Homecoming Delayed

After the tragedy with Dina and Shechem, Yaakov receives a prophecy. 

"Rise up and go to Beis El, dwell there and make there an altar to the God that appeared to you when you fled from before your brother Eisav" (Bereishis 35:1).  

This directive has a backstory. After stealing the Berachos from Eisav, Yaakov fled to Charan. Enroute, Hashem came to him in a dream and promised to be with him, protect him, and return him to the Land of Israel. When Yaakov awoke, he set up a stone as a monument and took an oath. 

"If Hashem will be with me and protect me on this road that I am traveling on, [if He] gives me bread to eat and clothes to wear and I return in peace to my my father's home... This stone which I have placed as a monument shall be a house of [service for] Hashem" (28:15, 20-22). 

Yaakov promised to build a house for Hashem, and now, over twenty years later, Hashem is telling Yaakov to fulfill his promise. More than a mere reminder, this prophecy is actually a devastating rebuke, for the promise is past-due. 

"Because you delayed in fulfilling your promise, you were punished and this [raping by Shechem] happened to your daughter [Dina]" (Rashi to 35:1). 

Ignoring a promise to God is obviously a serious sin, but why this horrific punishment? It does not seem to fit the crime. Hashem always responds measure for measure, so we must first understand the nature of the sin. Why did Yaakov delay? 

While the forefathers of the Chosen Nation were righteous beyond comprehension, they were not infallible and the Torah points out their mistakes. Invariably, however, their "sins" are subtle. Here we are confronted with what appears to be a failure of trustworthiness, from none other than Yaakov Avinu, the Man of Truth!

Why did Yaakov delay the fulfillment of his promise? And why was the family punished specifically with the tragedy of Dina? The Midrashim and commentaries are uncharacteristically silent on these basic questions.

II

When I presented these questions to my father, Rabbi Noam Gordon of Yerushalayim, he offered the following explanation. In his oath, Yaakov pledged that if Hashem brings him back home to his father's house in peace, he would build a בית אלקים - a "House of God." What exactly does it mean to build a terrestrial home for the infinite creator? Yeshayahu HaNavi described it thus: "My House is a house of prayer for all nations" (Yeshayah 56:7). God's House is a place where every human being feels comfortable to come and speak to Him. 

The builder of such a house would obviously need to be a universally respected leader, a person capable of uniting all of humanity. Yaakov understood this; he knew that before he could build a House of God, he must first build a following. This is why Yaakov settled in Shechem and bought a field. His intention was to forge relationships, engage in outreach, and inspire the Canaanites with monotheism, continuing the work begun two generations earlier by his grandfather Avraham. Avraham functioned as a "chariot" - delivering the Shechinah into the consciousness of humanity - and he was successful because he was recognized as a "Prince of God" (Bereishis 23:6). Yaakov set out to build the very same reputation. Only after establishing himself as Avraham's successor would Yaakov be able to build a House of God for all nations.

Best intentions aside, Hashem expected Yaakov to fulfill his promise as soon as he was able. Even if his following consisted of no more than the members of his own household, Yaakov should have headed straight to Bais El to build the Bais Elokim. It was wrong to delay, but at least now we can understand Yaakov's thinking.

My father's explanation of Yaakov's sin enables us to understand what happens next. The kidnapping and violation of Dina is just the beginning of the story. In response, Shimon and Levi take revenge and annihilate the entire town of Shechem. Yaakov then fears for the safety of the family, expecting a counterattack from the other Cannanite villagers in the area (34:30).

In short, Yaakov's move to Shechem backfired. Instead of gaining a following, he is now persona non grata, an enemy of the people - and it is at this very moment that Hashem tells him to go build the promised Bais Elokim. Hashem set this all up, orchestrating events in order to make a critical point about His priorities. 

As the Man of Emes, Yaakov naturally yearns for perfection. He wants to build the ultimate House of God for all nations, yet that holy yearning is fraught with danger, as it leads to delays. The service of Hashem needs to be beautiful and the Avos are held to the highest standards, but perfection not attainable, nor is it desirable. "The Torah was not given to angels." A packed sanctuary honors the King - ברוב עם הדרת מלך - but it is more important for Yaakov to expedite his promise, even if the result is a humble house of God serviced only by his twelve sons. 

When it comes to Mitzvos, enhancements must never compromise timeliness (see Nefesh HaChaim 1:22, perakim 8).

