Parshat Vayigash

 There is a famous discussion in the Talmud Bavli, Tractate Sanhedrin 91 which discusses how the Egyptians claimed to Alexander the Great, that we owe them the utensils that we borrowed when we went out of Egypt. The Gemara relates a response that Geviha ben Pesisa answered to Alexander the Great(see the gemara that I pasted below). 

 I wonder why the Gemara didn't bring a response from this weeks Parsha Vayigash, Where Pharoah tells Joseph (in perek 45 pasukim 18-20), 

 וּקְח֧וּ אֶת־אֲבִיכֶ֛ם וְאֶת־בָּתֵּיכֶ֖ם וּבֹ֣אוּ אֵלָ֑י וְאֶתְּנָ֣ה לָכֶ֗ם אֶת־טוּב֙ אֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם וְאִכְל֖וּ אֶת־חֵ֥לֶב הָאָֽרֶץ׃ וְאַתָּ֥ה צֻוֵּ֖יתָה זֹ֣את עֲשׂ֑וּ קְחוּ־לָכֶם֩ מֵאֶ֨רֶץ מִצְרַ֜יִם עֲגָל֗וֹת לְטַפְּכֶם֙ וְלִנְשֵׁיכֶ֔ם וּנְשָׂאתֶ֥ם אֶת־אֲבִיכֶ֖ם וּבָאתֶֽם׃ וְעֵ֣ינְכֶ֔ם אַל־תָּחֹ֖ס עַל־כְּלֵיכֶ֑ם כִּי־ט֛וּב כָּל־אֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרַ֖יִם לָכֶ֥ם הֽוּא׃ 

 Take your father and your households and come to me; I will give you the best of the land of Egypt and you shall live off the fat of the land.’ And you are bidden [to add], ‘Do as follows: take from the land of Egypt wagons for your children and your wives, and bring your father here. And never mind your belongings, for the best of all the land of Egypt shall be yours.’” So we see from the above pasukim, that Pharoah offered Joseph and his family what they rightfully took with them, when they left Egypt... 

 Talmud Sanhedrin 91a 

 שוב פעם אחת באו בני מצרים לדון עם ישראל לפני אלכסנדרוס מוקדון אמרו לו הרי הוא אומר (שמות יב, לו) וה' נתן את חן העם בעיני מצרים וישאילום תנו לנו כסף וזהב שנטלתם ממנו אמר גביהא בן פסיסא לחכמים תנו לי רשות ואלך ואדון עמהן לפני אלכסנדרוס אם ינצחוני אמרו להם הדיוט שבנו נצחתם ואם אני אנצח אותם אמרו להם תורת משה רבינו נצחתכם נתנו לו רשות והלך ודן עמהן אמר להן מהיכן אתם מביאין ראייה אמרו לו מן התורה אמר להן אף אני לא אביא לכם ראייה אלא מן התורה שנאמר (שמות יב, מ) ומושב בני ישראל אשר ישבו במצרים שלשים שנה וארבע מאות שנה תנו לנו שכר עבודה של ששים ריבוא ששיעבדתם במצרים שלשים שנה וארבע מאות שנה 

 The Gemara relates: On another occasion, the people of Egypt came to judgment with the Jewish people before Alexander of Macedon. The Egyptian people said to Alexander: It says in the Torah: “And the Lord gave the people favor in the eyes of Egypt, and they lent them” (Exodus 12:36). Give us the silver and gold that you took from us; you claimed that you were borrowing it and you never returned it. Geviha ben Pesisa said to the Sages: Give me permission and I will go and deliberate with them before Alexander of Macedon. If they will defeat me, say to them: You have defeated an ordinary person from among us, and until you overcome our Sages, it is no victory. And if I will defeat them, say to them: The Torah of Moses, our teacher, defeated you, and attribute no significance to me. The Sages gave him permission, and he went and deliberated with them. Geviha ben Pesisa said to them: From where are you citing proof that you are entitled to the silver and gold? They said to him: From the Torah. Geviha ben Pesisa said to them: I too will cite proof to you only from the Torah, as it is stated: “And the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years” (Exodus 12:40), during which they were enslaved to Egypt, engaged in hard manual labor. Give us the wages for the work performed by the 600,000 men above the age of twenty (see Exodus 12:37) whom you enslaved in Egypt for four hundred and thirty years.

