bris k'rusa li'sefasayim -- words shape reality

וְעַתָּ֗ה אֶֽעֱלֶה־נָּ֛א וְאֶקְבְּרָ֥ה אֶת־אָבִ֖י וְאָשֽׁוּבָה׃... (50:5)  Why stick in the extra word וְעַתָּ֗ה?  We have a concept of "al tiftach peh l'satan."  Don't tempt fate.  If you show that you are not concerned with a potential kitrug, then you are inviting that kitrug.  There is another similar concept called "bris kerusa l'sefasayim."

   מנין שברית כרותה לשפתים – שנאמר (בראשית כ''ב, ה'): וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם אֶל נְעָרָיו שְׁבוּ לָכֶם פֹּה עִם הַחֲמוֹר וַאֲנִי וְהַנַּעַר נֵלְכָה עַד כֹּה וְנִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה וְנָשׁוּבָה אֲלֵיכֶם: ואיסתייעא מלתא דהדור תרוייהו. (M"K 18a) 

 

Avraham and Yitzchak returned unharmed from the akeidah just as they said they would, or, to be more exact, because they said they would.  The idea of ברית כרותה לשפתים is, writes Maharasha, like nevuah.  The words that come out of your mouth have tremendous power because they reflect truth.  Therefore, unlike "al tiftach peh l'satan," here it even works to a person's benefit.  R' Shlomo Kluguer in Imrei Shefer writes that this is why Yosef did not want to say just  the words אֶֽעֱלֶה־נָּ֛א ... וְאָשֽׁוּבָה׃  I'm going to go to Eretz Yisrael and will come back -- period, full stop.  You mean that's it?  I come back here, "home" to Egypt, and this where I am going to stay?  ברית כרותה לשפתים  Don't even say such a thing!  Words carry weight.  Instead, וְעַתָּ֗ה אֶֽעֱלֶה־נָּ֛א... וְאָשֽׁוּבָה׃.  Right now, ְעַתָּ֗ה, I will go and will have to come back, but, one day in the future I will go to Eretz Yisrael and not have to come back.  

You know you when you go on your vacation to Eretz Yisrael that you already have a return ticket booked to come "home," but at least when you talk about it, let the trip be וְעַתָּ֗ה אֶֽעֱלֶה־נָּ֛א... וְאָשֽׁוּבָה׃, now I am going and will return. The future hopefully holds something different, a time when we will all go and not have to return anywhere else.  

Yosef's care in his every word is something he got from his father. Earlier in the parsha, Yaakov has Yosef swear that he will ensure that he is buried in me'aras ha'machpeila. Yaakov tells Yosef וַאֲנִ֣י׀ בְּבֹאִ֣י מִפַּדָּ֗ן מֵ֩תָה֩ עָלַ֨י רָחֵ֜ל בְּאֶ֤רֶץ כְּנַ֙עַן֙ בַּדֶּ֔רֶךְ בְּע֥וֹד כִּבְרַת־אֶ֖רֶץ לָבֹ֣א אֶפְרָ֑תָה וָאֶקְבְּרֶ֤הָ שָּׁם֙ בְּדֶ֣רֶךְ אֶפְרָ֔ת הִ֖וא בֵּ֥ית לָֽחֶם. Some read this as Yaakov asking forgiveness of Yosef for not ensuring that his mother is buried there. Meshech Chochma connects Yaakov's words here with the Midrash which explains the reason for Rachel's death is because Yaakov did not make haste to fulfill the vow to return home that he had made when he departed for Lavan's home 

 ורבנן אמרי כל מי שנודר ומשהה נדרו קובר את אשתו הה״ד: ״ואני בבואי מפדן מתה עלי רחל.

Yaakov was hinting to Yosef that he should not delay fulfilling the vow to bury him in Eretz Yisrael as he knows first hand that the danger that can come from such action. You make a promise -- keep your word and take care of it right away.  On an even simpler level, Rashi at the end of VaYeitzi gives a different reason for Rachel's death. Since Yaakov said to Lavan עִ֠ם אֲשֶׁ֨ר תִּמְצָ֣א אֶת־אֱלֹהֶ֘יךָ֮ לֹ֣א יִֽחְיֶה֒, he inadvertently invited trouble. וְלֹֽא־יָדַ֣ע יַעֲקֹ֔ב כִּ֥י רָחֵ֖ל גְּנָבָֽתַם says the pasuk, because, as the Bechor Shor explains, had Yaakov known, those words לֹ֣א יִֽחְיֶה֒ would have never come out of his mouth. ברית כרותה לשפתים! Perhaps Yaakov meant to tell Yosef that if this is the power of words, kal v'chomer he should be extra careful to make sure to fulfill his promise to bury Yaakov. Now, when the time has come for Yosef to fulfill that promise, he remembers the lesson ברית כרותה לשפתים that his father was trying to impart.  He is therefore extra careful with his own words.

I think this sheds light on the penultimate pasuk in the parsha, וַיַּשְׁבַּ֣ע יוֹסֵ֔ף אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר פָּקֹ֨ד יִפְקֹ֤ד אֱלֹקים֙ אֶתְכֶ֔ם וְהַעֲלִתֶ֥ם אֶת־עַצְמֹתַ֖י מִזֶּֽה (50:25). Rabeinu Bachyei is medayek that the pasuk doesn't say וַיַּשְׁבַּ֣ע יוֹסֵ֔ף אֶת אחיו, but rather it refers to בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל. Yosef meant to include in his oath anyone who would in the future be part of Bnei Yisrael, not just his immediate brothers. So who is the לֵאמֹ֑ר speaking to? There is a Midrash interprets לֵאמֹ֑ר to mean that the Yosef's brothers would administer this same oath their children, and their children to their chidren, etc. until it could be fulfilled. According to Rabeinu Bachyei, all those future generations are automatically be included in the original oath.

 היה הכתוב ראוי לומר וישבע יוסף את אחיו אלא מלמד שהשביע לכל מי שהוא מבני ישראל ואפילו העתידים להיות.

So why do you need the לֵאמֹ֑ר in the pasuk? I think that even according to Rabeinu Bachyei, the Midrash's interpretation, that Yosef was telling his brothers to speak to future generations, works. Yosef's goal was not just to bind future generations to keep the promise he made them give.  Yosef's goal was to enable them to do so.  Yosef wanted to give future generations the hope and inspiration to survive the galus so that one day there would be a Klal Yisrael who would fulfill their promise to him.  Therefore, he not only had them promise וְהַעֲלִתֶ֥ם אֶת־עַצְמֹתַ֖י מִזֶּֽה, to take his bones out with them, but he had them promise לֵאמֹ֑ר פָּקֹ֨ד יִפְקֹ֤ד אֱלֹקים֙ אֶתְכֶ֔ם, to keep saying to their children, to keep saying to themselves, that they would be redeemed.  It's not enough to believe it.  Yosef wanted them to make that promise into a mantra, לֵאמֹ֑ר, to keep repeating it gain and again.   ברית כרותה לשפתים If you say it, it will become the reality.  That was the message Yosef took from Yaakov as Yaakov's life drew to a close, and that is the message he passed on as his own life ended as well.

Pesach sheni in the zechus of Yosef

1) Midrash Rabbah Shmos 20:17

אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ לְאַחֶיךָ (בראשית נ, כא): אָנֹכִי אֲכַלְכֵּל אֶתְכֶם, חַיֶּיךָ אַתָּה נִפְטָר וְיִהְיוּ עַצְמוֹתֶיךָ מְחַזְּרִין עִמָּהֶם בַּמִּדְבָּר אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ט, ו): וַיְהִי אֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ טְמֵאִים לְנֶפֶשׁ אָדָם, וְאֵין אָדָם אֶלָּא יוֹסֵף, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים עח, ס): אֹהֶל שִׁכֵּן בָּאָדָם, וּכְתִיב (תהלים עח, סז): וַיִּמְאַס בְּאֹהֶל יוֹסֵף, בִּזְכוּת עַצְמוֹתֶיךָ הֵם עוֹשִׂים פֶּסַח קָטָן.