III

There are additional mysteries here. By the time Yaakov returns to Israel from Charan, over two decades have passed since his departure. Yaakov's parents, Yitzchok and Rivkah, have never met his wives or his children. We would expect Yaakov to head straight home and reunite with his parents, but no. Inexplicably, he settles down in the town of Shechem. Yaakov is only about seventy miles away from his parent's home in Chevron, but he lets at least a year and half go by before he gives them a visit (cf. Rashi to 33:17).

In the original oath, Yaakov expressed his yearning for home. "If... I return in peace to my father's home... then this stone which I have placed as monument will be a house for Hashem." The feelings did not fade with time. Even his father-in-law Lavan knew why Yaakov was in a rush to get back to Israel. "You left because you missed your father's home" (31:30). 

If Yaakov missed his parents so much, why didn't he go see them? 

The tragedy of Yaakov's delay is compounded by the death of his mother. Rivka never gets to see her grandchildren, as she passes away just shortly before Yaakov arrives (cf. Rashi to 35:8). With his mother gone and his twin brother estranged, the blind and widowed Yitzchok is the sole remaining family member to welcome Yaakov when he finally comes home (35:27). 

Another question. As soon as Yaakov settles in Shechem, he builds an altar. "He established an altar there and called it Kel Elokei Yisroel" (33:20). Rashi explains. "Not that the altar itself was called Elokei Yisroel (God of Israel), but rather in recognition of the fact that Hashem was with him and saved him, he named the altar after the miracle."

Safe and sound back in Israel, Yaakov is blessed with wives, children and wealth. The saga with Eisav is over and the time has come for him to express his appreciation with an altar. But instead of building an altar in Beis El as promised, Yaakov builds one in Shechem?! How do we explain this? 

IV

The key to resolving these mysteries lies in a linguistic distinction. Yaakov's original promise to build an altar was conditional, first and foremost, on divine protection. אם יהיה אלקים עמדי ושמרני בדרך הזה - "If Hashem will be with me and protect me..." A careful reading of Rashi reveals that Yaakov's altar in Shechem was not in thanks for protection, but for something else: על שם שהיה הקב"ה עמו והצילו - "because Hashem was with him and saved him." Salvation is what Yaakov prayed for (32:12) and salvation is what he received, but it is not the same as protection. A person who is protected does not need saving. 

Hashem saved Yaakov from both Lavan and Eisav, and in appreciation, Yaakov builds an altar in Shechem. However, regarding his promise to build an altar in Beis El, Yaakov was unsure how to proceed. That altar was designated for divine protection, and frankly, Yaakov did not feel protected. 

Yaakov arrived in Charan empty handed and Lavan took advantage of him, tricking him into marrying Leah, working him for fourteen years, and repeatedly cheating him in business. Subsequently, Yaakov was pursued by Lavan, ambushed by Eisav, and attacked and wounded by an angel. Hashem saved his life, and Yaakov acknowledges that Hashem was "with him" (31:42), but could it be said that Hashem protected him? 

Although long ago Hashem had promised to protect Yaakov, ושמרתיך בכל אשר תלך, sins can cause Hashem's promises to evaporate, שמא יגרום החטא. A humble Tzaddik, Yaakov was unsure of his spiritual standing and, in light of all that had transpired, he feared he no longer deserved nor received divine protection. Yaakov's uncertainty explains how he could be afraid of being killed by Eisav (Rashi to 32:11) and at the same time attempt to call in Hashem's old promise of protection (Rashi to 32:10). Yaakov did not know where he stood.

This uncertainty also explains why Yaakov did not return home to see his parents. If Hashem had been protecting him, then returning home in peace would complete the last remaining condition he had set on his promise, triggering an obligation to build a מזבח in בית אל. On the other hand, if Yaakov had lost divine protection, then he cannot build a מזבח in בית אל, for one cannot thank Hashem for something Hashem did not do (especially if it was something Hashem had wanted to do, but couldn't due to sins). Yaakov therefore stays away from home, so as not to enter into a Halachic conundrum.

Failure to build the promised altar was a grave error and Yaakov is punished with the rape of Dina. This punishment provided Yaakov with an answer of painful clarity. To paraphrase Hashem's response: "You avoided build the altar because you question if I have been protecting you? Yes, you have had a difficult life, but watch what happens to your family when I remove my protection for just one moment!"

הקב"ה מדקדק עם סביביו כחוט השערה

Hashem deals most stringently with those who are closest to Him.

Like Uncle, Like Nephew

Eisav is out for revenge and Yaakov must flee.