Parshat Vayeishev (the week of the vaccine)

 There is a famous question in this weeks parsha on who was Joseph sold to.

Here are the pasukim in question-

וַיֵּשְׁבוּ֮ לֶֽאֱכָל־לֶחֶם֒ וַיִּשְׂא֤וּ עֵֽינֵיהֶם֙ וַיִּרְא֔וּ וְהִנֵּה֙ אֹרְחַ֣ת יִשְׁמְעֵאלִ֔ים בָּאָ֖ה מִגִּלְעָ֑ד וּגְמַלֵּיהֶ֣ם נֹֽשְׂאִ֗ים נְכֹאת֙ וּצְרִ֣י וָלֹ֔ט הוֹלְכִ֖ים לְהוֹרִ֥יד מִצְרָֽיְמָה׃

וַיֹּ֥אמֶר יְהוּדָ֖ה אֶל־אֶחָ֑יו מַה־בֶּ֗צַע כִּ֤י נַהֲרֹג֙ אֶת־אָחִ֔ינו וְכִסִּ֖ינוּ אֶת־דָּמֽוֹ׃

לְכ֞וּ וְנִמְכְּרֶ֣נּוּ לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֗ים וְיָדֵ֙נוּ֙ אַל־תְּהִי־ב֔וֹ כִּֽי־אָחִ֥ינוּ בְשָׂרֵ֖נוּ ה֑וּא וַֽיִּשְׁמְע֖וּ אֶחָֽיו׃

"Then they sat down to a meal. Looking up, they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, their camels bearing gum, balm, and ladanum to be taken to Egypt.

Then Judah said to his brothers, “What do we gain by killing our brother and covering up his blood?

Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, but let us not do away with him ourselves. After all, he is our brother, our own flesh.” His brothers agreed."

At this point it seems that Joseph was going to be sold to Ishmaelites. The problem is, the next pasuk which discusses the sale-

וַיַּֽעַבְרוּ֩ אֲנָשִׁ֨ים מִדְיָנִ֜ים סֹֽחֲרִ֗ים וַֽיִּמְשְׁכוּ֙ וַיַּֽעֲל֤וּ אֶת־יוֹסֵף֙ מִן־הַבּ֔וֹר וַיִּמְכְּר֧וּ אֶת־יוֹסֵ֛ף לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֖ים בְּעֶשְׂרִ֣ים כָּ֑סֶף וַיָּבִ֥יאוּ אֶת־יוֹסֵ֖ף מִצְרָֽיְמָה׃

"When Midianite traders passed by, they pulled Joseph up out of the pit. They sold Joseph for twenty pieces of silver to the Ishmaelites, who brought Joseph to Egypt."

The above pasuk says that Joseph was actually sold to Midianites. So which was it, Ishmaelites or Midianites? 

Rashi and the commentaries give all different explanations to this apparent contradiction.

I would like to suggest that both the Midianites and the Ishmaelites are really the same and the Midianites are often referred to as Ishmaelites.

In chapter 25, after Sarah died, Abraham married Keturah. One of the sons born to her and Avraham was named Midian

וַיֹּ֧סֶף אַבְרָהָ֛ם וַיִּקַּ֥ח אִשָּׁ֖ה וּשְׁמָ֥הּ קְטוּרָֽה׃

וַתֵּ֣לֶד ל֗וֹ אֶת־זִמְרָן֙ וְאֶת־יָקְשָׁ֔ן וְאֶת־מְדָ֖ן וְאֶת־מִדְיָ֑ן וְאֶת־יִשְׁבָּ֖ק וְאֶת־שֽׁוּחַ׃

"Abraham took another wife, whose name was 

She bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah."