What connection is there between Yosef offering to sustain his brothers and Pesach sheni?  

The pasuk tells us that Yosef offered  וְעַתָּה֙ אַל⁠־תִּירָ֔אוּ אָנֹכִ֛י אֲכַלְכֵּ֥ל אֶתְכֶ֖ם וְאֶֽת⁠־טַפְּכֶ֑ם. Obviously he wasn't going to feed only his brothers and let their children and family starve.  Why mention וְאֶֽת⁠־טַפְּכֶ֑ם?  The Netziv points out that we find a similar pasuk earlier (47:12)  וַיְכַלְכֵּ֤ל יוֹסֵף֙ אֶת⁠־אָבִ֣יו וְאֶת⁠־אֶחָ֔יו וְאֵ֖ת כׇּל⁠־בֵּ֣ית אָבִ֑יו לֶ֖חֶם לְפִ֥י הַטָּֽף׃ and there he explains that Yosef didn't just provide a one-size-fits-all bag of groceries to his brothers to give to their families.  What you feed an adult is not appropriate for a baby.   Yosef personally managed things, אָנֹכִ֛י* אֲכַלְכֵּ֥ל אֶתְכֶ֖ם*, to make sure that each individual got what he/she needed, right down to the nitty-gritty of making sure the Gerber baby food jars were included for the babies too. 

Hashem could easily have said, "So what if a few individuals got left out of offering the korban pesach?  So long as the bulk of the people are covered, good enough."  But just like Yosef saw that each individual was cared for, so too, midah k'neged midah, Hashem took care to make sure that each individual would have n opportunity to offer the korban pesach properly.  (see the Ostrovtza for two other interpretations)

2) וַיְבָ֨רְכֵ֜ם בַּיּ֣וֹם הַהוּא֮ לֵאמוֹר֒ בְּךָ֗ יְבָרֵ֤ךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר יְשִֽׂמְךָ֣ אֱלֹקים כְּאֶפְרַ֖יִם וְכִמְנַשֶּׁ֑ה וַיָּ֥שֶׂם אֶת⁠־אֶפְרַ֖יִם לִפְנֵ֥י מְנַשֶּֽׁה׃ (48:20)

R' Reuvain Katz (Dudai Reuvain) has a beautiful diyuk here  Yaakov was blessing both Ephraim and Menashe.  Shouldn't it therefore say בּכם in the plural, not בְּךָ֗ יְבָרֵ֤ךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ in the singular?  

Secondly, the text of the bracha itself,  יְשִֽׂמְךָ֣ אֱלֹקים כְּאֶפְרַ֖יִם וְכִמְנַשֶּׁ֑ה, puts Ephraim in front of Menashe.  Why then does the pasuk needs to reiterate in its conclusion וַיָּ֥שֶׂם אֶת⁠־אֶפְרַ֖יִם לִפְנֵ֥י מְנַשֶּֽׁה׃?

Menashe and Ephraim each had a different role.  Menashe worked at his father's side in tending to the affairs of state.   וַיְצַ֞ו אֶת⁠־אֲשֶׁ֣ר עַל⁠־בֵּיתוֹ֮ (44:1) Targum Yonasan writes ופקיד ית מנשה דממנה אפיטרופוס על ביתיה.  Similarly, וְהֵם֙ לֹ֣א יָֽדְע֔וּ כִּ֥י שֹׁמֵ֖עַ יוֹסֵ֑ף כִּ֥י הַמֵּלִ֖יץ בֵּינֹתָֽם (42:23) Rashi writes המליץ – זה מנשה.  Ephraim, on the other hand, sat and learned by his grandfather.  Rashi 48:1: אפרים היה רגיל לפני יעקב בתלמוד, וכשחלה יעקב בארץ גשן, הלך אפרים אצל אביו למצרים, והגיד לו. Each child had his own talents, interests, skills. 

Yaakov Avinu tells us that when you bless your children, don't bless one child to be a Menashe and another child to be an Ephraim.  בְּךָ֗ יְבָרֵ֤ךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל֙, in the singular -- we should hope each and every child can excel at learning and be a talmid chacham like Ephraim, but also have the skills to make his way in the world, just like a Menashe.

That being said, make no mistake about priorities.  Yaakov put Ephraim before Menashe, and lest you think אין מוקדם ומאוחר בּתורה and what difference does it make, the pasuk reiterates וַיָּ֥שֶׂם אֶת⁠־אֶפְרַ֖יִם לִפְנֵ֥י מְנַשֶּֽׁה.   

mitzvah of burial; keeping going when the going is tough

1) Rashi comments on Yaakov's request  אַל נָא תִקְבְּרֵנִי בְּמִצְרָיִם that there are three reasons why Yaakov did not want to be buried in Egypt:

 סופן להיות עפרם כנים, ושאין מתי חוצה לארץ חיין אלא בצער גילגול מחילות, ושלא יעשוני מצרים עבודה זרה. 

I saw quoted in the name of R' Shimon Moshe Diskin, R"Y of Kol Torah, that the reason of סופן להיות עפרם כנים is not just because משום צער המת (see Gur Aryeh) and would not be a very nice thing, but it is based on a din.  The gemara (Sanhedrin 46b) learns that burial must be done in soil.  When the plague of kinim came, all of the soil of Egypt turned to lice.  The Midrash (Shmos Rabbah 10:7) writes  לְפִיכָךְ נֶהְפַּךְ עֲפָרָם לְכִנִּים וְחוֹפְרִין אַמָּה עַל אַמָּה וְלֹא הָיָה שָׁם עָפָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: כָּל עֲפַר הָאָרֶץ הָיָה כִנִּים, that even down to the depth of an amah there was only kinim. If so, had Yaakov been buried in Egypt the mitzvah of kevurah would be bateil, as he would no longer be buried in earth.  Therefore, he asked to be carried to Eretz Yisrael.   

It's a brilliant chap, but I have one small question, or maybe it would be better to call it an observation.  The Kli Chemdah points out what seems to be a stirah in Ramban.  Ramban comments in parshas Chayei Sarah on the pasuk  אִם יֵשׁ אֶת נַפְשְׁכֶם לִקְבֹּר אֶת מֵתִי מִלְּפָנַי that מלפני – כי אם לא תעשו כן, אקברנו בארון  Avraham told the Bnei Chais that if they won't sell him a burial plot, he will bury Sarah in an aron and leave her in a coffin.  However, Ramban in Torah haAdam writes that the mitzvah of kevurah m'doraysa can only be fulfilled through burial in soil.  How then could Avraham have left Sarah in an aron?  What about the mitzvah of kevurah?  Kli Chemdah answers that the reason behind buying the body in soil is based on the din of hashavas ha'gezeilah.  Man is created from dust of the earth.  Either he can fulfill his mission and be metakein that dust and elevate it to something holy, or the dust must be returned to its source.  (Nafka mina to this hesber: gezel is prohibited even to a ben noach, so they too have to bury their dead.)  Sarah achieved the goal of sanctifying the dust her body was created from, so she did not need to be returned to the soil.  For her, burial in an aron would have been sufficient.  The same is true, says the Kli Chemdah, of Moshe, as no one knows where the burial place of his body is.  The same is true of Yosef, who was placed in an aron after death and according to some views that aron was sunk into the Nile, not buried in land.  Given all of the above, I don't think it would be a stretch to say the same is true of Yaakov Avinu.  So what if the soil would turn to kinim and he would not have burial in soil?  His body was elevated to a state of holiness and did not need to return to the earth? 

Worth noting as well that the Sifsei Chachamim asks why Rashi quotes three reasons for Yaakov's request -- wouldn't one justification be enough?  He comments: ״ל דצריך לג׳ טעמים הללו דאי משום כנים לחוד היה לו לצוות לעשות ארון מברזל לכך פירש גלגול מחילות etc.  I don't know what the S.C. does with the gemara in Sanhedrin, as לעשות ארון מברזל is not an option if you hold you need burial in land.  

Again, this is not a question, as it is all predicated on the Kli Chemdah.  You can find some other way to answer up that Ramban and avoid the whole issue.  Just thought it was worth pointing out.