Yitzchok calls in Yaakov, blesses him, and gives him instructions. "Do not marry a Canaanite woman. Get up and go to Padan Aram, to the home of Besuel your mother's father and take for yourself there a wife from the daughters of Lavan your mother's brother." (28:1) 

Yitzchok sent Yaakov off. He went to Padan Aram, to Lavan, son of Besuel the Aramite, brother of Rivkah, the mother of Yaakov and Eisav. (28:1,5)

It is strange indeed that the Torah felt it necessary to reiterate, at this late stage of the family saga, the painfully obvious fact that Rivkah is the mother of Yaakov and Eisav. Our greatest commentator shrugs his shoulders. "I do not know what this teaches us" (Rashi ad loc.). 

Although Rashi freely admits when he is at a loss (cf. Bereishis 35:13, Gilyon HaShas to Berachos 25b), in the absence of a pressing question, it is unheard of for Rashi to make such a comment. When a commentator has no useful insight, surely he has the right to remain silent.   

In his supercommentary Maskil L'Dovid, Rabbi Dovid Pardo (d. 1792) offers a delightfully creative rereading of Rashi's words. He argues that Rashi is not throwing in the towel. On the contrary, when Rashi wrote "I do not know what this teaches us," he was presenting a brilliant explanation of this difficult verse.

As we can well imagine, before Yaakov departed for Padan Aram, he had a question for his father. 

"You have instructed me to go and marry one of my cousins, a daughter of Uncle Lavan. I have never met Lavan. What kind of man is he? Tell me about him." 

Although Yaakov's question is not recorded in the Torah, Yitzchok reply is. The Torah's seemingly superfluous description of Lavan as the "brother of Rivkah, the mother of Yaakov and Eisav" is actually an abbreviated quote of Yitzchok's response to Yaakov, and Rashi, in typical fashion, fleshes it out. To paraphrase:

"My dear son Yaakov, I wish I could answer your question. I don't know Lavan personally. Ordinarily, we can infer a man's personality from his nephew, for sons always take after their mother's brother (Yevamos 62b). However, my brother-in-law Lavan has two very different nephews, you and your brother Eisav. This presents a conundrum and I do not know what this teaches us about your uncle!"

II

When Yaakov first meets Rachel, he introduces himself by saying כי אחי אביה הוא, "he is her father's brother" (29:12). This is technically false, as Yaakov is not Lavan's brother but rather his nephew. Rashi defends Yaakov's usage by citing a precedent: Avraham called his nephew Lot a "brother" (13:8). However, this interpretation is unsatisfying, for the parallel is not direct. In the case of Lot, he was Avraham's brother's son. In line with the Talmudic dictum, בני בנים הרי הם כבנים, "the sons of sons are considered like sons" (Yevamos 62b), Lot can be considered a son of Terach and thus a brother of Avrahom. This is not applicable in the case of Yaakov's relationship with Lavan, for Yaakov was not the son of Lavan's brother, he was the son of Lavan's sister. 

Presumably, this is why Rashi offers an alternative interpretation, which has Yaakov making an assertive statement regarding his father-in-law to be:  

...אם לרמאות הוא בא, גם אני אחיו ברמאות 

If he attempts to trick me, I am his equal ("brother") in trickery. And if he is an אדם כשר, an honest man, than I am also [honest, for I am] the son of his honest sister Rivkah. (Baba Basra 123a)

Yaakov is not postering. Rachel is Yaakov's wife-to-be and she has a right to know the personality of her future husband. Yaakov would love to give a straight answer, but he is confused and does not know what to say. 

Yaakov originally thought he was destined for the tents of Torah, but Hashem seems to have other plans. After outsmarting a suspicious father and a shrewd brother, Yaakov is confronted with his hitherto unknown God-given potential. It is frightening realization. Trickery is not compatible with Yaakov's self image as a proudly naive man of truth. 

So what kind of person is he? Well, men always take after their mother's brother, so Yaakov tells Rachel that everything depends on the dubious character of "brother" Lavan. If Lavan is honest, then so am I. And if not, not. 

Yet Yaakov is mistaken. His identity is not tied to Lavan at all. On the contrary, the Torah testifies that Yaakov was born an איש תם, "a simple man" (25:27) and Rashi (ad loc.) defines that to mean מי שאינו חריף לרמות, "someone who lacks the shrewdness necessary to be a trickster." 

How can this be? If Lavan is a scoundrel (29:25) and a swindler (31:7), how could his sister's son be an איש תם, the polar opposite of his uncle?