My theory is that Midian born after Issac was named after their oldest brother Ishmael,  especially because they were a tribe of nomads.The Torah may also be possibly  reiterating that like  Ishamael, the Midian tribe didnot inherit the legacy of Abraham (though thanks to Midian we have a Sanhedrin/Torah shebal peh)

We also find a similar phenomenon in Tnach(Judges 7 and 8); by the war of Gideon against Midian, in recovering the spoils he refers to the Midianim as Ishmaelites. Notice the reasoning of the reference by the pasuk.

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֜ם גִּדְע֗וֹן אֶשְׁאֲלָ֤ה מִכֶּם֙ שְׁאֵלָ֔ה וּתְנוּ־לִ֕י אִ֖ישׁ נֶ֣זֶם שְׁלָל֑וֹ כִּֽי־נִזְמֵ֤י זָהָב֙ לָהֶ֔ם כִּ֥י יִשְׁמְעֵאלִ֖ים הֵֽם׃

׃

"And Gideon said to them, “I have a request to make of you: Each of you give me the earring he received as booty.” They had golden earrings, for they were Ishmaelites."

Parshat Vayeitzei 2020(year of covid)

 In this weeks parsha there are a couple of very interesting pasukim(one at the beginning and two at the end of our parsha), where Rashi quotes a midrash, whose author may have had in mind a reference to a crisis; that took place during the period of the shoftim, the Concubine of Gibeah. The pasukim are פרק כח יט וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-שֵׁם-הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא, בֵּית-אֵל; וְאוּלָם לוּז שֵׁם-הָעִיר, לָרִאשֹׁנָה And he called the name of that place Beth-el, but the name of the city was Luz at the first פרק לא מז וַיִּקְרָא-לוֹ לָבָן, יְגַר שָׂהֲדוּתָא; וְיַעֲקֹב, קָרָא לוֹ גַּלְעֵד מח וַיֹּאמֶר לָבָן, הַגַּל הַזֶּה עֵד בֵּינִי וּבֵינְךָ הַיּוֹם; עַל-כֵּן קָרָא-שְׁמוֹ, גַּלְעֵד 47 And Laban called it Jegar-sahadutha; but Jacob called it Galeed. 48 And Laban said: 'This heap is witness between me and thee this day.' Therefore was the name This is Rashi with the midrash(on the pasuk quoted above-chapter 28 pasuk 19) וישם מראשותיו. עֲשָׂאָן כְּמִין מַרְזֵב סָבִיב לְרֹאשׁוֹ, שֶׁיָּרֵא מִפְּנֵי חַיּוֹת רָעוֹת; הִתְחִילוּ מְרִיבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ, זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת עָלַי יָנִיחַ צַדִּיק אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ וְזֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת עָלַי יָנִיחַ; מִיָּד עֲשָׂאָן הַקָּבָּ"ה אֶבֶן אַחַת, וְזֶהוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַיִּקַּח אֶת הָאֶבֶן אֲשֶׁר שָׂם מְרַאֲשֹׁתָיו: וישם מראשתיו AND PUT THEM FOR A RESTING PLACE FOR HIS HEAD — He arranged them in the form of a drain-pipe around his head for he was afraid of wild beasts (Genesis Rabbah 68:11). They (the stones) began quarrelling with one another. One said, “Upon me let this righteous man rest his head”, and another said “Upon me let him rest it”. Whereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, straightway made them into one stone! This explains what is written (Genesis 28:18), “And he took the stone that he had put under his head” (Chullin 91b). Beth-el is also know for a famous event that took place during the time of the Shoftim. After the tragedy of פילגש בגבעה, the jewish people gathered together to go to war against the tribe of Benjamin. This tragedy was compounded, that because of the civil war, the tribe of Benjamin was almost completely wiped out. The interesting part of this story, is that the tribes gathered together multiple times to ask G-D whether they should go into battle, who should go into battle first and if in the end, that they would be victorious against the tribe of Benjamin. The name of the place where they asked G-D all these questions, was Beth-el; possibly the very same Beth-el that Jacob had named, when he awoke from his dream/vision. After the battle that almost wiped out the tribe of Benjamin(except for a few hundred survivors), the victorious tribes had a dilemma; they had sworn in their anger, that none of their daughters would be allowed to marry anyone from the tribe of Benjamin. The tribes of Israel, now realized that the extinction of one of their own, was a real possibility. It was only thanks to the daughters of Jabesh-Gilead(possibly the same Gilead named by Jacob and Laban), who in the end married the survivors of Benjamin, that this tragedywas averted. It was this very event, that marked the beginning of the end of the civil war and the acceptance of the tribe of Benjamin back into the ranks of the tribe of Israel. Perhaps this is the meaning of the Midrash, that the stones under Jacob's head became one; which represents the unification of the tribes against Benjamin, in the civil war that began in Beth-El. The peace treaty between Laban and Jacob together with the naming of the location of the treaty, Gilead; represents the future end of the civil war and the peace treaty between the tribes and the survivors of Benjamin, which began with the marriage of the daughters of Jabesh-Gilead. 

