a strange insight. G-d was interested. It is an enigma from above and unexplained.
The same thing was here. Hundreds, perhaps thousands came to buy corn and no one was interrogated, accused, arrested. Here, they are accused of spying. All the details which the "Mitzri" wanted to know -- it was irrational. It is basically the same "Ish", the mysterious figure. However, Yehuda began to feel that there is more to the whimsical Mitzri. When Joseph spoke with them and accused them of spying, it smelled of the "Stalinist trials". They could not infer any conclusions.
The next time they met the Ish was when they returned with Benjamin at Joseph’s home. When you compare, it is a startlingly different confrontation. "Wash you hands and feet. You will have a meal with the master." There were all the niceties. The first meeting was only accusations of spying. Often, we do find at a trial:: "If you admit your guilt, the penalty will be less." Here we find "G-d be gracious to you my son; they rejoiced, etc." Nothing is mentioned of "Miraglim" - spies. He was a most gracious host! They didn’t understand the Ish the first time, nor could they fathom him this time. It is a completely different person, a different change. Here, they suddenly are "old friends" in his own home. It is an intimate relationship which they couldn’t understand.
The first one who began to doubt even though he didn’t formulate an opinion was Yehuda. This was now in today’s sedra - at the new accusation of the stealing of the chalice. It was simply a psychiatric case! Apparently, Yehuda noticed this even at Joseph’s home. They thought the problem was resolved but now came a third episode. "Open the sacks." We find complete reversals: Accusations - gracious host, then again not Miraglim - but thieves! Yehuda became suspicious because this was not Egyptian justice. "Far be it from me to do such a thing; the person in whose sack the goblet was found shall be a slave to me and you on in peace to your father."
Here was not merely petty thievery. Here is cultic stealing, the art of a magician. It would have meant death. In antiquity, there was always guilt by association. All would ahve deserved teh penalty. Yehuda reasoned, "This is not an Egyptian official." The problem became more and more complex.
Why does Torah tell us taht they were returned to Joseph’s house and he was still there waiting for them. They were expected to be killed, not engaged in arguments. They expected a wild irate Egyptian pagan. They found him not angry but just as composed as he was twelve hours ago. The friendship which Joseph radiated before did not change.
Vayigash Aylov Yehuda. To this strange person, full of contradiction - Vayigash Aylov. "Bi Adoni, Yadabar B’OZncho Dovor." - Let me speak a word to your ear. "Let us stop talking nonsense. Your behavioral pattern is not logical. Let us speak sense, that which will penetrate you." What did Yehuda tell Joseph? "I’ll convince you that your policy is wrong! You’ll lose anyway so do it graciously." What did he prove that Joseph couldn’t resist? Joseph wanted Jacob his father to come to Mitzraim. Joseph had two dreams. The first was of eleven sheaves bowing to his sheave. The second dream was the sun and moon and eleven stars bowing to his star. The first dream declared that the brethren will bow which they did (therefore, it was necessary for Benjamin to come to be amongst the eleven brothers). The second dream was bolder, almost impudent. He wanted the father to come an dbow in order to implement the second dream. The first one came exactly. But he wanted to see the second. However the answer was "Yaakov will not come to bow!" Medrash declares that if the second dream will not come about he will not achieve malchus (kingship). "Malchus" was taken from Reuven - the first born but who will be the "Melech"? Joseph realized that he will achieve "malchus" only if Jacob will come and bow at least once (which he would as a courtesy to an "unknown" head of state). However, there is no way to make Yaakov come! The first dream was fulfilled to the highest degree but malchus leading to the messianic realization of all human hopes will not be for Joseph! It was a perfect scheme. Bring Benjamin! If Benjamin is detained. Jacob will be forced to come. He will not know that Joseph is his son and will bow. There is only one person who can make Jacob move -- Benjamin. Yehuda says, "You want father here! He’ll never come. He’ll die first! It is not that Joseph was touched by Yehuda’s devotion but he saw the battle is lost. Immediately, he declares, "I am your brother Joseph."
Interestingly, right after the "mechiras Yosef" - the selling of Joseph, Torah tells us the story of Tamar. Why then? Because the story of Yehuda emerges. This story is the clue as to why Malchus Yehuda and not Malchus Yosef. The answer can be found thus. David is the typical representative of T’shuvah - repentance. We find a posek "I was incubated in the womb of my mother in sin." There are two types of great men! One type of man is just because by nature he is just. He is kind because it is impossible for him not to be kind. He gives "zdakah" because he cannot do otherwise. There is no battle with evil. This is Joseph. He is called (above all his brothers). Yosef Hatzadik - Joseph, the righteous. This is illustrated in the Torah by his relationship with th wife of Potiphar. David was great but he had to change himself. He had to atone for temptation. An illustration of Joseph is that it never occured to him to take revenge against his brothers for his long years of imprisonment. "Let them taste what I tasted - slavery." It is not simply that he didn’t want to do it; he was not addicted to it by nature."
David has to say "Vidu" to confess, to defeat destructive forces. To whom does the "meluchah" belong? To David! The reason is that the "melech" should realize how difficult it is to fight nature and that T’shuvah should be of prime importance. When was the decision reached? On the day that Joseph was sold. Yehuda had committed the biggest crime. Why that very day? Because Yehuda had sinned against the very principles of malchus but he had great potential. He had the weakness of tripping but he had the ability to rise.
We find in sedra V’ychee in the blessings of Jacob concerning Yehuda: "Even when he falls he retains the strength of a lion." How did he redeem himself? By two actions. First, he rose to greatness at the trial of Tamar and secondly, a poor Hebrew stood his ground against a king of Egypt. He saved Tamar’s life and it was a tremendous effort to save a poor girl’s life for if he so desired, he could have remained silent, saved himself from shame and no one would ahve cared if she were executed. From this test, he emerged with flying colors. "In this matter, she is more righteous than I for I denied to her Shaloh as I had promised!" Secondly, was his contest with Joseph, the unknown brother. "You have lost the battle anyway!"
What was Yehuda’s "Chet" - sin? It was not so much to sell his brother into slavery but to agree to the desires of the majority, wrong as it was. He didn’t exercise leadership. If he said, "What right do you have to sell a brother," they would have listened. Instead, he agreed to the majority. For this he had to redeem himself in two experiences. He knew that by admitting to Tamar, he’d lose his leadership and yet he did. Secondly, "Hashgocha" - providence - wanted him to have the courage to disagree with the Melech Mitzraim. Therefore, when Jacbo came to Mitzraim, he sent ahead Yehuda. The reason was becasue he was a leader.
Chazal says everyone was busy at that moment. G-d was involved in weaving the mantle of the personality of Melech Hamoshiach. Reuven was repenting of his sin about Bilah. No one protested Joseph. But "Mechiras Yosef" left its mark on Jewish history.
Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday night, january 5, 1980
Tonight, I shall answer two or three questions and then discuss a topic of today’s sedra. We finished Bereshis and start Shmos! What is the basic difference between these two books of the Torah? Basically, Bereshis contains a story of a clan, a family. It begins with an individual -- one, two or three people, but merely a clan. "Shevim Nefesh" - seventy people are merely individuals. Shmos is the story of a nation. In the very beginning, it says that Pharaoh declared, "Am B’nai Yisroel Rav". Thus, Israel is referred to as "Am" - a nation. You couldn’t call the house of Abraham a nation. A few individuals cannot be called a nation. To belong to a clan or to an "Am" - a nation - is a different experience. If there is a clan, it is based on a genetic code, on family blood. This is called, "Ish U’vayso" - a man and his family. "Am" - nation - is already not natural but existential. In "Am," we exist together. How does this togetherness express itself? -- In caring for my fellow members of the "Am". I share his pain! When we say "Rav Votzum" (many and strong). What did Pharaoh want to express? "They care for each other! They relate experiences of "chessed" - kindness. They are not just concerned about themselves! Also, particularly when you say "Goy" it means special lifestyle. "Goy" is G’viah - a countenance, a physiognomy! We have one lifestyle, certain characteristic traits - a sense of "chessed" for each other - suffering and helping each other. Where did this materialize? It happened in "Mitzraim".
Bal Hagodah says, "Hoyoh Shom Mitzyonim". There they became distinct. This "something in common" separated them from the rest of the people of Mitzraim. You gave "dinim" - laws to a nation, not to individuals; to "Am" or "Goy" - not to "Ish U’vayso". The Law is addressed to a people. So, Shmos is the story of a people while Bereshis is the story of a clan. It starts with a clan and branches into a special spiritual entity - "Am" or "Goy"!