III

Rivkah was barren (25:21), childless for the first twenty years of her marriage (25:20,26). The Midrash famously states that all four of the foremothers started off barren because "Hashem desires the prayers of the righteous." The Netziv offers a different explanation.

Children naturally take after their mother's brother, and in the case of Rivkah that would mean her children would be born with negative character traits. In order to prevent this eventuality, Hashem made Rivkah incapable of bearing children naturally. She could only have a child supernaturally, in which case the child would not take after her wicked brother.

Describing her husband's prayers during this difficult period, the Torah tells us that Yitzchok pleaded לנכח אשתו, "opposite" his wife (25:21). In light of the Netziv's commentary, we can can take these words literally. Afraid of Lavan's genes, Yitzchok davened "against" his wife, praying that she would not give birth to a child naturally. Yitzchok only wanted a child if the birth would be supernatural, free of his brother-in-law's influence. 

Hashem answered Yitzchok's plea (25:21) and the result was an איש תם, the antithesis of Lavan. However, Yaakov was not born alone. Rivkah gave birth to twins. 

IV

Yaakov was conceived first (Rashi to 25:26) and his birth was Hashem's response to Yitzchok's tefillah. The question is Eisav. If Rivkah was incapable of conceiving naturally, does that mean Hashem performed a special miracle to create a monster?

A generation earlier earlier, when the barren Sarah gave birth to Yitzchok at age ninety, "many barren women were remembered with her, many sick people were healed that day, many prayers were answered with her; there was a great rejoicing in the world" (Rashi to 20:6). 

When it rains, it pours, and when Hashem opens the gates, He showers blessings on the whole world. It follows that when Hashem answered Yitzchok's prayer for a miracle child, many barren women were healed of their disability, including Rivkah herself. This is why Rivkah is able to conceive another child. As opposed to Yaakov, this second child was conceived naturally and should therefore take after his mother's brother. 

The Torah tells us that Yitzchok loved Eisav because ציד בפיו, Eisav had "game in his mouth" (25:28). Rashi quotes the Midrash, "Eisav trapped [Yitzchok], tricking him with his words." Like uncle, like nephew. Eisav was a trickster, just like Uncle Lavan. 

V

Unaware of his father's preconception prayer, Yaakov naturally assumes his birth was natural and he is "blessed" with the trickster traits of Uncle Lavan. Yaakov's negative sense of self is reinforced by his native talent as an voice impersonator (cf. Ramban to 27:12), and also by Eisav's twisted take on his name. "So that's why they called him Yaakov - he tricked me twice! He took my birthright and now he took my blessing!" (27:36). Yaakov is wrong about himself, but the misconception is central to Hashem's plan.

Skillsets are overrated; self image is what matters. Thinking he was חריף לרמות, shrewd enough to outsmart anyone, Yaakov faced down Lavan, Eisav, and Shechem with confidence. In reality, Yaakov was an איש תם, but he was better off not knowing it.

Heart and Eyes.

Posted by Guest Contributor IshbitzForever

After the birth of Moses, in an attempt to save his life, his mother hides him in a basket and places in the Nile river. The daughter of the Pharaoh goes down to the water to bathe, she sees the basket floating on the water, she retrieves it and the passage tells us:

  "She saw him, the child, and behold the young one was crying"

   The Zohar wondering about apparent redundancy in the sentence clarifies that the "child" refers to Moses, while "the young one crying" refers to the Nation Of Israel who were crying from the pain of the exile.

     Let's understand the message of the verse in this light.

    The daughter of Pharaoh has been indoctrinated her entire life with the belief that the Jewish people are a threat to her nation's stability, and by extension her family and herself.

   Throughout history it has always been the nature of those that feel threatened to dehumanize those they feel threatened by, this clears the conscious and allows whatever actions necessary to neutralize the threat no matter how barbaric. The drive for self preservation focuses and limits the entire existence of their perceived enemy to this one dimension - "the threat". Objectifying the enemy in this way depletes him of any humanity, limiting them to nothing more than a number on an arm, deserving no understanding, mercy, or compassion.

    It is only when "she saw him, the child" - she takes the baby in her arms and sees, not the enemy, not the threat, but a child, a fellow human that her heart is opened, breaking thru the wall of fear, and allowing her heart to see things in a new light. For the first time she questions the threat and hears the cries of the Jewish people that until now made no impression on her, for until now they were the cries of the un-human. Standing there gazing at Moses she lets go of the fear and allows herself to connect with the "other" and see them as fellow members of humanity.