 Note: Benjamin was not born in the house of Laban(he was not yet included in the tribes of Israel at the time that Jacob ran away from Laban) and he was the very tribe that was almost wiped out at פלגש בגבעה

I always found these pasukim in Bereishit very confusing especially after learning the Rambam in the guide. Here is the pasuk

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ; וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל-הָאָרֶץ, וּבְכָל-הָרֶמֶשׂ, הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל-הָאָרֶץ.  כז וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ, בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ:  זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, בָּרָא אֹתָם

And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'  And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

The problem starts with G-D first using two different terms when discussing the creation of man- בצלמנו כדמותנו. 
In the very next pasuk when he creates man he only uses the word צלם or צלמו.

The Rambam for the many years that I would read his explanation of these two words in chapter one of the guide, always ended up perplexing me even more(excuse the pun;)).

His explanation of both words, צלם and דמות,  is the ability for man to think abstractly.  The problem remains, why two words that say the same thing and why was only one (צלם) used in the actual creation of man.

Over Shavuot, I looked at the Rambam again and the answer became very clear because of my noticing a nuance or the addition of one word in the Rambams discussion of both terms(I will attach the Rambam under discussion, at the end of this post).

The Rambam says that צלם is the ability to think abstractly and the word דמות is the ability to think "abstractly about G-D". When G-D plans to create man he does so with the intention of creating a man that has the ability to think abstractly; with the  goal of man to eventually use that ability to think abstractly about G-D.

The ability to think about G-D is not a given attribute but a learned one. Once man has the ability to think abstractly, only then does he have the ability to use that skill to arrive at the abstract thinking of G-D. That same skill can also be used to arrive at idol worship ( thus the word צלם can also be used to describe idols).

That is why when man is finally created, the term צלם is only used. The דמות can only be achieved, if the צלם ability to think abstractly is properly utilized.