2) Yaakov blessed Yissachar (49:15) וַיַּרְא מְנֻחָה כִּי טוֹב וְאֶת הָאָרֶץ כִּי נָעֵמָה וַיֵּט שִׁכְמוֹ לִסְבֹּל וַיְהִי לְמַס עֹבֵד.  A question we've dealt with before: the bracha seems self-contradictory, a stirah minei u'bei.  If Yissachar loved menucha, then what is the meaning of וַיֵּט שִׁכְמוֹ לִסְבֹּל, that he accepted a burden on his shoulders?  There is no menucha in that!

Seforno writes that the מְנֻחָה  referred to here is המנוחה בשלמות המושכלות, achieving spiritual perfection. Midrash Rabbah: וַיַּרְא מְנֻחָה כִּי טוֹב – זוֹ הַתּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ד׳:ב׳): כִּי לֶקַח טוֹב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם.  Menucha does not mean that Yissachar loved indolence or was lazy.  What it means is that in comparison to the lot of Zevulun, who went out to do business and fight wars, Yissachar preferred to toil closer to home, to expend his energy toiling under the yoke of Torah.

Maharam Shick explains the lesson of this pasuk in a way that probably runs counter to everything modern chinuch is all about.  A bit of intro from the Shem m'Shmuel to set the table: the gemara (Brachos 13b) writes 

  אמר לי' רב לר' חייא לא חזינא לי' לרבי דמקבל עלי' מלכות שמים, אמר לי' בר פחתי בשעה שמעביר ידיו על פניו 

Rav remrked to R' Chiya that he was perplexed because he never saw Rebbi accept upon himself עול מלכות שׁמים.  Rav Chiya responded that Rebbi did so when he covered his eyes in the shiur, like we cover our eyes when we say shema.  The Shem m'Shmuel in parshas VaEschanan explains Rav's bewilderment: 

 ופרשנו דשאלת רב היתה דהיות רבי שהי' כל ימיו בדביקות עצומה איך שייך אצלו קבלת מלכות שמים שאצלו איננו עול אלא אהבה רבה [ויש להוסיף ולומר היות רבי מזרעא דדוד קאתי שהיתה מדתו השתוקקת עצומה ואהבה רבה לאלקות כמ"ש (תהלים ס"ג ב') צמאה לך נפשי כמה לך בשרי וכל ספר תהלים מלא מזה, וכן היתה בודאי מדתו של רבי, ואמר על עצמו שלא נהנה מעוה"ז אפי' כאצבע קטנה, ולעומת שלא נהנה מעוה"ז היו כל תענוגותיו רק אלקות כמו שבא ברמז בדבר אמלאה החרבה אם מלאה זו חרבה זו כמו שהארכנו בזה במק"א, איך יתכן שנקרא אצלו עול]

What bothered Rav is that for someone as connected to ruchniyus as Rebbi, is there really such a thing as עול מלכות שׁמים, as the YOKE of heaven?  Yoke means it's a burden, something you have to work hard at.  If someone gave you the job of eating chocolate ice cream or your favorite cake, you wouldn't call that a yoke, you would call it a pleasure!  For Rebbi, serving Hashem was chocolate ice cream.  Where's the burden?

Whatever the answer is (look up the Shem m'Shmuel), you see from Rav's question that there is a tremendous maa'lah to serving Hashem not because doing so is like chocolate ice cream, but because it is קבּלת עול, because it is a necessity even if we wouldn't enjoy it.

 וַיַּרְא מְנֻחָה כִּי טוֹב, Yissachar saw that המנוחה בשלמות המושכלות is the ultimate good besides which nothing can compare or complete. It was better than riches, better than chocolate ice cream.  Nonetheless, וַיֵּט שִׁכְמוֹ לִסְבֹּל  His motivation in avodas Hashem was not just because Torah is enjoyable, but rather he accepted what he had to do as an עול, as service, as something that must be done irrespective or whether it was pleasurable or not.

Today when kids go to school every morah and rebbi wants them to feel "geshmack," not just in first and second grade, but even in high school and beis medrash.  I don't know what people raised in that way do when learning does not feel so geshmack, as is the case many times after a long day of work or when dealing with other difficulties.  We all hope and pray that וַיַּרְא מְנֻחָה כִּי טוֹב, that we should love learning and experience the joy and pleasure in Torah and mitzvos, but we also need the motivation of וַיֵּט שִׁכְמוֹ לִסְבֹּל, to keep going even when the going is tough.

don't be deceived by sweetness

  וַיְחִ֤י יַעֲקֹב֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם שְׁבַ֥ע עֶשְׂרֵ֖ה שָׁנָ֑ה  Rashi comments:

  למה פרשה זה סתומה? לפי שכיון שנפטר יעקב אבינו נסתתמו עיניהם ולבם של ישראל מצרת השיעבוד, שהתחילו לשעבדם.

Forget about the question of whether this Rashi is a stira to other Rashis that say the shibud did not begin until after the shevatim died.  Rashi is a stira to the pasuk itself!  The Torah here is describing the great life Yaakov had in Egypt.  As Netziv writes, אלא הפירוש ״ויחי יעקב״, שהיה חי חיים טובים ומתוקנים, מה שלא הורגל כזה בארץ ישראל.  The stuma that hints to  נסתתמו עיניהם ולבם של ישראל shouldn't be here -- it should come after Yaakov's death, at the start of parshas Shmos, when the situation changes.  As the Shem m'Shmuel writes (5678, also see the Kozhiglover):

ויש לדקדק שכתוב זה איננו מדבר מפטירתו של יעקב עדיין, אדרבה, שמדבר מחייו שהי' עיקר שני חייו, ..., א"כ יש להבין למה הרמז ממה שנהייתה אחר פטירתו ניתן כאן

There is a Zohar that says that these 17 years of goodness that Yaakov experienced were a payback for the years of suffering he experienced when Yosef was lost -- 17 years because Yosef left home at age 17.  The obvious question: Yosef was away from home for 22 years, so why not give Yaakov 22 years of joy?  What does how old he was when he left home have to do with anything?  The Kozhiglover answers that it was the 17 years of pleasure that Yaakov had during those first 17 years of Yosef's life that made the next 22 years so miserable.  Pain and loss are a response to being deprived of joy and pleasure that one has become accustomed to.  Without the latter, the former is meaningless.  

It could be that Rashi means the same here, i.e. the goodness Yaakov experienced in Egypt set the stage for the pain of galus that was to follow because it made the fall that much more dramatic and painful.  But I think Rashi means much more than that.  I think the goodness itself is the first step into the galus.  

In my neighborhood there are yeshivos, there are kollelim, there is also every type of kosher restaurant and eatery and gashmiyus thing you could think of.  וַיְחִ֤י יַעֲקֹב֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם!  We are on a high, whether you measure our material well being or even our spiritual health.  But that high masks a sad truth, and that is  נסתתמו עיניהם ולבם של ישראל.  Not because we are not learning Torah, davening with a minyan, giving out kids a good Jewish education, etc. but because we have deluded ourselves into thinking that's all that matters, that's all that being a Jew is all about.  Does it even enter anyone's mind when they are eating a great steak dinner at one of the local fancy restaurants in town, or l'havdil, when they are listening to a shiur in a local shul, that this is not where we are supposed to be, that our whole existence here is just a b'dieved?  I think not. That's  נסתתמו עיניהם ולבם של ישראל  That's being blinded by the חיים טובים ומתוקנים, מה שלא הורגל כזה, to use the Netziv's language. 

What happened later in parshas Shmos is that the  נסתתמו עיניהם ולבם של ישראל  that started here from all the goodness was transformed into נסתתמו עיניהם ולבם של ישראל מצרת השיעבוד.  Once Yaakov, who carried with him the memory of where the family originated, was gone, a different phase of the galus began, a more painful phase, but that phase was an extension of the forgetting that began in our parsha.  Therefore it is our parsha, not parshas Shmos, which is the פרשה זה סתומה.

a "left handed" redemption

 On Friday I posted a Meshech Chochma that explains that the right hand, which Yaakov placed on Ephraim's head, signifies hashgacha lma'alah min ha'teva, matching Ephaim's Torah-only focus, and matching the open miracles done for Yehoshua.  The left hand, which Yaakov placed on Menashe's head, signifies Hashem working within teva, matching Menashe's work as Yosef's assistant in administering the affairs of state, and matching the help Hashem have Gidon, which did not manisfest itself in any open miracles. 