   Although our eyes sees, its the heart that will dictate and how we perceive the image, what value we attribute to it, what our emotional reaction is, so in a way our hearts our character will be the last word on what we see. So one might say the heart is greater but if we do not encounter new things with our eyes, our hearts will have no new inputs to add to what we know and what room is there for growth will will travel thru life with childish perceptions.

    The eye and heart most move in tandem, experiencing, learning, growing.

On the Trail of Blessings: Eisav's Plot

The Midrash tells us of a financial transaction between Yaakov and Eisav.

Yaakov took all the money he earned in the house of Lavan – a literal pile of silver and gold – and gave it to Eisav in exchange for Eisav’s plot in מערת המכפלה, the family burial cave in Hebron (Rashi to 50:5). אמר, נכסי חוץ לארץ אינן כדאי לי  - Yaakov said, “Wealth from outside of Israel is unimportant to me” (Rashi to 46:6).

While there is a family tradition of paying retail for a gravesite (23:16), throwing money away is wrong. It is therefore surprising that Yaakov made such an unnecessarily excessive offer. (The alternative, that Eisav’s asking price happened to match Yaakov’s earnings in Charan, is an unlikely coincidence, to say the least.) Yaakov was not wasteful of the wealth he earned in Charan; he even went out of his way to retrieve small jugs (Rashi to 32:24). Why is he volunteering now to give it all away?

Yaakov has no issue with wealth per se; the money he earned in Israel he keeps for himself (46:6). And to suggest that there is something wrong with bringing foreign funds into the Holy Land is also untenable, for Avraham happily imported Pharaoh’s gifts (13:2). There must be a deeper meaning here: a correlation between the money Yaakov earned abroad and Eisav’s plot in Eretz Yisroel.

As we have learned, Yaakov never made peace with Eisav’s bracha and the mission of the איש שדה that was bound up with it. For Yaakov, success in Haran was a source of discomfort. Despite his attempt to deny it (Rashi to 32:6), Yaakov’s שדה-based wealth was a clear indication that he had indeed usurped Eisav’s role. (According to Eruvin 27b, cattle are considered גדולי קרקע, and are therefore presumably also שמני ארץ.)

Eisav’s ownership of a plot in מערת המכפלה is also discomforting. Firstly, it is piece of ארץ ישראל, the land of קדושה that is Yaakov’s Promised Land (28:13). Worse yet is the symbolism. The Talmud tells us that there were only eight gravesites in the cave, for four couples: Adam and Chava, Avraham and Sara, Yitzchok and Rivka, and Leah and her spouse. Only one plot remained, the one beside Leah (Sotah 13a; Rashi to 49:21). Interment in the family’s ancestral burial site implies that Eisav is a member of the pantheon of forefathers. This is a disgrace Yaakov cannot tolerate.

Yaakov said, “This Rasha is destined to enter with his sons into the מערת המכפלה?! He will have a share and a seat with the Tzaddikim buried there?!” (Shemos Rabba 31:17)

Taken together, Yaakov financial success and Eisav’s plot evoke the original conception of a partnership between the two brothers in the Abrahamic dynasty, but with a reversal of roles: Yaakov as גביר (cf. 27:37) and Eisav as spiritual leader. Strange as it sounds, Eisav’s position in the family was still an open question; Hashem does not sign off on Yaakov’s purchase of the birthright until Moshe is sent to save the Jews from Egypt (Rashi to Shemos 4:22).

Yaakov is rightly concerned and he comes up with an elegant solution: buying Eisav’s plot in ארץ ישראל with the wealth he made in חוץ לארץ. For Yaakov, it is a natural trade and a win-win, as it frees him of the stigma of the איש שדה and cements his ownership of the coveted birthright. Eisav’s consent to the sale is yet another insult to the birthright (cf. 25:34), supplying further justification for his removal from the family – a key aspect of Yaakov’s intention, no doubt.

In the generation of Yaakov and Eisav, we are presented with two options in life: to be a יושב אהלים in ישראל ארץ or an איש שדה in חוץ לארץ. The איש שדה is not a natural צדיק, and Yaakov rejects that identity. However, the elements are not mutually exclusive. There is another model: an איש שדה in חוץ לארץ who holds the birthright – and is also a צדיק. This archetype is personified in the next generation by none other than Yaakov’s own beloved son Yosef.