Point II: There is a common denomination in today’s sedra (the death of Jacob) and in the sedra of Chai Sora (the death of Sarah) -- also in the respective haftorahs. (In the haftorah of Chai Sora, we find that David chooses a successor to the kingdom (Solomon) and in today’s David gives a charge to Solomon just before he (David) dies. What is common to both sedras and the two haftorahs? It is the "massoreh" - the passing on, the tradition or teaching. In the sedra of Chai Sora, we find that the succession, the handing over of the reins of Abraham was contested. The succession was opposed. "Ishmael M’tzachayk." Ishmael ridiculed and made fun of Isaac. In the haftorah of that sedra, we find that Adoniyohu - Solomon’s half-brother, did not recognize Shlomo and appointed himself a successor. It is not a problem of thousands of years ago but even of today. "Are we G-d’s people, chosen by G-d to whom promises were made?" The Christains say no! Who is the successor of Abraham - Yitzchak or Ishmael? Whom did the prophet Isaiah promise - to those who call themselves Jew or those of Christianity or any other people? Basically, the problem of succession arises in sedra "Vayera" when Hashem Pokod Es Soro - G-d remembered Sarah (and blessed her with a son). In Chai Soro, the entire problem is -- whom shall Yitzchak marry? Intuitively, you feel that this is the main problem which Abraham felt before he was able to turn leadership over to Yitzchak.
What do we have here in today’s sedra V’ychee? What is the story here? We ahve the blessings of Ephraim and Menashe, then the children gathered around Jacob’s bed, the burial, etc. But what is the main theme? The main motif is that there is not just Yisroel but that we exist as Knesseth Yisroel. Our existence is not a monotonous one. Ours is formed of many individuals; each is unique, distinct, excels in a certain area. Each "shevet" - tribe contains a unique spiritual ability, together comprising 12 such unique abilities. Yehuda has "gevurah" strength, Naftali - swiftness (not physical perhaps). Shimon and Levi even though criticized are not eliminated but distributed. The Knesseth Yisroel is unity. "Coincidentia opposorum." Yehuda’s mission was to implement a certain idea which was impossible to be done by Naftali, etc. (To arise as a lion). Joseph is symbolized as a beautiful branch. The whole idea of Knesseth is a nation composed of "oppositorium". Before a clan becomes a nation, we must determine that they can carry their various attributes. It is not a nation of monotony. Moshe, like Jacob, did the same on the last day of his life. "I don’t leave a simple nation; you are an accumulation or assembly of many books. Together you’ll be a great nation.
What is the idea of the haftora from sedra Vaychee? What is the central motif? Koheles and Shir Hashirim are both by Shlomo. In Koheles, we find conflicting sentences but Chazal says that it is no reason for excluding it from the Hagiographia because the p’sukim from Shir Hashirim reconciles them. For example, does Yehadus believe in the concept of private property? Some say the concept is cruel. Some say it is pagan to have private property while others support it. It is thesis and anti-thesis. The part of the Jew is to reconcile. It might be cruel or might be very lofty. This is the job of halacha. For the first time, the Torah speaks not of an individual but a nation. This is Shlomo; he personifies it. He reconciled that which was irreconcilable. There is always a third posek which reconciles the first two. This is Shlomo!
Point III Why did Joseph recieve a double portion in today’s sedra (Ephraim and Menashe)? Where is the justice? The reason is because Joseph was the first one to come to Egypt and was there longer in "golus" - the diaspora. The longer he was in golus, the more difficult it was for him. He was completely alone with no one to talk with. The others who came later had people to talk with to mitigate their loneliness. Therefore, Jacob declared at the blessing to Ephraim and Menashe, "Those born before I came here have an extra share!" Why? They were in "golus" longer and it was more severe. Those who may be born after my arrival will not have an extra share because the "golus" expereince will not be as severe, cruel and excrutiating for the entire household as for Joseph and his two sons.
In today’s haftora, what was David’s will which he turned over to Shlomo, particularly Yoav? (Briefly: And you know what Yoav, the son Zrua did to me, which he did to the two generals of Israel, Avner, the son of Ner and to Amasah, the son of Yeser, when he killed them in the time of peace. Therefore, execute according to your wisdom and do not let them come to their graves in old age.)
Yoav was devoted to David heart and soul. Yet David leeft instructions to kill Yoav. He did not mention that Yoav killed Absalom. David’s renegade son, but that he killed two generals. David showed one thing, that murder cannot be excused even if he was the greatest person and the greatest general. Why did Yoav do this? He did it because he wanted to protect David. He didn’t trust the peopled. He felt that whomever is a friend of Saul cannot be a friend of David. Nevertheless, though it was extenuating circumstances, murder could not be condoned. He didn’t tell him to kill Yoav but merely to put him on trial. If it weren’t for Yoav, David would not be where he was. Still, it was no excuse. "Don’t let him to to the "sheol" - hoary head to the grave - doesn’t mean kill. He must be judged. Where is David’s beautiful desire to build the Temple described? We find it it Psalm 132 of Tehilim. "Surely, I will not come into the tent of my house, nor go up into the bed that is spread for me. I will not give sleep to mine eyes nor slumber to mine eyelids until I find out a place for the L-rd, a dwelling place fort he Mighty One of Jacob." He searched a place for the Bais Hamikdosh. He left to Solomon the place, the money and all the requisites. All was ready. All Shlomo had to do was bring the workers. However, G-d said "No, you spilled a lot of blood." David thought by saving Yoav, he would succeed in building. He tried again and again which is reminiscent of the many times Moshe asked to be allowed to cross the Jordan. Thus, by not executing Yoav he hoped that G-d would forgive for he didn’t want to be called a spiller of blood.
Strange is the blessing to Reuven which is described: "My might and the first fruits of my strength, etc." Another passage which is very strange is that which occurs directly after Rache’s death in chapter 35, sentence 22 of Vayishlach, that of Reuven disarranging the couch of Jacob. Rashi explains that after Rachel’s death, Reuven was hurt because his father moved his couch to the tent of Bilhah rather tahn to Leah’s tent. Since Benjamin was an infant and Bilhah was the maidservant, Jacob rationalized taht she would take care of the baby. Reuven, however, was angry saying, "If my mother’s sister was a rival to my mother, shall also the maidservant be a rival?" Therefore, he disarranged the bed. The posek speaks of defiling the couch of Jacob. Torah speaks in a language as though he actually sinned and defiled Jacob’s bed. However, if it were not for here in the brochos it actually shouldn’t have been recorded in the Torah altogether. Reuven is also mentioned in Torah that he found mandrakes or flowers in the field and brought them to his mother. And also he is mentioned at the selling of Joseph where he saved Joseph’s life from death and instead threw him into the pit. So together, Reuven is mentioned four times but they all tell an identical story.
Reuven was absent at the actual selling. Rashi declares taht he had gone to do "T’shuvah". If he were there, they wouldn’t have sold Hoseph because they would have listened to him. He was not with them because he was occupied in fasting and wearing sack cloth for defiling his father’s bed.
Reuven was the guilty person but why then? Why just at that time should he have chosen to do T’shuvah after so many years following the incident? Reuven was a very sensitive person. He was very loyal and devoted to his mother Leah. Also, he possessed unusual powers of observation and knew that his mother suffers greatly. People are unjust and unfair to her. Often, the father is unfair and unjust to mother. Now, when a child observes a mother suffering, what is his first impulse to do. He will take an object, no matter how insignificant and bring it to his mother. "Here Ma, it is for you! I love you! Therefore, we have the incident of the "Dudoyim" -- the mandrakes. He found a flower he liked, brought it to mother as a sign that he shared her pain and her sorrow. Without using words, he expressed his love and loyalty. This is all the Torah tells us. Many years later, Rachel was still the hostess and Leah was still unhappy. Reuven saw his mother’s plight and still mourned for her.
Finally, Rachel died. Rachel’s death was a great blow to Jacob. How do we know this? Many years later when Jacob was very old and close to death, he still thought of her; she still occupied his mind. In sedra Vaychee, when Joseph brings his sons Ephraim and Menashe for blessing, Jacob speaks, "As for me, when I was coming from Padan, Rachel died on me!" The pain was exrutiating. "I simply didn’t know what to do!" In time of death, people cannot put up resistance as is exemplified by the racket of modern funerals where people are talked into everything. "Don’t ask me why I buried her there. I lost all my composure. Therefore, regarding me, I ask you to do differently. Therefore, he made him swear!