I realized afterwards that based on this we have a deeper insight into the gemara (Pesachim 56a):

 דאמר רשב"ל ויקרא יעקב אל בניו ויאמר האספו ואגידה לכם ביקש יעקב לגלות לבניו קץ הימין ונסתלקה ממנו שכינה אמר שמא חס ושלום יש במטתי פסול כאברהם שיצא ממנו ישמעאל ואבי יצחק שיצא ממנו עשו אמרו לו בניו שמע ישראל ה' אלהינו ה' אחד אמרו כשם שאין בלבך אלא אחד כך אין בלבנו אלא אחד באותה שעה פתח יעקב אבינו ואמר ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד

Note the gemara's language: Yaakov wanted to reveal  קץ הימין.  I would say that קץ הימין means (see Rashi) the keitz of the right hand -- a redemption with open miracles, where the world becomes a Torah only world and is completely transformed.

The reason ונסתלקה ממנו שכינה is not an onesh, but rather because that is not the reality of our redemption.  As the Rishonim explain, based on the level we are on the redemption is one that will occur -- that is occurring! -- b'derech ha'teva.  It is not קץ הימין, but rather a left-handed redemption where Hashem does not reveal Himself openly, but is nonetheless guiding history.  

right hand, left hand: rivivos Ephraim and alphei Menashe

1. Yaakov placed his right hand on Ephraim and his left on Menashe in order to give them a bracha.  We find in many other places that bracha is transmitted through the hands, e.g. nisi'as kapayim of the kohanim, Moshe placed his hands on Yehoshua's head, etc.  The fact that Yaakov deliberately switched his hands to place his right hand on Ephraim shows that the placement of the hands, not just the words of the bracha, has a powerful impact.  

The Shulchan Aruch has a din that when you wash netilas yadayim you should wash with more than the bare minimum of water needed for the shiur.  The gemara quotes that R' Chisda would use a lot of water because it brings bracha.  R' Shteinman points out that we don't find such a din anywhere else, e.g. there is no din that it is better to be toveil in a mikveh that has more than the minimum shiur of water.  It is davka when washing one's hands, he suggests, that this idea applies because the hands are the conduit to bracha.

(The Brisker Rav held that physical contact is not needed to transmit a bracha.  We see many places in Chazal that they had the power just by looking at a person to transmit bracha, and the opposite, to even kill a person. The reason Yaakov was so particular about placing his hands on Ephraim and Menashe is because, as we read earlier in the parsha, וְעֵינֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ כָּבְד֣וּ מִזֹּ֔קֶן לֹ֥א יוּכַ֖ל לִרְא֑וֹת, Yaakov could not see very well, and so he could not rely on his sight alone to connect with Ephraim and Menashe.)

2. There are many reasons given for why we bless our children to be davka like Ephraim and Menashe.  R' Eliezer Sorotzkin suggests that when we look at the relationship between the shevatim, we find disharmony and conflict.  Yosef's dreams elicited jealousy from his brothers, the brothers in turn plotted to kill Yosef.  When Yaakov placed his right hand on Ephraim, the younger of the two brothers, Menashe did not react -- not a word.  It was only Yosef who stepped in to object.  Two brothers who could live in such harmony and peace without one objecting to the other getting ahead -- this is the bracha Yaakov wanted for us to pass on for eternity.  

3. At the end of his life Moshe blessed Ephraim and Menashe to be able to defeat their enemies:  וְהֵם֙ רִבְב֣וֹת אֶפְרַ֔יִם וְהֵ֖ם אַלְפֵ֥י מְנַשֶּֽׁה׃.  Rashi explains that the רִבְב֣וֹת are the multitudes killed by Yehoshua, who was from sheivet Ephraim, and the אלפים are those killed by Gidon, who was from Menashe. Meshech Chochma connects Moshe's words the pasuk (Teh 91:7) יִפֹּ֤ל מִצִּדְּךָ֨׀ אֶ֗לֶף וּרְבָבָ֥ה מִימִינֶ֑ךָ אֵ֝לֶ֗יךָ לֹ֣א יִגָּֽשׁ.  He explains that וּרְבָבָ֥ה מִימִינֶ֑ךָ, on the right, because it corresponds to  רִבְב֣וֹת אֶפְרַ֔יִם, and Yaakov placed his right hand on Ephraim's head.  מִצִּדְּךָ֨׀ אֶ֗לֶף, on the left side, corresponds to אַלְפֵ֥י מְנַשֶּֽׁה, and Yaakov placed his left hand on Menashe.  

Meshech Chochma writes that y'min represents the revelation of Hashem derech nes; s'mol represents the revelation of Hashem within teva.  אַף־יָדִי֙ יָ֣סְדָה אֶ֔רֶץ וִימִינִ֖י טִפְּחָ֣ה שָׁמָ֑יִם (Yeshayahu 48:13).  The right hand is used to create the heavens; the left hand to create earth.  We read in Zos haBracha that "mi'mino aish das lamo," that Torah is given with Hashem's right hand, kavyachol, but when we abandon the Torah, "af choveiv amim," Hashem gets is angry with us and as a result the nations are beloved, and "kol kidoshav b'yadecha," we are held in His left hand, kavyachol.  

Ephraim devoted himself exclusively to Torah study.  He lived a life detached from normal day to day events, a "right handed" life.  Therefore, his descendent Yehoshua merited open miracles like the sun stopping in the middle of the sky to help him pursue and defeat his enemies, the rivivos Ephraim.  Menashe helped deal with the mundane affairs that Yosef had to administer.  He was his father's "left hand."  His descendants would work within the derech ha'teva to defeat the enemies of the Jewish people, the alphei Menashe.  

When we take the Torah out we say the pesukim of "va'yehi bi'nso'a" where Moshe davened for Hashem to scatter our enemies.  When we put the Torah back, we say "shuvah Hashem rivivos alphei Yisrael" -- rivivos and alaphim, Ephraim and Menashe, l'maaleh min ha'teva and b'toch ha'teva as one.

should the oleh answer chazak chazak v'nischazeik?

The Ketzos haShulchan writes that when the baal koreh finishes the parsha at the end of a sefer, the oleh should not answer "chazak chazak v'nitchazeik" along with everyone else.  Doing so creates a hefsek between the kriah and the final bracha, and secondly, we are the ones saying "chazak" to the oleh, to give him chizuk.  It makes no sense for him to chime in and say it to himself.  This is also the view of R' Elyashiv, but others disagree (see here).  

why give the alarm clock credit?

The pshat in  יִשָּׂשכָ֖ר חֲמֹ֣ר גָּ֑רֶם is that Yisachar is being compared to a donkey with strong bones.  GR"M = bone

Rashi: יששכר חמור גרם – חמור בעל עצמות, סובל עול התורה, כחמור חזק שמטעינין אותו למשאוי כבד.

Ibn Ezra: חמר גרם – דמהו לחמור שיש לו עצם כבד

However, the Midrash (also Nida 31a) interprets GR"M = cause.

דָּבָר אַחֵר: יִשָּׂשכָר חֲמֹר גָּרֶם – חֲמוֹר גָּרַם אוֹתוֹ, וְכִי מִנַּיִן הָיְתָה לֵאָה יוֹדַעַת שֶׁבָּא יַעֲקֹב, אֶלָּא נָהַק הַחֲמוֹר וְשָׁמְעָה קוֹלוֹ וְיָצָאת לִקְרָאתוֹ.

Leah traded dudaim for an extra night with Yaakov.  She awaited Yaakov's return home, and when she heard his donkey braying signaling his arrival, she went out to greet him and take him to her tent.  On that night Yisachar was conceived.