Where the Wild Things Are Frightened

The brothers strip Yosef of his precious coat, stain it with blood, bring it home and show it to their father. They ask, "Is this your son's jacket or not?" (37:32)

Why the scam? Would it not have been more compassionate for the brothers to simply deny having seen Yosef at all? Why traumatize Yaakov with nightmares of violence?

II

"Yisroel loved Yosef more than all his [other] sons" (37:3). Clearly, Yaakov believed Yosef to be a Tzaddik. However, the reality was not so simple. The Torah tells us explicitly that "Yosef brought negative reports [about his brothers] to their father" (37:2). In the brothers' opinion, Yosef was not the righteous son he appeared to be; he was a Rasha who spoke Lashon HaRa and informed on them. The fact that Yaakov had positive feelings about Yosef was, as the Torah attests, due to the fact that Yosef was a בן זקנים, "a son of his old age" (37:3). The recent precedent of a father misjudging his beloved son was fresh in everyone's mind and the brothers undoubtedly felt that Yaakov had been fooled by Yosef just as Yitzchok had been fooled by Eisav. (For more on the brothers' fear of Yosef as a reincarnation of Eisav, see this post.) 

Understanding the brothers' perspective explains their seemingly outrageous behavior after they throw Yosef in the pit. 

"They took him and cast him into the pit. The pit was empty, it had no water. They then sat down to eat bread..." (37:24-25). 

To eat bread?! Is the Torah telling us that the brothers were heartless?

According to the Rashbam (37:28), the brothers never sold Yosef. They just left him in the pit where he was discovered by the Midianites who sold him to the Yishmaelites. Unaware of these developments, Reuven is shocked to find the pit empty and reports his discovery to the brothers (37:30). (Rashi interprets events differently, but the Rashbam's narrative is undoubtedly the most straightforward reading of the text, cf. Sifsei Chachomim ad loc.). 

The pit was infested with snakes and scorpions (Rashi to 37:24), and so the brothers naturally assumed that Yosef had been poisoned. Reuven says as much years later when he criticizes his brothers. "I explicitly told you not to sin against the boy, and you did not listen! And now his blood demands [justice]" (42:22). The term "blood," especially in the sense of demanding justice, is a reference to a homicide victim, as we see in Hashem's words to Cain, "The voice of your brother's blood is crying out to me from the earth" (4:10). (Consistent with his view that the brothers sold Yosef, Rashi interprets the expression differently here.) 

Presuming Yosef had been killed by the snakes, it is perfectly understandable why the brothers sat down for a feast, for this is exactly what the Halacha dictates one must do when a brother guilty of informing passes away:      

כל הפורשים מדרכי צבור... וכן המומרים והמוסרים, כל אלו אין אוננים ואין מתאבלים עליהם אלא אחיהם ושאר קרוביהם לובשים לבנים ומתעטפים לבנים ואוכלים ושותים ושמחים - "Anyone who abandons communal norms... heretics and informers, we do not morn their passing. Rather, their brothers and other relatives dress in white, eat, drink, and rejoice" (Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 345:5). 

III

After the flood, when Noach exited the ark, Hashem made a striking statement: "The fear of you and the dread of you will be on all the wild animals of the earth, on all the birds of the sky, on all that crawls on the ground..." (9:2). The Midrash explains that it had been common for animals to attack members of the wicked generation prior to the flood. Hashem was promising that going forward animals would be afraid to touch the righteous family of Noach (Midrash Aggada). The Talmud affirms the point: 

אמר רמי בר חמא: אין חיה רעה שולטת באדם אלא אם כן נדמה לו כבהמה, שנאמר נמשל כבהמות נדמו - "A dangerous animal will not attack a person unless it thinks he's an animal" (Sanhedrin 38b).

In other words, wild animals don't attack Tzaddikim. The famous story of Daniel in the den of lions is a case in point. Daniel attributed his miraculous salvation to the fact that Hashem "found him innocent" (Daniel 6:16).

Returning to our original question about the brother's behavior, we can now understand that staining Yosef's coat with blood was not, חס ושלום, a callous act. On the contrary, it was a well-considered way of informing Yaakov that he was wrong about Yosef. Yosef was a Rasha, evidenced by the fact that animals were unafraid to attack him. The brothers were attempting to ease their father's pain, consoling him with proof that Yosef deserved to die and was unworthy of mourning. Certain that Yosef had been bitten by a snake, the brothers considered a blood-stained coat to be a truthful presentation of Yosef's fate. 