Here is the Rambam in the Guide-

'צלם' ו'דמות'. כבר חשבו בני אדם כי 'צלם' בלשון העברי יורה על תמונת הדבר ותארו; והביא זה אל הגשמה גמורה לאומרו "נעשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו" - וחשבו שהאלוה על צורת אדם - רצוני לומר תמונתו ותארו - והתחיבה להם ההגשמה הגמורה והאמינו בה; וראו שהם אם יפרדו מזאת האמונה יכזיבו הכתוב וגם ישימו האלוה נעדר אם לא יהיה גוף בעל פנים ויד כמותם בתמונה ובתואר אלא שהוא יותר גדול ויותר בהיר לפי סברתם והחומר שלו גם כן אינו דם ובשר - זה תכלית מה שחשבוהו רוממות בחוק האלוה: אמנם מה שצריך שיאמר בהרחקת הגשמות והעמיד האחדות האמיתית - אשר אין אמת לה אלא בהסרת הגשמות - הנה תדע המופת על כל זה המאמר אבל הערתנו הנה בזה הפרק היא - לבאר ענין 'צלם' ו'דמות': ואומר כי הצורה המפורסמת אצל ההמון - אשר היא תמונת הדבר ותארו - שמה המיוחד בה בלשון העברי 'תאר' - אמר "יפה תואר ויפה מראה" "מה תארו?" "כתואר בני המלך" ונאמר בצורה המלאכית "יתארהו בשרד... ובמחוגה יתארהו" - וזהו שם שלא יפול על האלוה ית' כלל - חלילה וחס: אמנם 'צלם' הוא נופל על הצורה הטבעית - רצוני לומר על הענין אשר בו נתעצם הדבר והיה מה שהוא והוא אמיתתו מאשר הוא הנמצא ההוא - אשר הענין ההוא באדם הוא - אשר בעבורו תהיה ההשגה האנושית. ומפני ההשגה הזאת השכלית נאמר בו "בצלם אלוקים ברא אותו": ולכן נאמר "צלמם תבזה" - כי ה'בזיון' דבק בנפש אשר היא הצורה המינית לא בתמונת האברים ותארם. - וכן אומר כי הסיבה בקריאת הצלמים 'צלמים' - היות המבוקש מהם ענינם הנחשב לא תמונתם ותארם; וכן אומר ב"צלמי טחוריהם" כי היה הנרצה מהם - ענין דחוק הזק ה'טחורים' לא תואר ה'טחורים'. ואם אי אפשר מבלתי היות 'צלמי טחוריהם' ו'צלמים' נקראים כן מפני התמונה והתואר יהיה אם כן 'צלם' - שם משתתף או מסופק יאמר על הצורה המינית ועל הצורה המלאכית ועל כיוצא בה מתמונות הגשמים הטבעיים ותאריהם: ויהיה הנרצה באמרו 'נעשה אדם בצלמנו' - הצורה המינית אשר היא ההשגה השכלית לא התמונה והתואר. הנה כבר בארנו לך ההפרך בין 'צלם' ו'תואר' ובארנו ענין 'צלם':
Some have been of opinion that by the Hebrew ẓelem, the shape and figure of a thing is to be understood, and this explanation led men to believe in the corporeality [of the Divine Being]: for they thought that the words "Let us make man in our ẓelem" (Gen. 1:26), implied that God had the form of a human being, i.e., that He had figure and shape, and that, consequently, He was corporeal. They adhered faithfully to this view, and thought that if they were to relinquish it they would eo ipso reject the truth of the Bible: and further, if they did not conceive God as having a body possessed of face and limbs, similar to their own in appearance, they would have to deny even the existence of God. The sole difference which they admitted, was that He excelled in greatness and splendour, and that His substance was not flesh and blood. Thus far went their conception of the greatness and glory of God. The incorporeality of the Divine Being, and His unity, in the true sense of the word--for there is no real unity without incorporeality--will be fully proved in the course of the present treatise. (Part II., ch. i.) In this chapter it is our sole intention to explain the meaning of the words ẓelem and demut. I hold that the Hebrew equivalent of "form" in the ordinary acceptation of the word, viz., the figure and shape of a thing, is toär. Thus we find "[And Joseph was] beautiful in toär ('form'), and beautiful in appearance" (Gen. 39:6): "What form (toär) is he of?" (1 Sam. 28:14): "As the form (toär) of the children of a king" (Judges 8:18). It is also applied to form produced by human labour, as "He marketh its form (toär) with a line," "and he marketh its form (toär) with the compass" (Isa. 44:13). This term is not at all applicable to God. The term ẓelem, on the other hand, signifies the specific form, viz., that which constitutes the essence of a thing, whereby the thing is what it is; the reality of a thing in so far as it is that particular being. In man the "form" is that constituent which gives him human perception: and on account of this intellectual perception the term ẓelem is employed in the sentences "In the ẓelem of God he created him" (Gen. 1:27). It is therefore rightly said, "Thou despisest their ẓelem" (Ps. 73:20); the "contempt" can only concern the soul--the specific form of man, not the properties and shape of his body. I am also of opinion that the reason why this term is used for "idols" may be found in the circumstance that they are worshipped on account of some idea represented by them, not on account of their figure and shape. For the same reason the term is used in the expression, "the forms (ẓalme) of your emerods" (1 Sam. 6:5), for the chief object was the removal of the injury caused by the emerods, not a change of their shape. As, however, it must be admitted that the term ẓelem is employed in these two cases, viz. "the images of the emerods" and "the idols" on account of the external shape, the term ẓelem is either a homonym or a hybrid term, and would denote both the specific form and the outward shape, and similar properties relating to the dimensions and the shape of material bodies; and in the phrase "Let us make man in our ẓelem" (Gen. 1:26), the term signifies "the specific form" of man, viz., his intellectual perception, and does not refer to his "figure" or "shape." Thus we have shown the difference between ẓelem and toär, and explained the meaning of ẓelem.