It seems strange to say that Yisachar was "caused" by the braying of the donkey.  That is like saying my alarm clock going off caused me to get to shul this morning.  True, I probably would still be asleep if not for the alarm clock, but the cause of my going to davening was my own decision and actions.  Leah had to choose to make the effort to try to be with Yaakov for an extra night in order to conceive and produce an extra sheivet.  Why give the donkey credit?

My wife thought that Chazal are trying to tell us that Leah was able to elevate even the chamor=chumriyus and use it to produce Yisachar, the sheivet that dedicated themselves to learning Torah.  Could be, but i am still bothered by how that is called a gorem.

asher nasan li Elokim BA'ZEH

When Yosef heard that Yaakov was sick and dying, he rushed with his two sons to his father's bedside.  Yaakov told Yosef that his two sons, Ephraim and Menashe, were like Reuvain and Shimon to him and they would be counted as shevatim.  Yakov was then about to give them brachos when suddenly he paused.  The following enigmatic exchange (48:9-10) then took place:

 וַיַּ֥רְא יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י יוֹסֵ֑ף וַיֹּ֖אמֶר מִי־אֵֽלֶּה

Yaakov saw Yosef's sons and seemed not to recognize them; he asked Yosef who the two people standing before him were.

Yosef responded:

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יוֹסֵף֙ אֶל־אָבִ֔יו בָּנַ֣י הֵ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־נָֽתַן־לִ֥י אֱלֹהִ֖ים בָּזֶ֑ה

When he heard Yosef's answer, Yaakov went ahead and blessed them.

If we didn't know better we might think Yaakov was having a senior moment here.  The Ohr haChaim asks the obvious question:  קשה והלא י״ז שנה היו יושבים לפניו ללמוד תורה ואיך שואל עליהם,  For 17 years Yaakov Avinu has been learning Torah with these same two grandchildren and suddenly he doesn't recognize who they are when he sees them?  

Rashi helps us out with a derash, but I don't know if it makes the passage any less cryptic.  Rashi comments:

וירא ישראל את בני יוסף – בקש לברכם ונסתלקה שכינה ממנו, לפי שעתיד ירבעם ואחאב לצאת מאפרים, ויהוא ובניו ממנשה.

ויאמר מי אלה – מהיכן יצאו אילו, שאינן ראויין לברכה

Yaakov Avinu saw prophetically that the evil kings Yeravan and Achav would come from Ephraim and Yeihu from Menashe, and so he hesitated, wondering if indeed they were worthy of bracha.

(Parenthetically, why did Yaakov not have a similar hesitation when it came to blessing his other sons?  Having Menashe as a descendent is nothing to brag about, but Yaakov did not pause before blessing Yehudah?     

Bartenura answers in Amar N'kei that when it comes to a son, a parent is willing to overlook future misdeeds and give a bracha.  Ephraim and Menashe, for all their closeness to Yaakov, were one generation removed and did not enjoy the same consideration.

I don't know how things are on your families, but I have a kashe on this Bartenura from the metziyus.  Seems to me that whatever mild criticism my mother may make about her grandchildren, they are still all wonderful in her eyes, but when it comes to her children like me, that's another story : )

If that's what gave Yaakov pause, how did  Yosef's response serve to reassure him?  How does reminding Yaakov that these are the children Hashem gave him in Mitzrayim help?

R' Baruch Sorotzkin has two approaches to this question (we've also discussed it in the past).  I would put one of his answers like this: it is precisely because Yaakov said אֶפְרַ֙יִם֙ וּמְנַשֶּׁ֔ה כִּרְאוּבֵ֥ן וְשִׁמְע֖וֹן יִֽהְיוּ־לִֽי׃ that he hesitated before blessing them.  Ephraim and Menashe were big tzadikim, but were they really on par with the shivtei K-h?  Doesn't the fact that these wicked kings like Yeravam and Achav  prove that there is already some latent flaw within them?

Yosef's answer was that these were the children "asher nasan li Elokim BA'ZEH."  These children did not grow up from birth in the presence of Yaakov Avinu like Reuvain and Shimon did.  These children did not have the opportunity to live on the holy soil of Eretz Yisrael like Reuvain and Shimon did.  "BA'ZEH" = these children were born here, in Egypt, a foreign land, a foreign culture.  You have to measure them on their own scale, taking account of that unique environment and its challenges.  The outcome of their lives and the lives of their descendants may not be the same as that of Reuvain, Shimon, and the other shevatim, but that does not diminish their tzidkus given where they came from.

R' Tzadok writes that the spiritual achievements of these last generations before mashiach are even greater than those of previous generations.  No one today is anywhere close to what the Vilna Gaon was, what R' Akiva EIger was, kal v'chomer what even earlier generations were, but those folks did not grow up with an iphone, a TV, twitter and facebook.  When you see bnei Torah immersed in learning despite the distractions the world throws at them, that's "asher nasan li Elokim BA'ZEH."  

we do these things because they are hard

וַיַּ֤רְא מְנֻחָה֙ כִּ֣י ט֔וֹב וְאֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ כִּ֣י נָעֵ֑מָה וַיֵּ֤ט שִׁכְמוֹ֙ לִסְבֹּ֔ל וַיְהִ֖י לְמַס־עֹבֵֽד׃ 

The pasuk seems to be a stira minei u'bei: Yisachar saw that a life of menucha is the way to go, but then the pasuk tells us that he bent his shoulder under the burden of work that he accepted upon himself.  What happened to the life of rest that was so good?

The meforshei pshat explain (with slight variations on this same theme) that "menucha" here means, as opposed to Zevulon who went out to sea, Yisachar saw that it was better to work the portion of land at home that was allocated to him.

R' Tzadok haKohen tells us that if you want to know what your mission in life is, look at what the yetzer ha'ra tries to tempt you with.  It's by overcoming what you find to be a challenge, what you find difficult in avodas Hashem, that you grow and develop, and that's your task in this world.  

My wife likes to quote JFK's statement, "We choose to go to the moon... and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills..."   The yetzer ha'ra makes certain things hard for us, but by doing those very things we develop our energies and skills to the fullest.

R' Ashlag, the Baal haSulam, explains that precisely because Yisachar saw "menucha ki tov," that taking it easy was what appealed to him, "va'yeit shichma lisbol," he accepted upon himself the burden of hard work and toil. 

the greatest tragedy of all

Chazal offer different reasons why parshas Vayechi is a parsha stuma, a "closed" parsha, one with no break between its opening and the previous parsha.  One view suggests that the text is alluding to the fact that Yaakov's access to ruach hakodesh was closed off and he was unable to reveal to his children what will happen in the end of days.  Another view sees the parsha stuma as an allusion to Klal Yisrael being closed off in galus.  A final view quoted in the Yalkut explains that the parsha is closed because, after suffering for so many years of heartache and pain, Yaakov was finally closed off and removed from all sorrows.

Although the same Midrash quotes all three views, the last one clearly stands out as  anomalous.  The first two explanations see a parsha stuma as alluding to something negative -- Yaakov's loss of ruach hakodesh, Klal Yisrael's loss of freedom.  Not so the third view, which sees the stuma as alluding to Yaakov's loss of sorrow -- what could be better than that?

Chasam Sofer (derashos, 5593) explains that in fact, this third view actually reflects the most negative perspective on the parsha and sees in it the greatest tragedy of all.  Here we have Yaakov Avinu entering galus where he knows he will die, here we have the shivtei K-h leaving Eretz Yisrael with no idea when they will ever return home.  What happened when they entered the land of Mitzrayim?  Last week's parsha ends by telling us that they settled in Goshen, "va'yeiachazu bah vayifru vayirbu me'od."  They had beautiful homes, lots of kids, mistama they started businesses, and life was good!  There was probably a kosher pizza or two or three in Goshen, a sushi joint with fresh fish from the Nile, etc. -- all the amenities we like to have.  And with no break our parsha starts, "Vayechi Yaakov...," Yaakov had a second wind in life and he too could enjoy his final years in Mitzrayim.  What's so bad?