Reuven also mourned his aunt but waht he expected didn’t materialize. "Now mother will become the "Acheres Habais" - the position of ‘first lady’. People will not smile behind her back anymore. People will not say anymore, "She is the ugly Leah!" However, what he didn’t expect did happen. Jacbo moved the bed to Bilhah’s tent. All Reuven did was to move the furniture to his mother’s house. This was Reuven’s protest! Reuven declared, "Mother is humiliated for no reason." Was this an evil? Torah did see the harm! "You did disturb my couch! You humiliated me! (declares Jacob)"
Immediately, after this incident, it (scripture) says that Jacob had twelve sons and they are named. Why then? None was excluded; none was expelled. All are included in Knesseth Yisroel. "Kulom Tzadikim" -- all are righteous. On one hand, Torah says "desecrated," on the other, it says "don’t condemn" - status has not changed. Reuven did it because he thought it was "Kibbud Aym" - honoring mother. And yet despite Reuven’s lofty ideal, Toarh employs the word "shochav" - (he lay) in describing his sin. It is a serious mistake as far as consequences are concerned. It is as bad as if incest had been committed. On one hand -- a serious error -- on the other hand, "he remained a pillar".
When did he recognize the mistake? At "mechiras Yosef" - Joseph’s selling. If not for the sinful act "mechiras" would never had occured. The brothers revered Jacob their father! They loved him, they never questioned him. There would have been no dissension. They would never have dissented the coat of colors. They might not have understood but never hated. They would never have thought of killing! Murder our own brother? What caused it? It was Reuven’s public action! Although he wanted to defend his mother and did it out of kindness, yet he destroyed Jacob’s central position in the house. That brought about rebellion and that precipitated the possibility to think of "R’tzicha - murder". At this moment, Reuven recognized the fruit of his action and he took off his clothes, donned sack cloth and engaged in penitential prayer.
What did Jacob criticize? "There is something in his personality which is not in accordance with that which was destined for him. His destiny was supposed to be "K’hunah and Malchus" -- the priesthood and the kingdom. Jacob criticized the haste and the wrong decision in time of crises. If he had thought it out, he’d have reached a logical conclusion. Instead, he failed in a moment of decision. Therefore, in the blessing "Pachas Kamayim" - unstable as water. Just as spilled water rushes every which where, so was Reuven’s action. He was illogical and irrational in decision. Gemorah declares him as saying, "the maid of my mother will be the hostess?" Therefore, "Al Tosar" - you cannot be above your brethren. I expected you to be excellent in power (kingdom) and dignity (priesthood). You disappointed! You are not fit for it. You cannot be leader! Leader must be strong in situations which defy human dignity. Therefore, "Al Tosar". Here we understand something enigmatic. Reuven sinned and Judah sinned. You cannot compare the two (Judah’s was more serious regarding Tamar and wanting to sell his brother.) Yet, for Reuven there is rebuke and removal of leadership while for Yehuda there is the highest praise of the first order.
To Yehuda he granted what didn’t seem to belong to him -- Kingship. Why? What did Yehuda show? In fact, Moshe before his death had to fortify the tribe of Reuven by declaring, "Y’chi Reuven" - May Reuven live. Reuven could lay out a plan of battle but couldn’t react in danger when attacked by the enemy. Therefore, Moshe asked G-d, "protect him."
However, when a clandestine enemy attacked Yehuda, he was excellent as exemplified by his stance against the "Viceroy of Egypt" who’d detain his brother Benjamin. He was excellent! His courage increased! Therefore, "malchus" kingship was turned over to Yehuda and removed from Reuven!
Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday night, January 12, 1989
We raised the question about the second book of the Torah last week but not about the name of the book. Most authorities called it "Sifra D’Hafkona" - Exodus. Others called it by a strange name, merely "sefer sheni" - the "second book". This is no so with the other books such as three, four or five (they have specific names as will be shown). Still however this is not universal for as example Ulla did not accept. Also, Rambam (Nachmanides) calls it "Sefer Hageulah" the book of redemption. Apparently, there is something important to "Sheni". We will accept it as "shmos" which literally means ‘names’. The names of Chumoshim can be selected merely by accepting the first word (of importance - we naturally wouldn’t use the word V’ayla).
The only question is while regards to other Chumoshim we have other names. Vayikra is Sefer Kohanim - the book of the priests. However, Shmos doesn’t work that way. For instance, Bamidbar is not merely the first word of the fourth book but it is very typical of the entire 38 years in the desert. Almost as a matter of a sentence, we have a passing of 38 years in sedra Chukas, we have the laws of the "Parah Adumuh" given in the first or second year and then is mentioned the death of Miriam which occured in the 40th year. So we see that it all took place Bamidbar or in the desert. It is not only semantically, but the most logical name due to the entire stretch of years. Devorim is a repetition of all the "things" previously given in Torah. Why Vayikra? Because there was an appointment between G-d and Moshe in the Ohel Moed. What I am showing is taht the names of the Chumoshim are not technical but for good solid reasons. They are not technical but he experiences recorded. What about Shmos? Shmos is characteristic for the second book! I would never imagine that Shmos contains something other than technical.
Rashi, however, betrays the secret. Rashi was motivated to explain that the children of Israel are named during their lifetime in sedra Vayigash and here again -- to announce how G-d was fond of them. What basically does a name indicate? It means individuality! It is singleness, uniqueness. Basically, a name is indicative of being individual, different -- one person from another. It is ego awareness. It differs from individual to individual. I recall that years ago when I was in Eretz, I was taken to a kibbutz, a socialistic one. My guide showed me a cow which he called, "Rachel". I intuitively stepped aside. "Is that against you rabbis too?" he asked. It is wrong because individuality belongs to a human who cannot be replaced. If someone died and was an ignorant person, without character -- not worthy of respect, it is still a loss. Every individual has been endowed with "Zelem Elokim," no matter who he is. That is why Torah introduced "avaluth" - mourning. There is a loss which cannot be replaced. Therefore, even to the point of M’chalal Shabbos every individual must be preserved. Reuven is not like Shimon. That is why man feels lonely and it is most typified in time of sickness. That is why Torah introduced Bikur Cholim, Hachnosas Orchim, Avalus -- with such great importance. A dog has great friendship for his master but the second one will have the same friendship. Therefore, a dog has no name; it is only a species. Therefore, no "Avalus" for a dog, no matter how devoted. That is why Yehadus was so conscious in recording K’suvos in Hebrew according to the exact name. The name means something. How was Abraham elevated to spiritual greatness? By changing his name. Rambam says that where Jacbo is designated as Ya’akov it is typical of one destiny. Where it is Yisroel, it is another destiny.
Hakodosh Boruch Hu has concluded the covenant not with a nation but with an individual. Finally, it developed into a community of seventy people. But the individual covenant was with Abraham. The Ten Commandments was addressed not in the plural but to the individual - to emphasize that G-d is ready to do business with even the individual. Even if the whole community faltered, He is willing to deal with but one person. That is why in Shmos, the names are repeated and emphasized. Thus, it says these are the names, Ish U’vayso - each man and his family. Each man is dear to Hakodosh Boruch Hu and each man is dear to G-d as the entire community and maybe even more. That is why halacha is so concerned with the individual. There is dignity of the Yochid - the individual. The first posek is the motto of the Chumash. G-d took the people out not because they were an "Am" - nation, but because they suffered individually.
Torah tell us that Rabbi Akivah came to Ginzu, perhaps to gather money to support Kochba’s revolution. He told them the story of the "mabul" - the great flood - but no one was emotionally affected. The next day he told them another and all burst out crying. After all, the Flood involved all humanity. The story he told was of a personal tragedy where a house collapsed on a person. What does it show? The tragedy of the Yochid has a greater impact often than the multitudes. Some people may not be as emotionally motivated by the loss of 6 million Jews in Germany as by the individual store of inhuman suffering. Therefore, Torah tells us that in "V’aylah Shmos" - Yetzias Mitzraim - the Exodus would have taken place even if one individual had been there. It did not have to be a multitude. "Ish U’Vayso" - one man and his family. Because of the few families, a relationship was established with G-d.
The Aseres Hadivros - the commandments - was also written in the plural. Where? In sedra Kedoshim. (Actually it is recorded in three places - Yisro, Kedoshim, V’etchanan.) Once numbers are introduced we are then interested in the collective entity. It is now an established entity. But in Shmos, we still have the individual. We cannot say that Yehadus is interested in only an individual or only a community. Both is correct! One individual would have been worthy of liberation but G-d wanted them to become a great nation.
Point II "Hamitzi B’mispor Zvoam" - He that bringeth out the host by number. This is a sentence from Rashi and can best be exemplified as the position of all the stars and constellations in the entire cosmos. Collectively, each one is but part of one universe comprising the entire cosmos. And yet each one is numbered, named and accounted for individually by G-d. Each has its individual function presumably wihtout which the universe cannot function.
Similarly, in Knesses Yisroel, it is a system which is composed of individuals comprising a unique system. Yet each one has its individual worth. Therefore, here in Shmos, G-d was ready to destroy the world (the greatest center of the world, Mitzraim) in order to liberate them.