אמנם 'דמות' הוא שם מן 'דמה' והוא כן דמיון בענין כאמרו "דמיתי לקאת מדבר" - לא שדמה לכנפיה ונוצתה אבל דמה אבלו לאבלה; וכן "כל עץ בגן אלוקים לא דמה אליו ביופיו" - דמיון בענין היופי; "חמת למו כדמות חמת נחש" "דמיונו כאריה יכסוף לטרוף" - כולם דמיון בענין לא בתמונה ובתואר. וכן נאמר "דמות כסא" "דמות הכסא" - דמיון בענין ההתנשאות והרוממות לא בריבועו ועוביו ואריכות רגליו כמו שיחשבו העניים; וכן "דמות החיות":
Demut is derived from the verb damah, "he is like." This term likewise denotes agreement with regard to some abstract relation: comp. "I am like a pelican of the wilderness" (Ps. 102:7); the author does not compare himself to the pelican in point of wings and feathers, but in point of sadness." Nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in beauty" (Ezek. 8); the comparison refers to the idea of beauty. "Their poison is like the poison of a serpent" (Ps. 58:5); "He is like unto a lion" (Ps. 17:12); the resemblance indicated in these passages does not refer to the figure and shape, but to some abstract idea. In the same manner is used "the likeness of the throne" (Ezek. 1:26); the comparison is made with regard to greatness and glory, not, as many believe, with regard to its square form, its breadth, or the length of its legs: this explanation applies also to the phrase "the likeness of the ḥayyot ("living creatures," Ezek. 1:13).

וכאשר יוחד האדם בענין שהוא זר בו מאוד מה שאין כן בדבר מן הנמצאות מתחת גלגל הירח - והוא ההשגה השכלית - אשר לא ישתמש בה חוש ולא מעשה גוף ולא יד ולא רגל - דימה אותה בהשגת האלוה אשר אינה בכלי (ואם אינו דמיון באמת אבל לנראה מן הדעת תחילה). ונאמר באדם מפני זה הענין - רצוני לומר מפני השכל האלוקי המדובק בו - שהוא ב'צלם אלוקים ובדמותו' - לא שהאלוה ית' גוף שיהיה בעל תמונה
As man's distinction consists in a property which no other creature on earth possesses, viz., intellectual perception, in the exercise of which he does not employ his senses, nor move his hand or his foot, this perception has been compared--though only apparently, not in truth--to the Divine perception, which requires no corporeal organ. On this account, i.e., on account of the Divine intellect with which man has been endowed, he is said to have been made in the form and likeness of the Almighty, but far from it be the notion that the Supreme Being is corporeal, having a material form.

Written during the height of Coronavirus outbreak in NY and Israel


It's during these days that we long for the way things used to be and its that longing and the similarities to todays events ; that I discovered while reading the book of Joshua, chapter seven, this past Shabbat.