Chazal tell us that when you see this scene, instead of jumping for joy, you should shed a tear.  Does anyone living that life in Goshen -- a life similar to the life many of us live in galus USA -- remember that this is galus, that this is not where we are supposed to be and not where we should want to be?

The greatest tragedy of the parsha is that we've forgotten the tzaros -- we've gotten used to galus and we're successful and happy here and we could care less about getting out. 

Chasam Sofer elsewhere writes that when the navi tells us that the fast days that commemorate the churban habayis, among them today, 10 Teves, will one day be transformed into days of simcha, it does not mean that we will suddenly forget everything from the past.  Aderaba, the simcha comes davka because we never forgot the past.  It's only because we continue to think about beis hamikdash even when we don't have it,  showing that we still connect to it and long for it, that we will eventually be able to celebrate it's return.  But if we forget, if it doesn't bother us that it's not here, then what exactly is going to move us to happiness when we do get it back?

great Chasam Sofer on shibud Mitzrayim

Last post I mentioned Rashi's explanation that Parshas VaYechi is a parsha stuma to indicate that the hearts of Bnei Yisrael became closed, as Yaakov's coming down to Egypt and his death there marked the start of the shibud.  Everyone asks: Chazal tell us that it was not until "vayamas Yosef v'kol echav v'kol ha'dor ha'hu," as we read in our parsha, the death of Yosef and the shevatim, that the shibud in Mitzrayim started.  It didn't start with the arrival in Egypt.

One can answer very simply that there are different degrees of shibud.  To some degree, just being in Mitzrayim was shibud of galus.  The shibud of enslavement, however, did not start until later. 

Chasam Sofer (first piece in VaYechi) says a derush answer that speaks to our times.  In Parshas Bechukosai the Torah concludes the opening section of brachos by telling us, "Ani Hashem Elokeichem asher hotzeisi eschem mei'Eretz Mitzrayim mi'hiyos lahem avadim, ve'eshbor motos ulchem v'oleich eschem komimiyus." (26:13)  Hashem took us out of Egypt to free us, so he promises to break the burdensome yoke on our back.  Asks the Chasam Sofer: shouldn't this be the first bracha in that parsha -- not the last?  Shouldn't breaking the yoke we toil under be the first step in liberating us, before promising us the brachos of prosperity, peace, "v'nasati mishkani b'sochichem," etc? 

Chasam Sofer answers that there are two types of burdens we toil under.  There is the burden of persecution in whatever form it takes, whether it be more overt, e.g. pogroms, whether it be less overt, e.g. BDS.  But then there is another burden that is more subtle.  A frum Jew goes out today to go shopping and the stores are filled with decorations, holiday music, the tree is decked out so nicely.  We're talking about a frum Jew, so he knows this is not for him -- he's not going to bring a tree in his house and hang up a stocking by the fireplace.  But in his heart, maybe he feels a little like he is missing out.  As the Rambam writes in Shmoneh Perakim, a Jew doesn't need to say that bacon doesn't taste good -- it may taste very good, just we can't have it.  He knows he has to take out a second mortgage to pay yeshiva tuition, and there is no question he will do so -- but that doesn't mean he doesn't think of the nice car he could have if he didn't have that expense.  He is going to buy glatt food, but that doesn't mean he doesn't see the price of Purdue in the supermarket ad.  He does whatever he is supposed to, he is committed -- but boy, is frumkeit a burden to carry. 

The Torah in Bechukosai is telling us that Hashem will give us all the brachos we need to do mitzvos easily -- we will have the money to spend on tuition, food so plentiful that glatt will be the same price as Purdue, etc.  Why?  Because Hashem wants us to treat Torah and mitzvos like something we love to and want to do, not like a burden.  Torah is not meant to be a yoke to slave and toil under -- that's the burden the Torah promises to remove.  You don't feel like a slave to something if you love doing it, and Hashem wants us to love doing Torah. 

Coming back to Rashi, it was not until the death of Yosef and his brothers that the physical enslavement of Klal Yisrael started.  But there was a shibud, a burden, that set in even before that.  While Yaakov Avinu was still alive, Klal Yisrael lived Torah with joy and enthusiasm.  When Yaakov Avinu passed on, Torah and mitzvos took on a different tone.  Egyptian society with all its temptations beckoned, and even if a Jew kept true to his beliefs, observance itself, even absent any persecution, became a toil, a burden, a shibud.  

parsha stuma

Parshas Va'Yechi is a parsha stuma, a closed parsha, meaning there is no space break between the end of last week's parsha and the beginning of this week's parsha.  Rashi explains (there are many parshiyot stumot in the Torah -- see Mizrachi as to why Rashi comments on it here) that the Torah is hinting to us that the hearts of Bnei Yisrael became closed, as the descent of Yaakov and his sons to Egypt marked the beginning of exile.  As we've discussed before, it's not that the Torah is reflecting the reality of Bnei Yisrael's now experiencing exile -- aderaba, the Torah is what creates reality.  The exile began and the hearts of Bnei Yisrael closed because the parsha of Torah here is sealed and closed. 

Rashi at the beginning of Vayikra tells us that the parsha breaks gave Moshe Rabeinu an opportunity for "revach l'hisbonein bein parsha l'parsha," a chance to pause and contemplate and reflect on what he had just been taught.  Galus is a parsha stuma with no break; galus does not give us any opportunity to pause and reflect.  (See Meslias Yesharim on midas ha'zehirus.)

The Maharasham, Rav Shalom Schwadron, in his Techeiles Mordechai, quotes the kabbalistc teaching that every Jew corresponds to a letter in Torah.  Yisrae"l is an acronym = Yesh Shishim Ribo Osiyos La'torah. (See Pnei Yehoshua Kid 30 and this post.)  What about those Jews who are unaffiliated, disinterested, and who have no connection?  What is their letter?  Maharasham explains that their cheilek is the blank spaces.  (The gemara in Shabbos writes that even the blank spaces of klaf in a sefer Torah have kedusha.)

We are in galus so that we can learn to reconnect with Hashem.  The parsha of galus is a parsha stuma because the goal is to bring us ultimately to the ideal state where we are all connected, where each one of us is a letter -- no blank spaces.

The Midrash offers another explanation of the stimas ha'parsha that is almost the opposite of the one quoted by Rashi.  According to the Midrash the closed parsha teaches us that the tzaros that had plagued Yaakov for so many years were now closed off and he and the shevatim were able to live in tranquility.  These final years were the good years which Yaakov had pined for for so long.

Shem m'Shmuel quotes Ramban (in his hakdamah) that the entire Torah is the name of Hashem.  Chazal darshen the requirement to say birchas haTorah from the pasuk "Ki shem Hashem ekra..."  When you read pesukim of Torah, you are reading Hashem's name.  We can't absorb a giluy of Elokus in such a direct, intense way, so the name is broken up into a code of words, pesukim, parshiyos that have a different, superficial meaning that we can digest.    

The gemara writes according to one view that the last 8 pesukim of the Torah describing his own death were written by Moshe "b'dema."  Some interpret that to mean he wrote it in tears.  Shem m'Shmuel suggests (I believe the GR"A says this as well) that the word "dema" here is from the same root as dmai -- a mixture.  When Torah was taught to Moshe it was given in chunks -- pesukim, parshiyos, etc. -- with breaks in between to digest and contemplate. Even Moshe could not absorb a straight giluy of shem Hashem and he had to have it coded into parshiyos and pesukim.  However, in the moments before his death Moshe reached a level where he was able to absorb Torah revealed as shem Hashem.  He received those last 8 pesukim as a jumble of letters with no breaks in between -- an unbroken stream of revelation.  This was Torah as shem Hashem.

Here too, our parsha is stuma with no breaks.  Yaakov's final years were on a pinnacle of ruchniyus where he could absorb Torah with no breaks needed to reflect -- he absorbed everything as an unbroken stream of direct revelation, Torah as shem Hashem in its most intense and direct form.

a fish out of water

1) A few weeks/months ago, around the time of the Yamim Noraim, Sivan Rahav Meir visited the NY area and spoke in a few shuls and schools.  In the talk I heard she quoted (if I remember correctly) a vort of the Sefas Emes on our parsha.  Yaakov blessed Ephraim and Menashe, "V'yidgu la'rov b'kerev ha'aretz."   Rashi explains that "v'yidgu" means that they should multiply like fish=dag, which are immune from ayin ha'ra. 