Later, however, in Bamidbar, when it came to taking the census, we have them counted by families, by clans. In taking a census, we don’t count by individuals because it would destroy the individulity of the Jew. Therefore, in the desert, they counted the Shekalim contributed by each. In later times, a census was counted by fingers.
Point III Vayokom Melech Chodosh - A new king arose who didn’t know Joseph! In a sense, he didn’t know what Joseph did for Egypt. Targum Onkelos says, "Lo M’kayam G’zarus Yosef," - he didn’t uphold the edict of Joseph. What G’zara did Joseph implement? It means he was stupid and an ingrate. He didn’t recognize what Joseph had done; for with Joseph, Egypt would have been destroyed. Apparently, when Jacob came to Egypt there was a question of supporting the family. It was not just feeding but apparently there was an agreement or a promise that Pharaoh, the government would supply food to Jacob’s family, irregardless of circumstances. This is "G’zarus Yosef" - Joseph’s decree or edict. In sedra Vaychee, we find "Al Tirov" - do not fear; Pharaoh will implement that which he promised. "And Joseph settled his family as Pharaoh instructed. Pharaoh instructed that the family be fed no matter how long the family remain.
Now we have "melech chodosh" - a new king - who doesn’t want to honor the agreement. "Asher Lo Yodah" -- who doesn’t recognize, who doesn’t appreciate. There are two points of interest! In sedra Vayigash we find: "Bring your father and your household. Take -- birng father -- do not long for your goods; the best of Egypt is before you!" We get the impression that Pharaoh wanted the whole family to come! Why? He appreciated Joseph, recognized him as a genius who foresaw the future and told Pharaoh how to prepare. He had unlimited confidence! "If one is a genius, they may all be!" "If you have to spend money don’t worry. The best of Egypt is before you!" It was a strong statement.
Apparently, his successor changed. In sedra Vaychee, we find that a whole multitude of Egyptians went to bury Jacob. It was a great mourning. What is amazing is that the Egyptians mourned Jacob. The place of mourning is called "Ayval Mitzraim" -- Egyptian mourning. Egypt actually was in despair. Zohar asks a question "Why?" The answer is that they already beheld the decline of Egypt as a world power. It commenced to become a secondary power. Chazal says that as long as Jacob was in Egypt the Nile River used to rise to water the land. With his death, it stopped rising. They intuitively felt that Egypt will face money crises which will eventually reduce it as a nation. We almost feel the same here in Russian feelings towards America. We feel that we are declining. "With the passing of that old Jew something radical will happen." Of course, if they hadn’t started with the Jews, it wouldn’t have brought plagues. With Joseph’s death, there was no one to qualify to guide the destinies of the Egyptian nation. Therefore, the statement in Torah, "Hovo Nischarmo Lo" - (Let us act with guile against them) means automatically the decline of Egypt. The same applied to Germany!
Point IV What was actually the plan of G-d regarding Yetzias Mitzraim? G-d told Moshe: "Go to Pharaoh and tell him to let the people go out for three days. They will offer their Korbonos and will come back as usual." Pharaoh refused! "Nirpin Atem" -- You are lazy! If you introspect, you find nothing about liberation of slaves. It merely states a three day festival. Pharaoh refused and so began a drama. But what was the nature? What if Pharaoh had complied? What impression do you get when you read it? What if he had said yes! G-d could have taken them out in 5 seconds if He so desired. Why the engagement of debates, the months of threats? Apparently, they wanted to convince Pharaoh, to get the people out without coercion. He waited a long time so that he, Pharaoh should realize that he is wrong and the people are right. In fact, Pharaoh did realize but a little too late. We find in sedra Bo, "You too will send your cattle along!" What does Moshe mean by this? It means, you will ask us to sacrifice for you and your nation! You’ll join us. You, Pharaoh, will become a "gayr" a convert and a "gayr" has to offer a sacrifice. The "Yetzias" was not merely to take out the slaves and not the master. This is why it says "You will give sacrifices (cattle) too!" Had he done so, Pharaoh would have undergone the process of T’shuvah. In the time of Bais Hamikdosh, the process of "Gayrus" consisted of "milah" (circumcision), "T’vilah" (immersion), and "Korban" (a sacrifice). (Now it only consists of the first two.) Therefore, Moshe says to Pharaoh, "You will entrust to us ‘Zvochim’ - sacrifices. In other words, what was the objective of ‘Yetzias Mitzraim’? It was not merely to take the Jews out but to convert the Egyptians. Had this occured, "Melech Hamoschiach" would have come along. Since it didn’t, the salvation is slow in coming. Therefore, since he refused, he was in essence stupid. Pharaoh is insensitive; he does not understand. At other times, he did see the light. "Perhaps I should convert not only myself but the whole empire."
Therefore, in scripture it is written at times "M’chabad es libo." And at times "m’chazak". When it says "chabad" it means "he is hard headed (stubborn)." When it is "chazak" it is encouraged - strengthened. There are two types of sins. One individual is "chabad" like a stone -- insensitive. The other sinner is "chazak". He sees the truth but he has no courage. This is why Pharaoh’s heart is described in two different terms. At times, his heart was hard as a stone; at times, he tried to understand. The mere fact that he didn’t lock up "those two old men," Moshe and Aaron, shows that he had sensitivity. Despite his initial outcry, "Who is G-d? I don’t know him!", he had an inward feeling that these two men are right. But he didn’t have the courage. The same applies to people I ahve known who have been intelligent, who have come to my shiurim but still were "mchalal mitzvos" - desecrated. When I asked them why, they answered that they lacked the courage to face their families and declare their change.
However, Pharaoh made one mistake. It was when his scouts returned after seven days to say that Israel had not returned, that which he thought would be 3 days. The truth is that had Pharaoh let them go without coercion, it would have been 3 days. But here there was no agreement and hence it was enlarged. The same thing was regarding th 1948 war and the territory. The Arabs never agreed so the territory was enlarged in 1967. Otherwise, if they had agreed to the U.N. mandate, they would be justified.
Point V Poru (terms regarding the Jews) - Fertility. It was a blessing that woman should be fertile. "Vayishr’tzu" No fetus should die. "Vayirbu" means to grow up, to mature. The complaint was "they are not ready for release; not mature." Therefore, Vayirbu. So it was conception, incubation, childhood growth without succumbing to disease. Then "Vayatzmu" - They were courageous. Egypt says, "They are more than us!" Ridiculous. Of course, Egypt had numerical superiority. It means: "They are superior to us intellectually!"
Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday night, January 19, 1979
We will start with the first two or three P’sukim o ftoday’s sedra and Rashi’s interpretation. "And G-d spoke unto Moses and said to him: I am the L-rd. And I appeared unto Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as G-d Alm-ghty, ‘Kal Shadai’ but by My name Yud Kay Vov Kay (Havaya) I made Me not known to them."