Rejecting the suggestion that Yosef was wicked, Yaakov "refused to be consoled" (37:35) and insisted on mourning the loss of his son for the rest of his life. Although excessive mourning is ordinarily prohibited, Yaakov was affirming his view of Yosef's righteousness, for an exception is made for the greatest Tzaddikim. Yaakov himself is a case in point (50:3), as is Moshe Rabbeinu (Devarim 34:8). (Yaakov's and Moshe's "period of crying" lasted seventy and thirty days respectively, compared with the three days dictated by Halacha, cf. Moed Koton 27b.) 

The brothers' plan backfired. Aware that Tzaddikim receive divine protection and confident in Yosef's righteousness, Yaakov was left with no choice but to question the voracity of the brothers' story. This explains the surprising assertion of the Midrash (quoted by Rashi to 42:36), that Yaakov suspected the brothers had either killed or sold Yosef. 

[Although Yaakov felt a need to protect himself from wild animals when he slept outdoors (28:11), that was not because he doubted Hashem's promise, ח"ו. Rather, the אבות were always careful to avoid relying on miracles (עיין רבי ירוחם ליבוביץ ז"ל, דעת חכמה ומוסר, ריש חלק א באריכות).]

Of course, Yaakov was correct in his judgement. The snakes and scorpions did not attack Yosef. As Hashem promised Noach long ago, even animals that crawl on the ground would never dare harm a true Tzaddik. But the divine protection of Yosef goes well beyond the animal kingdom. Yosef is untouchable. Yaakov called him עלי עין, "above the evil eye," because the forces of evil have no power over him (Rashi to 49:22). More than that, all attempts to do Yosef harm boomerang into blessings. The brothers threw him into a pit, as did the wife of Potifar, but these crimes only served to launch Yosef's meteoric rise to power. Only a man of extraordinary righteousness is worthy of such extraordinary divine providence.

At the very end of the story, after the passing of their father Yaakov, the brothers are terrified that Yosef will finally take revenge. Appealing for mercy, they offer to be his slaves (50:15-18). Yosef responds with this observation: "You planned to do me harm but Hashem directed it for the good" (50:20). What relevance does that have to the question of revenge?

Yosef may be saying that I couldn't hurt you even if I tried, but in light of the above, Yosef is making a different point. To paraphrase his response: 

"You are afraid that I will take revenge?! You still think I am wicked and evil?! Not only did Hashem protect me from your attempted murder, He turned it into the best thing that ever happened to me! What greater proof of righteousness can there be than that?" (For a different approach to this conversation, see the end of this post.)

IV

Fascinating parallels exist between the Yosef story and the Exodus story. In the Yosef story, the brothers are afraid of Yosef, view him negatively, and decide to sell him as a slave, while Yaakov recognized Yosef for who he was and elevated him into the position of firstborn, gifting him with an extra portion of inheritance (48:22). More than that, Yaakov entered Yosef into the pantheon of forefathers, declaring Yosef's sons to be on par with Reuven and Shimon (48:5). In the Exodus story, the Pharaoh is afraid of the Jews, views them negatively, and decides to enslave them, while Hashem loves the Jewish People and declares them to be "my son, my firstborn" (Shemos 4:22). Both stories share the common elements of fear, misjudgment and persecution of the righteous. 

The consequences also match. The brothers' attempt to eliminate Yosef is what puts him into power. Similarly, Pharaoh's decree to throw the baby boys in the Nile leads directly to the rise of Moshe. (For more on the boomerang effect, see this post.)

This last point greatly impressed Moshe's father-in-law Yisro. 

Yisro rejoiced over all the goodness that Hashem did for the Jewish People, saving it from the hand of Egypt... "Now I know that Hashem is greater than all forces, for [the Egyptians were destroyed] with the very thing that they plotted against them." (18:9,11). They were cooked in the pot which they cooked up (Rashi ad loc. from Sotah 11a). 

In life of Yosef and in the miracles of the Exodus, divine intervention is evidence of divine love, and divine love is evidence of righteousness (cf. Rambam, Hilchos Teshuva 7:6). Given the complexity of life, righteousness is difficult to define and impossible to judge. People, even great people like Yosef's brothers, can easily get it wrong. Only the all-knowing Almighty knows the truth (cf. Rambam ad loc. 3:2). 

V

Another parallel between the Yosef story and the Exodus story can be found in the fourth plague, מכת ערוב.