Sefas Emes asks: the bracha is a stirah minei u'bei, a self-contradiction.  How can Ephraim and Menashe be given a blessing to be like fish "b'kerev ha'aretz," in the midst of the land?  Fish live in the sea, not on land? 

Sefas Emes answers that the lesson Yaakov wanted Ephraim and Menashe to absorb -- the lesson for us to absorb -- is that of course we want to be successful and thrive in and contribute to and have a positive impact on whatever land, whatever society, we find ourselves in -- b'kerev ha'aretz.  However, we should never lose sight of the fact that however successful we are in that environment, we are still like a fish out of water.  Galus is not our home.  Galus is not where we belong. 

2) Yaakov wants to tell his children "eis asher yikra eschem b'acharis ha'yamim," what will happen to them at the end of time.  The word the pasuk uses is not yikrah with a hey at the end, but rather yikra with an aleph at the end.  Jewish destiny is not mikreh, with a hey, just happenstance.  Rather, it is the inevitable conclusion to our history which calls to us, yikra with an aleph, from across time and across generations.

the bracha of self awareness

Ya'akov's final charge to his children concludes, "V'zos asher dibeir lahem avihem vayivarch osam..." (49:28)  This is the blessings that he gave them. 

Blessings?  Reuvain was told that he is impetuous.  Shimon and Levi were told that they were guilty of murder, that they angered too quickly and plotted to do wrong.  What kind of blessings are these?  Ibn Ezra (48:1) writes in fact that what Ya'akov told his children was not a bracha -- it was a nevuah of their future.  Afterwards, "vayivarech osam..." he gave them some blessing that is not recorded, but what was said until that point was prophecy (see also Ohr haChaim 49:28).

Ralbag disagrees and says that yes, even what was said to Reuvain, Shimon, and Levi is a bracha.  It's a bracha to know you are impetuous.  It's a bracha to know you anger easily.  It's a bracha to know you are aggressive.  When a person recognizes their own personality traits -- and I deliberately say traits and not flaws -- then they can control and channel those traits properly.  It doesn't have to be a flaw if you are aware of it and manage it properly.  The bracha Ya'akov gave his children is the bracha of self-awareness.

Yosef's shtar eirusin

When Yosef brings his children to Ya'akov for a blessing, the parsha tells us that Ya'akov asks, "Who are they?"  (48:8)  Rashi explains that Ya'akov saw Yeravam and Achav coming from Ephraim, and he saw Yeihu coming from Menashe, and he did not want to bestow a blessing that would trickle down to such evildoers.  (Parenthetically, we see that the potential for bracha to be misused by those who are evil outweighs all the good that might come from the tzadikim in Ephraim and Menashe's offspring who could use the bracha properly.) 

Yosef responds to his father, "They are my children..."  Rashi explains that Yosef showed his father the shtar eirusin and kesubah, his marriage contract.

What kind of answer is that?  Ya'akov is bothered by the fact that his great...great grandchildren will be resha'im, so Yosef shows him a marriage contract? 

The Kozhiglover points out that although Chazal tell us (Sanhedrin 90) that Yeravam and Achav have no portion in the world to come, the "Dorshei Reshumos" disagree.  The Kozhiglover (and R' Tzadok haKohen as well) explains that the "Dorshei Reshumos" were able to detect a "roshem," some mark and spark of goodness and yahadus, where all others just saw evil.  There is always something left, some faint remnant -- a Jew is never lost.

Where does that inextinguishable spark come from?  We say every morning when we put on tefillin, "V'eirastich li l'olam..."  Hashem has betrothed us forever.  Hashem is eternal, and so the bond he has with us is eternal. 

This, says the Koshiglover, is the shtar eirusin that Yosef showed his father -- the shtar of "v'eirastich li l'olam."  The keubah he showed his father is the Torah that we got "b'yom chasumaso," as the Mishna (end of Ta'anis) calls ma'amad Har Sinai.  Yosef was from the school of the Doreshei Reshumos, who held that despite the great evil of Yeravam and Achav, there still remains a core of eternal goodness within.

achalkeim b'Ya'akov -- spread the zeal and passion

Last post was a little lomdus, so this will be a little derush on the parsha. I noticed that fewer and fewer people are reading blogger.  Maybe it's time to switch formats or stop?  Any ideas?

After referring to the kinah of Shimon and Levi, Ya’akov says “achalkeim b’Ya’akov v’afitzeim b’Yisrael.”   The Chasam Sofer explains that Ya’akov was not referring to the members of sheivet Shimon or the members of sheivet Levi – he was referring rather to the kinah of sheivet Shimon and sheivet Levi, the "arur apam" mentioned earlier in the pasuk.  Shimon and Levi reacted too strongly, but the other shevatim didn’t react at all, which is not a good thing either.  Ya’akov said that if only a little of the zealous anger of Shimon and Levi was spread among the other shevatim, then they would all have the proper balance.

This is one of my pet peeves.  You have people who call up WFAN and argue with such passion about the Mets, the Jets, the Knicks, etc. but often it's the same people who are totally pareve and passionless when it comes to their avodas Hashem.  You don’t need to walk around fighting with people and picking arguments, but at the same time, if you are speaking and/or thinking about issues that are devarim ha’omdim b’runo shel olam and/or are integral to your identity and what you feel life is all about, then there should be a little passion there, at least inside.  The opposite of being a Shimon and Levi is not indifference -- it's having the proper balance.

 

Rashi writes that the members of sheivet Shimon would be teachers who wander from place to place to teach Torah, and the Levi’im have to wander from place to place to collect ma’aser.  The Rambam in Hil Shemita writes that the Levi’im were also teachers of Torah, and it was sheivet Levi who kept the mesorah of the Avos alive in Mitzrayim.  R’ Ya’akov Kaminetzki explains that kana'us without Torah is of no value.  With Torah, it can be channeled and harnessed properly.  Ya’akov assigned Shimon and Levi the task of becoming the rebbe’s of Klal Yisrael, and in this way, the Torah would temper their nature and bring it under control.

 

This is also a tremendous lesson in chinuch.  Ya’akov didn’t tell Shimon and Levi, “Don’t be so impetuous!”  That wouldn’t have worked – a tiger can’t change its stripes, and Shimon and Levi would not so easily become different people.  Instead, he gave them a means of channeling their strengths properly.  The job of a mechaneich is not to take the talmid who is a Y personality and force him or her to become X.  The job of the mehaneich is to take the talmid who is a Y and show him or her how he/she can best serve Hashem as a Y. 

 

Ya’akov said to Yosef, “…V’hinei her’ah osi Elokim gam es zarecha.” (48:11)  The simple pshat is the Ya’akov was thanking Hashem that he was able to see his grandchildren, Yosef’s sons.  If that’s the case, the pasuk should say “her’ah li,” not “her’ah osi.”   Why the awkward construction?

 

A number of meforshim remind us that when Yosef was challenged with the test of Eishes Potifar, what saved him was the vision he saw of his father’s face.  That shield from danger worked for Yosef, but what about the next generation, the generation of Menashe and Ephraim, who never saw Ya’akov Avinu before?  What vision would protect them when their commitment would be challenged?  When Ya’akov saw how Ephraim and Menashe had developed, he realized he did not have to worry.  “Hinei her’ah osi” – Hashem showed me, my image, to these children as well, said Ya’akov.  They may not have seen me in person, but through Yosef, they have before them the “dmus d’yukno” of a Ya’akov Avinu.

minuy melech/meshicha of a melech -- shitas haRambam

Ramban writes that “lo yasur sheivet m’Yehudah” is not just a bracha (as other Rishonim learn), but it’s a command.  Except for Yeravam, who was appointed by a navi, the appointment of any king from a sheiveit other than Yehudah violates the deathbed wishes of Ya’akov Avinu.