It is difficult to understand the continuity. Rashi poses the problem: "The Avoth (patriarchs) knew "Havaya" as well as Moshe. When you study Bereshis you are left with the impression that they knew "Havaya" as well as Kal Shaddai. "They knew of Me as ‘Havaya’ but it was not an intimate knowledge. They knew Me better as ‘Kal Shaddai’. We were not on the friendly basis of ‘Havaya’. I did not befriend them as ‘Havaya’." Abraham was not only a servant of G-d but a friend. Man must be obedient but also is a friend of G-d. "G-d was my shepherd since my youth" means He was my friend, my playmate from youth. Rambam declares, "let us walk together holding arms." This experience of friendship was related to Kal Shaddai -- not Havaya. G-d’s name as Kal Shaddai comes always when G-d makes a promise. Rashi says that it is exclusively connected with promise. (It must be kept in mind that whenever the name Kal Shaddai is used in Torah, it indicates a promise but not necessarily fulfillment. The word Hashem or Havaya means: "I am faithful to fulfill my promise whether for reward or punishment.) "To them, the Patriarchs, I promised but did not fulfill. You, Moshe, are fortunate to be selected to become acquainted on both levels. Abraham was my friend with whom I walked but not as ‘Havaya’. He had limited knowledge. "To you I reveal the very essence. I established my covenant -- I have heard the cry, etc. I have reminded myself!" The Alm-ghty declares "Gam Hakimosi Brisi" - I am about to fulfill my covenant. It is difficult to understand! What find of a promise did G-d make to the patriarchs which He didn’t fulfill? When Moshe failed at his first encounter with Pharaoh, he came back with the complaint to G-d: "The situation is more difficult; You haven’t saved!" These were strong words for man to use to G-d. He answered, "The old men had more faith than you. Then the three examples are cited. A) When Abraham needed a burial plot for Sarah, he paid a high price (400 pieces of silver) and yet never complained, although the entire land had been promised to him. B) When Isaac’s servants dug wells and they were repeatedly filled with sand by the inhabitants, he never lost faith and complained. C) When Jacob wanted to build a home upon his return from Laban, he paid 100 "ksita" (monetary denomination) and didn’t complain. All this was despite the promise "All the land will I give you." They never complained. "You, Moshe, complained at once." "What is your name that I shall tell them? They won’t believe me!" Apparently, Rashi interprets, "They experienced me on the level of Kal Shaddai - promise only. Friendship as "Havaya" was granted to Moses and this in turn to the Covenental Community. But the "Avoth" - the patriarchs - did not have this share. Theirs was absolute faith. There is not a single mention that G-d had to convince Abraham. Abraham never asked, "Why not give me the land?" But this is minor. How about the "Akedah"? Why didn’t he ask a single question when G-d requested that Abraham bring his son up for a sacrifice? The question he asked was only after G-d had already directed, "Don’t touch the lad!" Abraham is the knight, the greatest man of faith to the last iota. Therefore, G-d tested him many times. There was the "moving away from the land of his ancestors," the circumcision, etc. But why is Akedah so frightening? What is frightening is that the whole world would have said, "Abraham is a liar! He has done the opposite of what he constantly preached against (human sacrifice) and Abraham preached to countless thousands. "This man of the Middle East who preached against hurting people, took his child for whom he waited 100 years. Fully realizing this, what did Abraham say? Nothing! This is the great act of "Emunah" - faith. Basically, Abraham was tested quite often. Sometimes the tests contradicted all that which he tried to teach the people. Yet Abraham never said a word. Take another example! When Lot was snatched away by the kings, Abraham became involved in a war where he didn’t belong. It is as the final was which wil take place on the hills of Judea (the war of Gog and Magog in the messianic era as prophesized by the Prophet). Who will have invited them? Therefore, Abraham’s friendship with G-d was not based on success or riches but rooted in faith. Yet sometimes, G-d reveals Himself in two ways. There is "Chessed V’Rachamim" - kindness and mercy, in which whatever man does results in success. Then the answers come immediately. Sometimes the answer is not so simple. Eventually all prayers of man will be fulfilled. It means G-d befriends man through "midas Harachamim" - the attribute of mercy. Sometimes, it is both, to some people and to some antions. He bestows unlimited riches, etc., as we believe will be B’mos Hamoshicach - in the messianic era. (I believe this is as G-d has bestowed on the United States.) If man feels "G-d befriended" him, it means "B’shmi Hashem" through the "Havaya".
"My friendship to the Avoth was not based on bestowing My grace, in fact, not at all; it came very slowly!" Abraham had to wait a long time (G-d did nto reveal Himself to him until he was 75 years old). Yitzchak, Yaakov -- all had to wait. This is what Abraham represented - "Bitochin" - faith. But as for Moshe, there was no waiting. At the most it was a year. This is not considered waiting in terms of human history. What is "shaddai"? Man is in a state of waiting while G-d is not ready to fulfill. "Shaddai" is "limited". G-d who created the universe says "Stop! It is finite." What can man learn from this? It is the capability or the ability of self-contraction, self-restriction. He taught Abraham the ability to say, "I must not cross the boundary! I must stop." What is observing Torah and Mitzvos? It is rooted in one idea: Man must learn to say, "Enough". He must control temptation! If he doesn’t, he doesn’t observe the Law. It is man’s capability to say to his own intellect, "Enough". Not everything can be resolved! It is my ability to contradict my own intellect. When Abraham took the "Akedah" he contradicted his own intellect. The intellect tries to convince man that what he does is absurd. In most cases, man should be guided by intellect. But in some instances, it must be faith. Th intellect sometimes has no say. The greater the paradox, the stronger is the faith.
Even concerning the land which G-d promised to one individual, Abraham, how is it intellectually possible for one man to get the land of seven nations (Canaan, Hittite, Amorites, etc.)? One should reason the possibility thusly: "You will train your son in warfare and strength and he in turn will train his sons." The educational system will revolve around a plan of strength. The seven nations are primitive while you will advance. In the course of years, you will be ready to overtake, to conquer. How did the European courntries overtake so many nations of the world (Orient, Africa, etc). The Europeans were sophisticated and trained!
Now, had G-d such a promise, He should have said to Abraham, "Don’t move! Train your army and you’ll be able to conquer. So the first command should have been: "Stay here! You’ll develop a military nation for the future!" But, this is not how the promise was made at all. "How can I defeat them?" "You have to leave the land; do not leave a single soul. If you do you won’t get the land. Leave, go to Eretz Mitzraim, become slaves for 400 years. When you come back, you’ll get it. The land will be yours. If Jacob had remained in Canaan it never would have been implemented. Strange? Yet Abraham didn’t ask a question! The greater the paradox, the greater the faith. "V’Gam Hakimosi" -- And I’ll establish my covenant. "I established my covenant and insisted that they leave - desert it." "Come back in 400 years and it’s yours!" Abraham believed and accepted. Why did G-d emphasize "Brisi" - covenant? Because it was a great paradox and Abraham accepted. It is not coincidental with logic. This is B’kal Shaddai. They defied their own personality.
For Moshe, it was already simple -- no paradox. So the question is, "Who was actually greater, Abraham or Moshe?" In Shmono Esrei, we only say, "Elokay Avrohom, Elokay Yitzchok, Elokay Yaakov," not Elokay Moshe. Yet, we have a posek in Torah in which Miriam was critical of Moshe and G-d punished her. G-d admonished her: "Moshe is a greater prophet than you. You are not the same!" When did Moshe achieve this exalted position? It was the second time that he went up the mountain for 40 days. The first time that Moshe recieved the "luchos" the Tablets, Torah doesn’t describe him. After he recieved the "luchos" the second time, Torah already describes him: "He didn’t perceive that the skin of his face shone." At that moment, he was elevated to the title, "Rav Lan’viim" (the chief of all prophets). Therefore, the answer is that until this moment, Abraham was greater than Moshe and that included even Moshe’s accomplishments in Egypt and the Exodus. At this moment, Moshe rose above Abraham. His uniqueness lay in the fact that the "Taryag Mitzvoth" the entire commandments were entrusted only to Moshe. Only after the second "luchos" did he become the teacher. Why did G-d direct Moshe to prepare the second set of "luchos" and that He (G-d) will inscribe them? Why not give it to him? Why make him prepare it? What is the difference between the original ones of G-d and those prepared by Moshe? What does it indicate? It indicates that the luchos are owned both by G-d and by Moshe. It is called "Toras Hashem and Toras Moshe". Interestingly, we have two Brochos recited at the reading of the Torah. In the first one, we say "Asher Nosun Lonu Es Toroso" - He gave us His Torah. After the reading, the Torah becomes ours. In other words, the second "Luchos" are representative of th Torah Sh’Bal Peh -- the Oral Law. The written Torah (Biksav) is characterized by the first Luchos which is prepared by G-d and given to man. "Bal Peh" the Oral Law, is man’s effort. It is the Mishna, the Talmud worked at by man. It belongs to man. "You prepare; I’ll write." It becomes a partnership. Now Moshe becomes "Rav Han’viim". The entire Torah, Oral and Written, is entrusted to Moshe. But if Moshe is so great, why "Elokay Avraham" and not "Elokay Moshe"? Reason: Abraham searched for G-d for many, many years and G-d did not react by responding for a long time until Abraham was 75. Abraham was the searcher! Moshe didn’t search. G-d found Moshe. Therefore, it is very simple! G-d came to the "Avos" after they searched a long time. Therefore, they are worthy of the title "Elokay Abraham, Yitchok, Yaakov."
Important question: Today we read "Vohayroh". What are the tenets regarding "geulah" - (salvation) and faith? First, we are all duty bound to believe that the people will be redeemed. As far as our relationship with G-d is concerned, it is rooted in Kal Shaddai - the promise. The promises have not yet been fulfilled. How long could the experience of ‘Havaya’ be related to the people? (This is the fulfillment which did occur vis a vis the geulah from Mitzraim.) We are still Shaddai - still suffering. No other nation on the face of the world has so suffered throughout the centuries. It would not be bragging but we have survived because we have expereience it as Kal Shaddai. "What are you waiting for? It will not be implemented!", have been the taunts of the nations. The Jewish people have shown great perseverence, overcome great temptations -- a very difficult existence. But we are still here. The "midah" or creed of Abraham is true of the Jewish people: "Af Al Pih Shehishamaya" -- Even though the redeemer tarries, I wil have perfect faith (from the principles of Maimonides).