Hashem said to Moshe, "Arise early in the morning and stand before Pharaoh; He will be going out to the water. Tell him, so said God, 'Send out my people and they will serve me. For if you don't send out my people, I will send the arov against you... On that day, I will differentiate the land of Goshen upon which my people stand; no arov will be there, so that you shall know that I am God in the midst of the earth'" (Shemos 8:16-18). Arov: A mixture of all types of wild animals, snakes and scorpions attacked them (Rashi ad loc.).

Here, when Hashem wants to illustrate the difference between Jew and Egyptian and demonstrate His presence and providence, He uses snakes and scorpions. The choice of animals is interesting. Elsewhere in Tanach, when Hashem calls upon animals to attack His enemies, He uses flying insects (Devarim 7:20), bears (Melachim II 2:24), and lions (Rashi to Bereishis 7:16), not snakes and scorpions.

The animals of arov are not random. Snakes and scorpions evoke the original event which led the Egyptian exile. Just as the righteousness of Yosef was affirmed by his emerging unscathed from a pit of snakes and scorpions, so too in the plague of arov, snakes and scorpions only attack the wicked and keep their distance from the righteous.

Dominance over snakes gains added significance in light of the fact that the snake is the symbol of the Yetzer HaRa (cf. Bereishis 3:1; Nefesh Hachaim 1:6). The idea can be expanded to include the entire animal kingdom, for all animals ultimately represent the animal within man (cf. Rashi to Yona 4:11). By definition, "righteousness" is the mastery and control of the negative drives. Animals' fear of the righteous is thus an external expression of an internal reality.

VI

The Torah is clear. The purpose of the plagues is to educate Egypt about the nature of God. Hashem wanted the Egyptians to recognize His existence, omnipotence and providence, but there is more. The Egyptians must also understand that the Jews are a holy nation. This is the message of the arov, and this is why Moshe keeps telling Pharaoh that the Jews are Hashem's People and He wants them released from servitude so they can serve Him. It is not a marginal point. As can be seen in Maimonides Principles of Faith, only one who accepts the idea of a Chosen Nation understands the nature of God. And that necessarily includes acknowledgment of the essential holiness, goodness, and righteousness of the Jewish People.

After the seventh plague of hail, Pharaoh finally surrenders to the truth. "Hashem is the Tzaddik; me and my people are the Reshaim" (9:27). This is progress, but Pharaoh's admission falls short, for he has only recognized that he is in the wrong. While Pharaoh may view the Jews as hapless victims, he has not acknowledged their special relationship with Hashem. That will have to wait for the greatest miracle of all, the splitting of the sea.

The March

Posted by Guest Contributor IshbitzForever

Every Holiday shines a different light on our relationship with G-d. We are in middle of Passover, the holiday of “Ahavas Klula’soich”, a time when we compare the relationship of G-d and his people to lovers, bride and groom. It’s the Holiday in which Shir Hashirim, “Song of Songs” is read both after the Seder in our homes and in the synagogue by the community. We all know Rabbi Akiva’s quote “All books are holy, but the book of Shir Hashirim  is holy of holy (holiest of all).

After the six million, we surrendered and accepted to live with questions - we accepted that there is a unknown plan, that the rules of reward and punishment are for another world. Why do the righteous suffer? Moses himself was plagued by this question, and he was our greatest prophet. So it’s understandable that even the best of answers leave us unsatisfied and unsettled on some level. So we accept and wait and hope and pray, but we don't look for answers anymore. 

As much as we, the Jewish people love to argue, those silly arguments always fade to nothingness when challenged by our absolute acceptance of our oneness. We don’t have to know the man at the door to reach into our pockets, he’s our brother, but when he puts out his hand and says “Hachnasas Kallah” – we instinctively dig a little deeper into our pockets and our hearts  – because we know every Jewish cause is holy – but Shir Hashirim is holiest of all. To lend a hand for love, for family – to help create a Jewish home what can be holier.

So although most of us did not know the young couple that was taken from us this week, what they represented to us,  runs deep within us. 

To imagine the pain of the parents and loved ones is beyond anything I dare.

I can only say that we are a stubborn people, with a bag of questions on our back we march on, not because we are insensitive but because we must, "bal karchah ata chai" -  "Lachtaich Achari Bamidbar" its thru these challenging times, that we don't look for answers and just march that we endear ourselves to G-d once again - just keep marching. 

From Purim to Passover

Click the link below to listen to the fifth annual Anita Rossman Memorial Lecture, delivered last night in Santa Cruz, California.

From Purim to Passover: Lessons from Queen Esther on Courage, Sacrifice, and Redemption