The Rambam in Sefer haMitzos (362) goes a step further and writes that we know from Nevi’im (not from Ya’akov Avinu) that only Shlomo and his descendants, malchus beis David, have a legitimate claim to malchus.  The appointment of anyone else is like a zar trying to serve as a kohen and a violation of “lo tuchal la’seis alecha ish nochri.” 
 

What makes this Rambam strange is that the Rambam himself in Hil Melachim (ch 1) writes that any king appointed by a navi who observes Torah and mitzvos is a legitimate king.  And in Hil Chanukah, unlike Ramban who is critical of the Chashmonaim because as Kohanim they had no right to the throne, the Rambam lauds the Chashmonaim for re-establishing the malchus.  How does this fit with what the Rambam tells us in Sefer haMitzvos?  How can there be a legitimate king who is not from malchus beis David?

 

I want to look at another nice chakirah and then maybe through that come back to this Rambam.

 

The gemara (Krisus 5) writes that malchus is passed b’yerushah from father to son; therefore, the son of a king does not need to be anointed.  Why then, asks the gemara, was Shlomo anointed?  The gemara answers that this was special case because of the machlokes with Adoniyahu as to who would take over.

 

Yesh lackor what the conclusion of the gemara means.  Does it mean that:

 

1) malchus passes b’yerusha no matter what, but where there is machlokes a new meshicha is needed to quiet the dispute;

 

2) machokes interferes with and cancels the din yerusha; therefore a new meshicha is needed to re-establish the king's right to the throne.

 

Rambam (Melachim 1:12) writes:

אין מושחין מלך בן מלך. אלא אם כן היתה שם מחלוקת או מלחמה מושחין אותו כדי לסלק המחלוקת.

Sounds like the first option – there is still a din yerusha, but you have to do something to quell the machlokes.

 

Rashi in Kerisus, however, explains “… aval ki ikka machlokes *lo yerusha hi*.”  

Sounds like the second option – there is no din yerusha in a case of machlokes.

 

Maybe the underlying issue here is what purpose meshicha serves.  According to Rambam, meshicha creates a permanent status, much like the meshicha of a kohen gadol endows the kohen with a certain kedusha, or the meshicha of a kli shareis endows it with kedusha.  It is a transformative experience.  Machlokes cannot undo that status.  According to Rashi, however, meshicha is more of a symbolic gesture, like wearing a crown or carrying a scepter.  It’s doesn’t transform the essence of the person -- it's just a symbol of the position. 

 

Coming back to the Rambam we started with, R’ Meir Dan Plotzki in Chemdas Yisrael (here) suggests that according to Rambam in Sefer haMitzvos the issur is not *appointing* a new king, but rather in *anointing* a new king.  It's the meshicha that creates the issur, not the minuy.  The Chashmonaim and others who might have ruled were temporarily holding the position, but since they had no meshicha, their claim to the throne was incomplete and there was no issur violated.  Perhaps this is the Rambam l’shitaso in our chakirah, that meshicha transforms and is "mekadesh" the person (Rambam himself in Sefer haMitzvos draws the analogy to kehunah) to fill the role of malchus.  Without that, the king is just an ordinary person playing a role.   

"achartem osi" vs. "klei chamas m'cheiroseihem" -- Ya'akov's rebuke

Whatever the reason for Ya’akov’s disapproval of Shimon and Levi’s actions (see Friday’s post), one thing we can say: his reaction is incredibly muted. Rashi interprets "achartem osi" as meaning no more than "you disturbed my concentration" and took me away from my avodah -- hardly an expression of anger. Contrast that with Ya’akov’s words to Shimon and Levi in Parshas VaYechi, where he lets them have it, telling them, "Klei chamas m’cheiroseihem," (49:5) that they stole the tools of Eisav (see Rashi) in order to commit murder. Why the change in attitude? Why the harsh reaction to what earlier had passed by with no more than mild criticism?

Rashi writes that the Torah stresses that Shimon and Levi were "achei Dinah" to give them credit for putting their necks on the line to stick up for their sister. The Midrash, however, gives us a different perspective: "achei Dinah -- v’lo achei Yosef."

At the time Shimon and Levi went to battle with Shchem, they claimed they were acting only to protect Dinah -- a noble expression of brotherly love. Fast forward to the events of our parsha and it is Shimon and Levi who act as ring leaders in the effort to get rid of Yosef. "Shimon v’Levi achim" (49:5) – united in their desire to do their brother in (see Rashi ibid).

R’ Shaul Yisrael (printed in Siach Shaul al haTorah) explains that at the time the fight with Shchem, Ya’akov had to give Shimon and Levi the benefit of the doubt and he could not impugn their motives. However, in retrospect, after what they did to Yosef, that was no longer the case. Brotherly love cannot serve as the justification for battle with Shchem when that same brotherly love is so easily pushed aside when it came to dealing with Yosef. Shimon and Levi's own behavior called their actions and motives into question and gave Ya’akov cause for his harsh words later in life.

the special connection between Rachel and Yosef

So as I mentioned at the end of last post, R’ Medan’s article on Rachel’s burial place got me thinking about the special connection Yosef and Rachel because in his article he mentions a Midrash (found only in Rishonim) that says that Yosef visited the grave of his mother Rachel en route to being taken as a slave down to Mitzrayim.  Of course, the Midrash is trying to echo those pesukim in Yirmiyahu of “Rachel mevakah al baneha” as they pass by her grave en route to galus, but it’s more poignant here because Yosef is her son.

The Yerushalmi writes that when Yosef was about to sin with Eishes Potiphar, it was his mother’s image that appeared to him (posted about this here).  Why his mother’s image in particular?  The Shem m’Shmuel writes that Eishes Potiphar’s intent was just as much l’shem shamayim as Tamar’s, about whom we read earlier in that same parsha.  In fact, astrological signs pointed to her being destined to be together with Yosef (and indeed, her daughter did marry Yosef.)  She thought that they were spiritual soulmates.  It dawned on me that there was a parallel to Rachel Imeinu here: remember that Leah was crying because she thought she was destined to marry Eisav while Rachel was supposed to be Ya’akov’s true wife.  Despite what was “supposed” to happen, Rachel saw her sister Leah being brought to the chupah and decided it was better to give over the simanim and delay being with Ya’akov than to embarrass her sister.  This was the dmus d’yukah that Yosef saw: even if Eishes Pothiphar’s insight as to their destiny was true, it did not mean he needed to act on it at that moment.  Like his mother did, Yosef was being called on to wait and not act, no matter what the future was predicted to hold.  Destiny would happen on its own schedule; the future need not be forced.   The great test of Yosef’s character was to see if he could rise to the same challenge that his mother had faced.

This same challenge follows Yosef.  “V’lo yachol Yosef l’hisapek…”  After revealing himself to his brothers, Yosef cries on Binyamin’s neck and Binyamin cries on his shoulders, an act which Rashi interprets as mourning for the churban habayis.  Sefas Emes (link) explains that because Yosef could not delay revealing himself any longer the tikun was incomplete and churban and galus were therefore  necessary.  Rachel suffered and held back walking to the chuppah for the sake of Leah.  Yosef tried, but in the end was not his mother’s equal. 

Maybe this is why when Yosef originally presented his dream to Ya’akov in which he saw the stars, the sun, and the moon bowing to him, Ya’akov knew it had to be false because the moon, Rachel, could not bow.  Of course the pshat is that Rachel couldn’t bow because she was dead, but maybe there is a remez here that although Yosef could rise above his brothers and even to some degree above his father, when it came to meeting the challenge his mother faced, he would remain a notch below.

Why is this midah the sticking point for Yosef?  Perhaps it is because although Rachel showed tremendous patience in stoically and silently waiting for his 7 years of labor to finish until she could marry Ya’akov, and then waiting again as she watched her sister Le’ah go to the chuppah in her place, when it came to having children, Rachel’s patience was at a limit.  Rachel came to Ya’akov and demanded, “Hava li banim v’im ayin meisah anochi.” (30:1).

None of this is muchrach – I’m just tossing my speculations out there.