The second is the following "Geulah" - redemption or salvation. "Hakodosh Boruch Hu" sends a human being. There was no need to send Moshe! If He wanted to redeem, He could have accomplished it in seconds. Why the lengthy debate of seven days. Of course, G-d is the redeemer. But for the physical aspect, He sends a human. Hillel says: "There will be no person anointed as moschiach! G-d will bring it alone!" Gemorah answers: "Forgive Hillel. He doesn’t deny it but says that G-d will perform. When the time will come, G-d will appoint. In Egypt, G-d had to beg Moshe. Rambam says that moschiach will be more brilliant than Shlomo but that Moshe as a prophet will be greater.
Interestingly, though Moshe had a share in the "Geulas Mitzraim" he is not recognized -- not even mentioned on Pesach night. G-d would not have performed the Geulah without Moshe. Yet there is not mention. Not even a "Yarshakoach". In "shir Hashirim" it reads "Bikashti - V’lo Motzosi." (I sought him but did not find him.) Medrash says that it refers to the fact that Moshe disappeared just at the moment of the redemption. Where was he? He was searching for the coffin containing the remains of Joseph. Serach Bas Osher a very aged woman showed Moshe where to find it.
My opinion is differnt. "I am searching for Moshe’s name. It is not mentioned." There is no trace of Moshe on Pesach night. G-d didn’t want Moshe to appear as the redeemer. But He was extremely generous when He gave the Torah to Moshe. Therefore, in Shir Hashirim, "I found him and I wouldn’t let him go." This is at "Shavouoth", the time of giving the Torah. The "Goayl", the redeemer, is only G-d. But as far as Torah it belongs only to Moshe. Melech Hamoshiach will also be the teacher as described by Isaiah. The redeemer will be G-d (therefore, we can understand what Hillel meant). This is what G-d told Moshe when he was reluctant to accept the mission. "Who am I to approach Pharaoh? There are better ones! I am not a proper leader!" He was convinced that he had shortcomings. G-d answered, "Don’t worry. A "Sheliach" (messenger) has the right to do whatever he wants when the ‘m’shalach’ (sender) is not there. But I, the m’shalach, will go with you, the sheliach. So the sheliach should not worry about failure because the m’shalach will be there too. Rambam says the sheliach tzibur (chazon) stands in the center. One ark is at mizrach - the east; the other or bimah, is in the center. Why is the sheliach in the middle? Because if he stands outside, away from the congregants near the mizrach, the sheliach is alone and can err. But if he is surrounded by the people, they are the m’shelochim. They back him up. If congregants appoint a sheliach and they depart, then it is not a sheliach. They must stand and answer "Amen" - in his very presence.
Each novi - prophet - is a sheliach - so in every instance, G-d accompanies him. Thus, in Tefilah, the sheliach is the novi. "It is true that I selected you! Aaron is more of a speaker. He was raised in the ghetto." Moshe was there but a short time. This was Moshe’s objection. "I don’t belong there; I wasn’t in ghetto." This was his argument.
G-d anssewred, "You are right! If I needed a great speaker, organizer, leader, I’d choose Aaron or other persons. But this is not what I need. I need a "M’lamed" -- a teacher, who will take the slaves and in seven weeks will convert them to "mamleches Kohanim" a priestly nation. For this, you are best . The rest leave to me.
This is also to be for Melech Hamoshiach. He will be able to teach. "This is what you, Moshe, can accomplish -- no one else!"
Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday night, February 3, 1980
We call this Shabbos, "Shabbos Shirah" and it is the one in which Parsha B’shalach is read. It is the one in which we recite the Shira or song of Moshe Rabbenu at the miracle of the crossing of the Red Sea.
Who actually said Shira concerning the miracle of the Exodus, Yetzias Mitzraim? If you carefully read today’s Shira from A to Z, you find no mention of Yetzias Mitzraim. All you find is the miracle of Yam-Suf -- the Red Sea. It is very starnge! If you look into the "P’sukei D’zimra" (those prayers each morning of praise of G-d from Ashrei on) you will notice something strange. It was arranged by Chazal -- the sages and runs to the paragraph which ends "Kol Hanshama T’hallel Koh Halelukah". A Jew cannot daven, cannot say Brochos without talking of the great event, Yetzias Mitzraim - the birth of the nation. Whenever you praise G-d, the Exodus always comes up. Then in the following paragraph Vayvorech Dovid - the praises of David, there gegins a balance between Yetzias Mitzraim and Kryas Yam Suf - the crossing of the sea. From this, we go on to the "shira" only. Therefore, in the prayers of "P’sukei D’Zimra" we have a combining of both. We mention Mitzraim and then go on to the Shira. (All this concerns us - the people who lived ages after the actual event - but not the people who took part in the Exodus. They only sang at the sea.)
Actually, who was the first one to sing praises concerning the liberation from Egypt? It was Yisro, Moses’ father-in-law in next week’s sedra. When he came and heard of the deliverance, he exclaimed (Yisro, chapter 18, line 10) , "Blessed is G-d who saved you from the hand of the Egyptians." It is said that Moshe was wrong in not saying Shira earlier. Gemora is critical of Moshe. But it isn’t so, after all, Moshe did say the Shira. However, he didn’t mention Yetzias Mitzraim. Why did he leave it out of the context? Apparently, there was something missing in Yetzias Mitzraim which did not generate the feeling. Then something occured to create the feeling. What happened which did not happen seven days earlier?
Interestingly, just before Shira, the paragraph reads, "On that day, they believed in G-d and in Moses His servant." "Bayom Hahu" - it was on that day. The Shira begins, "Oz Yoshir Moshe." What is "Oz"? ("then" did Moses sing). I would translate "Then they witnessed the miracle and were impressed." Only then did he recite the Shira. Actually, even then he would have abstained but suddenly, he realized that something occured which did not happen a week ago. He realized that he shouldn’t be reluctant. He consulted hsi mind: "Should I say Shira or not?" The decision was "Yes"! This Nas - (miracle) - was worthy of Shira. Moshe, himself, was impressed. "There I thought the miracle was not complete!"
Shouldn’t it have been instead at "Layl Shimurim" - (a night for watching or waiting for) the very moment they became free? Wouldn’t that be the appropriate moment? Apparently, Torah did not think this was the right moment. Torah abstains at the point of Layl Shimurim; it comes to fruition and conclusion right here -- at the sea. When did Torah pick up the axiological conclusion at the sea?
"Krias Yam Suf" is not only "nas" - miracle - but it is the entire "geulah" - redemption. Therefore, "Bayom Hahu" - only that very day did the people realize what "Yetzias Mitzraim" means to them. "Vayar Yisroel Nas Al Sfas Hayom" - they saw the miracle at the sea’s edge - is not just a physical redemption. Only then did they recognize in retrospect what had happened. There were miracles before then but those they didn’t understand. A man can see a miracle and not recognize it as such. If a man could recognize all the miracles that occur to him, he’d say "shira" all his life. "Emunah" - faith is more than seeing a miracle. The people in Mitzraim only saw or recognized "Etzbah Elokim" the "finger" of G-d. Here, they recognized the entire "Yad" - Hand. Here began their "Emunah". The "pshat" - meaning - is "Bayom Hahu" - on that day G-d redeemed the people not only physically and politically. One can be a free person politically and physically but not spiritually. Here there was spiritual liberty. G-d’s rebuttal to Moshe when he argued against going to Egypt was "My purpose is not only physical or political redemption for if such I could have chosen someone from amongst the slaves who had been himself in servitude. That is not My purpose! They must be made into a great spiritual people. They (the people) didn’t realize it. At "Yam Suf" they realized there is a greater form of liberty than that which most people understand. That is what transpired at "Yam suf"; this is where the transition occured, where they began to understand true freedom. It is a completely different approach than at Egypt. Why at "Yam suf"? Because suddenly they beheld a vision of "nevuah" - prophecy - more sublime than that which the prophet Yehezkal saw (from the greatest to the lowest milkmaid). What is meant by "miyad Mitzraim" (saved from the hands of the Egyptians). It means saved from the method of thinking in the Egyptian manner. "Miyad Mitzraim" is not only liberation from Egyptian territory of slave drivers but from Egyptian culture.
"Mays Al Sfas Hayom" (the Egyptians dead at the sea’s edge). It wasn’t an ordinary conflict between slave and master. It was that at "Yam Suf" they realized the truth. The physical defeat of Mitzraim is not to be interpreted as the mundane Mitzraim but the spiritual freedom. There is no Shira to be said unless the person himself understands and comprehends. Moshe saw that in Egypt they didn’t understand. All thye saw was "Etzba" - finger. They didn’t comprehend - only recognized it as master and slave, cruelty, mundane, secular. Chazal (sages) said, "Zeh Kali" - (this is my G-d) means every child recognized G-d.