After the successfull victory over Jericho, Joshua and the Jewish people attempted to attack the city of Ai. Unfortunately, there was an individual by the name of Achan (and his family)that didn't heed the warning of Joshua to not partake in the spoils of Jericho. As a result of this rebellion, thirty six soldiers died in their attempt to attack the city of Ai.
Joshua not realizing the sin of Achan and his theft of the spoils, could not understand why G-D allowed the defeat and death of his soldiers.
Joshua prays to G-d the following prayer(translation below)

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהוֹשֻׁ֜עַ אֲהָ֣הּ ׀ אֲדֹנָ֣י יְהוִ֗ה לָ֠מָה הֵעֲבַ֨רְתָּ הַעֲבִ֜יר אֶת־הָעָ֤ם הַזֶּה֙ אֶת־הַיַּרְדֵּ֔ן לָתֵ֥ת אֹתָ֛נוּ בְּיַ֥ד הָאֱמֹרִ֖י לְהַאֲבִידֵ֑נוּ וְלוּ֙ הוֹאַ֣לְנוּ וַנֵּ֔שֶׁב בְּעֵ֖בֶר הַיַּרְדֵּֽן׃

“Ah, Lord GOD!” cried Joshua. “Why did You lead this people across the Jordan only to deliver us into the hands of the Amorites, to be destroyed by them? If only we had been content to remain on the other side of the Jordan!

Robert Alter in his commentary wants to say that this prayer proves that Joshua was not as great as Moses because Joshua uses the same language in his prayer as the complaint of the mixed multitude when leaving Egypt.

I strongly disagree with Alter and in fact understand this prayer completely differently.
When the Jews left Egypt and complained that they wanted to return to Egypt; they were saying that they preferred the rule of Pharaoh over the rule of G-D.

When Joshua complained, he was saying that he preferred the rulership of G-D with all his protection, on the other side of the Jordan over the reality of Jewish life and its challenges when living under the rules of society and nature. The Jewish people were now forced to change their awareness and relationship with G-D as a result of entering the land and this was troubling to Joshua. For forty years the needs of the Jews were taken care of and they knew how to behave in order to guarantee their survival. Now they were forced to deal with G-D and their new environment in a way that was apparently unfamiliar.  This unknown was very  troubling to both Joshua and the elders.

When G-D answered Joshua, that it was sin and rebellion against the edict of the leadership, that caused their defeat in battle; Joshua realized that G-D was still with them and instead it was only man that had truly disconnected from the will of G-D.
Even though the environment changed, the relationship with G-D and the rules of their relationship remained the same.

In our time, we need to realize that the walls that we built in eastern Europe to protect us against Haskallah are no longer useful and in fact are harmful and dangerous. G-D  hasn't changed his relationship with us;  it's our relationship with our Jewish brothers and our approach to the world that needs to change.

introduction

I am a Jewish, mitzvah practicing jew in Long Island that has gone through the yeshiva system all my life including a two and half year program in a black hat yeshiva in Israel(Kol Torah).My stay in Israel also included six month's working on a kibbutz(be'erot yitzchak). I am very far from a traditional black hat yeshiva bochor. I am currently married(going through a messy divorce)with three beautiful sons.I love to learn especially machshava trying to find meaning and substance to both our religion and life. I will use this blog to escape from the day to day noise of life and try to use it as a form of meditation and as tool to re energize and to refocus.