Who are meant when Tenach refers to "Bnai Neviim" - the children of the prophets? It means those who are trained, who are taught to understand. Here, everyone became a "novi" - a prophet because all understood. And this is why Moshe said Shira here but not there. There, all they knew was that Pharaoh came in the middle of the night and begged them to leave. Therefore "Oz Yoshir" - only then were they able to sing. One of the most important Mitzvas is for a human to understand a "nas" - a miracle and to interpret it.
There are two experiences - when G-d bestows a blessing in which all is good, and second when there is a time of distress. One should understand distress. One should not say "Chavivim Yisroel" -- that one should live by pain. Instead, he should overcome it by all means. When G-d bestows "Chessed" - lovingkindness - one should recognize it and do all he can in his power to show his appreciation to G-d. The sin of Job was that he didn’t utilize to good the blessings of G-d. When you don’t recognize it, you cannot say Shira. "Chazal" say that G-d wanted Cheziahu - the pious King of Israel (under whose kingship the Assyrian army was miraculously destroyed) to be the Messiah but he didn’t say Shira after the great miracle because he didn’t understand the significance. Therefore, he couldn’t be "Moshiach". If there is "Emunah" there is Shira; otherwise no Shira.
There is another aspect. Yetzias Mitzraim was a miracle which didn’t spread easily throughout the Middle East. People didn’t understand it easily, not even the "Mitzrim" themselves. The leaving of the Jews made little impression upon the peoples of the time. In fact, when theologians tell the virtues of Christianity, how often do they mention our name? How often do they mention Maimonides? They circumvent it. They talk of Thomas Aquinas instead. This is one of the aspects of "Golus" - diaspora. "Yetzias Mitzraim" had little luck; it made little impression.
"Krias Yam Suf" made an impression. What is "malchus of Rosh Hashanah"? All nations will recognize the kingship of G-d. Suddenly the "Krias Yam Suf" spread to all neighboring nations. (In sedra Yisro - what was it that Yisro heard? - Rashi: "the crossing of the Red Sea".) They suddenly realized: "Here is a nation of an enigma." They felt that here was a singular people. This is what happened at "Krias Yam Suf" - not "Yetzias Mitzraim". "Krias Yam Suf" led to "Matan Torah" - the giving of the Torah - but was almost a cosmic event. Many nations came to Bilam who was a great teacher to ask, "What is it?" Heanswered, "G-d has given His Torah to His people!" What Chazal wants to explain is that "Matan Torah" was not just for Jews but all nations came to Bilam, the scholar, for explanation. But "Yam Suf" did not have the impact. "Krias Yam Suf" was universal in proportion: "Yetzias Mitzraim" was local. Here nations realized "there is a great nation - a great people." After the Jews reazlied the impact of "krias Yam Suf" then in retrospect they reazlied the meaning of "Yetzias Mitzraim."
At the seder, however, all the stress is placed on "Yetzias Mitzraim". They only place we mention "Krias Yam Suf" is in the "Hallel". Why? Because "Hallel" was generated by "Krias Yam Suf". Another event is not mentioned in the Hagadah - Eretz Yisroel. There is no tendency to talk about the land because that belongs to a different holiday, Shavouoth. We who live thousands of years later can revalue this but they couldn’t. Therefore we say the "Hallel". We enjoye the privilege which Moshe did not enjoy.
"Zeh Kali V’anvayhu, Elokay Avi V’arom’menhu" (This is my G-d and I will glorify Him; my father’s G-d and I will exalt Him). "V’anvayhu" - I’ll build a temple - Bais Hamikdosh. Whatever I’ll do, whatever Mitzvos, I’ll do it in a beautiful way. We want that when man shall perform a mitzvah, it shall be not as a burden but because we love it. We can do a mitzvah in an ugly way. For instance, although a mitzvah, one can put on tefilin and take them off as a burden. Secondly, I’ll be like Him. He is merciful, I’ll be merciful. Man should imitate G-d, follow in his footsteps. It all has the same root. "V’anvayhu" - all merge into "Ani V’hu" (I and He) - imitating being like G-d. Rav Yochanan says that if Torah didn’t say it (being like G-d) it would be blasphemy (for it would intimate that man is trying to be G-d). How can man say I’ll be as G-d? We cannot create metaphysically the earth, the atmosphere. But it means ethical virtues. I don’t like the word "like G-d". It means, whoever sees me will be compelled to say, "G-d resides in me." If we see a person who is obnoxious, we say he is not a G-dly person. If we see a great person we say, "he is divine". Whoever meets one should say, "That person is so fine, so sublime because he is divine -- because there is "Shechina" (G-dliness) - there is something of G-d in him. We don’t need proof that G-d exists, that He rules the world. A person who doesn’t believe cannot say, "Only I exist". But all the arguments come from the cosmos. The proof of the creation is from the Creator. If I walk by a beautiful house and everthing is exquisite - the dwelling, the lawn, the trees, we want to see and to know the builder, the master. This is what every man should want to reazlie when he lifts his eyes and sees the stars, the sky; the presence of G-d. When man wakes and says the "brochos" he comprehends the great Creator. "Pesukei D’Zimri" is not related to miracles bu to the beauty of the cosmos. This is how the human mind can understand the cosmos. "I’ll give a better place to find G-d, not in the stars millions of miles away but in my very self." "I walked everywhere - the streets, the market places, the cities; I didn’t find Him in myself." This is the "Zeh Kali V’anvayhu". No human cuold exist in the beautiful way unless the "Shechina" existed in him. His actions are so impressive, so kind, so morally perfect only because they "neshama" - the soul exists within him. As I said, to find G-d in me, you can do a mitzvah beautifully or not beautifully. Many Orthodox don’t! What is Kiddush Hashem (sanctifying G-d) or Chillul Hashem (desecrating G-d)? Walking into a store and not paying at once but procrastinating the payment causes the owner to misinterpret - "He won’t pay," even though he pays the next day.
What is: I’ll build him a "Bais Hamikdosh"? It doesn’t mean a Temple of brick and stone. It means myself! G-d doesn’t need a home. If G-d needs a home, it it man. Therefore, the common denominator is, give the opportunity to G’d to speak through man. "Give Him the microphone to address Himself -- not through long sermons but through the actions of man. Through me, G-d has the opportunity to address Himself. I’ll perform the mitzvos in the most beautiful way!
What else do we find in the sedra? I should call today’s sedra the "Doctrine of Private Property". Americans in general, if they don’t like something, put it into the waste basket. The way things are now, we’ll almost all have a Marxist order. Has "yehadus" given us a qualified approval of private property or a rejection of private property? What makes possession immoral? It is a serious problem. I believe that we have a comparison here in sedra B’shalach and in sedra B’haloscha where in both instances do we find the people complaining for food and receiving both the manna and the "Slav" - the quail. Here in today’s section, we are told that the manna should be picked up just so much for each morning, for each person. What about the quail? Here, it doesn’t say how much each person was to gather when the quail fell in the midst of them. In sedra B’haloscha it is described in great detail that so much fell that there was enough for all the people to feed for a month’s time and that the ones who took the least gathered at least 10 groups. Apparently, the "slav" was unlimited. What did Moshe require from them concerning the manna? Basically, he told them, "Collect as much as is necessary to feed the household from day to day. It was one measure alloted to a household. Some grabbed more but it all ended the same for all. Those who took more found it had shrunk. Those who took too little found a full measure. All had but one measure. First, it is alloted to each member and you cannot grab more. Second, don’t hoard. Third, on Shabbos, you will have a double portion so that you can
prepare the previous day without cashing on Shabbos. Why is Shabbos brought into the matter of manna here. Aren’t we told all about Shabbos in the Ten Commandments? There is a link between the two, Shabbos and manna. The people were in slavery for hundreds of years. Egypt, right to private possession was denied to them. Here, the manna was the first thing which they owned through acquisition. People who were released from concentration camps have said that their first desire after liberation was to "make up" for lost time.
Here Moshe taught them the basic tenets of possession. That which can be moral can also be immoral. First is Shabbos. Shabbos is the foundation of private property. In ordre to be entitled to private property, man must observe Shabbos. G-d created so He owns the world. What is Shabbos? It means cutting off -- stopping. It is the day when humans must recognize that G-d is master of the world. No private property. The same is when a person is engaged in celebration and hears suddenly bad news. He stops. Dynamics do belong to G-d.
Basically, there is no private property. But Moshe said, "Before I tell you how to function let me tell you of Shabbos." In the Ten Commandments, it’s only a short repetition. Basically, there is no private property. However, six days shall you work. G-d gives it to man! Man doesn’t take it but G-d gives it. It isa concession. When we say, "Hamotzi Lechem Min Ha’aretz" it means "Man must also participate." True, without G-d’s blessing, all man’s work would be of no avail. But man must work. Concerning the manna from heaven, man had nothing to do but to pick it up. G-d gives; man just has an illusion that he produces. "Lechem Min Hashamayim" - bread from heaven requires Shabbos, one day a week. The "Chet of M’chalal Shabbos" -- sin of Sabbath desecration basically is stealing, that which doesn’t belong to us. By observing, we manifest belongs not to us but to G-d.
Secondly, we are taught, "Zdokah and Chessed" - charity and kindness. If we begin to hoard, we imply, "Only I am entitled to it." It destroys "zdokah". Why did Elimelech, husband of Naomi in the days of Ruth, die? Because he should not have thought only of himself and left the poor. Thus, if they hoarded the manna, it spoiled and they had to discard it. It taught us the lesson of sharing with the needy if I have too much and he too little.
Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday night, February 9, 1980
(Note: These notes are slightly abridged because I arrived a little late.)
Point I There is a link between the end of last week’s sedra - B’shalach and today’s sedra, Yisro. Last week’s sedra concludes by telling of the sudden hostile attack by Amalek against Israel, newly liberated from Mitzraim, at Refidim. We are told of the ensuing struggle during which Joshuah led the battle which hung in a balance. Moses ascended a mountain with Aaron and Hur. Sitting on a rock, Moses’s hands were supported in elevation so that the people might gain spiritual encouragement by elevating their thoughts to G-d at the sight of Moses’s upright hands. At the end of the day, Israel was victorious over Amalek.
Today’s sedra tells us that Yisro came because he heard of the miracles of the splitting of Yam Suf and the war of Amalek. Directly thereafter the Israelites came to "Midbar Zin" - the desert of Zin, encamped at Har Sinai and received the Torah.
"Vayovo Amalek" - And Amalek came! What was the purpose of Amalek’s coming? Amalek was in no position to personally benefit for here was a nation just liberated from slavery, possessing no land or great wealth. (In a previous lecture of a former year, the Rav pointed out that all the objectives which an enemy hopes to gain in normal warfare was lacking here. There was no land to gain, "they were on the way in the desert." There was no fame to gain. (Israel was unknown - a group of slaves.) - There was no riches to gain; they were weak. Then why attack? Because, "Lo Yoray Elokim," - Amalek didn’t fear G-d -- It was merely an act of hate. He would have derived no profit had he won the war G-d forbid. It was simply "hate".
When G-d created the world, He didn’t completely eliminate "Tohu Vovohu" - void and emptiness! This is what Amalek represented. It was the inscrutable will of G-d taht "Tohu Vovohu" should not disappear. In certain instances, the world suddenly goes beserk and "Tohu Vovohu" breaks through the crust of decency and inundates the world and brings forth destruction. From time to time, "Tohu Vovohu" breaks through. I call it "Hester Ponim" (G-d hides his face). There are certain malignant people who are the representatives of "Tohu Vovohu" and this was Amalek.
How can you combat "Tohu Vovohu" in the world? The answer you find in today’s sedra. It is the "Aseres Hadibros" - the Ten Commandments -- the Torah. Thus, we have the link, the bridge between the forces of evil (Amalek) and the forces of good (Torah). How can you help mankind? It is by teaching the "Onochi Hashem Elokecho" (I am your G-d_ - It is by teaching "Lo Sirtzoch - Lo Sinov - Lo Tignov -" -- no murder, etc. Many have reservations about the first half of the commandments. I believe that many reject the image of G-d and the "Tohu Vovohu" becomes stronger. However, all who do wrong are not necessariloy of the class of Amalek, of the "Tohu Vovohu" - those given over to completely void and emptiness. For instance, Pharaoh is indicative of man’s weakness but not wickedness because of his concept of the sense of economic security through slave labor. In other words, he based his prosperity (wrong as it was) on slave labor. He had something to gain. "If the Hebrew slaves go, I will lose their economic wealth!" So, thus Pharaoh is not representative of "Tohu Vovohu". In the Torah, we find that others wouldn’t let the Israelites through their borders due to conflict of interest. This is understandable. However, here, "Vavovo Amalek" -- Amalek came from the distance. Israel never heard of them -- didn’t know they existed. Simply, Amalek couldn’t tolerate the "community of the Covenant". Pharaoh on the contrary was indicative of those who will look for labor to pay cheaper. Amalek will pay "more for trefa" just to have it on his table.
It is true of the Jewish people as a nation and true of an individual. An individual may suffer, is in a state of depression, is frustrated. Undergoing this experience of Israel -- the sudden unprovoked attack of Amalek is sometimes destructive, sometimes constructive.
What are we told here? "They moved directly from Refidim (battlesite against Amalek) to "Midbar Sinai" to receive the Torah. The removing of the ring from the finger of Ahasverus and placing it on the hand of Haman accomplsihed more in bringing Jews back to the fold than the accomplishment of the teaching of 48 prophets. The same is here at Refidim. It purified them. Man has a creative power to change from the experience at Refidim to the great heights of Sianai. It not for the experience of Refidim, I doubt if the Jews would have been able to survive the Holocaust. At Refidim, you acquire vision; you become ablt to do things you’d not be ever able to do.
This is why Amalek is told before "Matan Torah". In chapter 19, line2 "Yisro" - the text reads, "Vayichan Shom Yisroel Neged Hahor" - Israel encamped near the mountain. However, it is written in the singular. Each man was an individual there; all were together - singular in purpose. After the experience of Amalek they didn’t spread helter skelter into the desert but all came to the mount. This was all due to Amalek and the Torah was given to us to destroy the evil of Amalek.
This evil, this Amalek will never be reconciled with Israel. We come across certain characteristic traits of our enemy which in general is to hate the Jew. All this made "Matan Torah" possible. It is one.
Point II The Torah was given to a small group of people, 600,000 persons, in comparison with the people of the world. But G-d offered the Torah to many nations as Chazal tell us -- to Ishmael, to Edom - to others. All refused because they wanted a sample of what it contains. G-d was a traveling agent to sell "His merchandise". The Torah was given to us but with the prospect that finally it will become the universal book of knowledge. How long will it take? It might be tomorrow or perhaps thousands of years. G-d wanted ti be be universal.
Who was Yisro? He was the first "Gayr" - convert. Whether he came to Israel at the desert, before or after "Matan Torah is disputed by Chazal". Two aspects are understood! The first is that the Torah can be implemented by man. (It is not a Law which is impossible or impractical for man.) Some may ask, "Who can observe all these laws? -- Shabbos -- Yom Tov -- Kashrus, etc." Many people declare, "You cannot even carry a handkerchief on Shabbos; it is slavery! Who can observe Kashrus? You cannot enter a restaurant!" The "Naase V’nishma (we will do and listen) means, "We are convinced we can do it!" It is not something beyond us. If there were a 14th principle of faith, I believe it should read: "I believe that all the 13 principles are attainable." "Naase" is "we can do it; we will do it!"
Secondly, the Jew had to know and believe that the "chukim" -- statutes -- will be accepted universally. All nations, all mankind will accept the Torah. But it has to be proved by a "gayr" and this is Yisro. He was the "Goy" who says "Chochmaschem U’vinaschem" - Your wisdom and your understanding. He is the one who says, "Your wisdom is great for all!" He is the prototype who said that which we expect mankind to say in the messianic era. Yisro shows that all mankind is capable. Thus, first we are at Refidim. This is the story of Amalek, the non-Jew who will never reconcile; it is evil personified. With him, you will be engaged in war. On the other hand, there is another segment of people that will reconcile, that will recognize and accept. Yisro came to tell them that a desert person can recognize. He (Yisro) is the real "Gayr" - the prototype. This is why Torah tells of Refidim, then Yisro, then Matan Torah. It is a bridge. I was asked a question. Why was it when Eliyohu Nahavi was hiding as a fugitive in a cave in Sinai (from enemies) - and the Spirit of G-d called him to emerge, first there was a tremendous fire, wind, thunder -- he said, "This is not G-d!" Then there was a whisper and he declared, "This is G-d!" G-d addresses in small tones! If so, why was there thunder and lightning at the giving of the Ten Commandments? The second time Moshe went up to receive the new Tablets, it was given quietly, almost secretly. (No one shall come up with you.) The first "luchos" - the Tablets were with noise, even G-d it would be an ill omen (Ayin Horah) and G-d knew it would be but ithad to be so in order for bilam and all the sheiks and kings to be cognizant that the Torah had been given to Israel. Thus, G-d addressed Himself to the whole world. The second time - second "luchos" were quiet. It is only for Israel until that time in the eschatological age when it shall then be for all.