I believe that we have a beautiful religion that was designed to challenge its followers to seek out and search for G-D by studying the world he created, understanding how he runs his world and then trying to emulate his actions resulting in a better place to live. I don't believe that we can change G-d or use G-d for our own selfish needs. I believe that it is our goal to change ourselves by understanding and then trying to emulate G-D "by going in his ways". In this blog I will be laying out thoughts that occur to me whether on the parsha,navi,daf or just plain machshava that comes to me during my lifetime

The beauty of a blog is the ability to communicate thoughts to the world and then have them analyzed and critiqued. It also forces the author to develop thoughts and learning so that it can withstand the challenge of any criticism. I hope that this is what this blog will do for me. Thank you in advance for reading and I hope you enjoy-alex

Out of slavery

1.  Slaves lose their self identity. They become completely subservient to their master/s. No decision is made unless the master benefits and gives his ok. In return the servant is given shelter, food and protection. In many ways the slave master and the idols/false G-D's play the same role to the servant/worshiper. There is a real fear by the slave/worshiper, that if he stops serving his master/G-D; then the food, shelter and protection would be seriously at risk.

Judaism introduced a revolutionary concept; that man is free from all forms of slavery; whether it is under man or whether it is bribing a G-D or whether it is even being a slave to one's own desires and thoughts.
Judaism doesn't want us  to be subservient to even a King; unless of course because of our given freedoms, we demand one. Even then, the chosen king has limited power. He is not allowed to amass wealth, horses(army) or wives. He is limited in his power by playing a role of a judge, with Torah constantly placed on his arm.
Even with our own worship of G-D, we are to do so, by improving ourselves and our relationship with our fellow man; in order to achieve closeness to G-D. Our sacrifices are not designed to bribe G-D but instead are to channel our drive to be mastered, into something productive. A sacrifice must be brought in a central location where all of the nation gathers with a goal of forming a community, mass education and a unified focus on the fundamental principles of our religion; with the central pillar being the idea of a non physical "first cause", that abhors slavery in all it's forms.
In the location of the sacrifices we have our supreme court, a gathering of the most educated and an economic system that is designed to help the less fortunate without reliance on an intrusive govt.
Even after G-D gave us the Torah he gave us the freedom to take control of his law and make it our own. That is the fantastic concept that the Rabbis have taught us,
 תורה לא בשמים היא.   
 
It took forty years of wandering in a desert for the Jewish people to understand this foundation of Judaism and the worship of the true G-D.
Like a drug addict it could not happen instantly but had to happen very slowly via weaning the Jewish people off the addiction of being mastered. That is why the ענן, באר and the מן was a necessity during this education process; just like a Heroin addict that is  given dangerous drugs to wean him off his even more dangerous addiction.
When finally entering Israel, the next generation of the desert was fully educated on what Judaism expected from them; complete freedom and self empowerment. They understood that they were not  to abandon the ability to control their lives/destiny to slave masters, Govt or even G-D.
It is G-D himself that tells us that we are given free will to choose between good and evil.  We are told by G-D to throw off the yolk of all forms of slavery and to move on to make the best of ourselves and the world around us. The nation of Israel is to be an example to the world, of what true freedom is supposed to look like. All the greatest Democracies in the world today, were developed as a result of this Judaic concept of freedom; that was first introduced to the world when the Jews left Egypt.
This pasuk in this weeks Parsha say all of this in twelve words.

 שמות טו: וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, מַה-תִּצְעַק אֵלָי; דַּבֵּר
אֶל-בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיִסָּעוּ.

 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Wherefore criest thou unto Me? speak unto the children of Israel, that they go forward

Thoughts on the Daf- Berachot 31


Knowing that Samuel was a descendant of Korach (who rebelled against Moshe), it is always a beautiful idea that in contrast to his great grandfather, he gave up his own power, in order to appoint the first Jewish kings(Saul and David). In a similar manner, when Moses was told by G-D that he would destroy the Jewish people and rebuild a new nation from Moses; the response from Moses was a plea to save the Jewish people(by the golden calf).

In todays Daf(Berachot 31) both ideas are  repeated, once by discussing how Eli accused Samuel of Moreh halacha biphnei raboh(a form of rebellion). This reminds us of the potential of rebellion that Samuel inherited. As a result of Samuel's rebellion,
Eli threatened to kill Samuel. Eli promises חנה, that if allowed to punish Samuel, he would pray that G-d grant's חנה even a greater son than Samuel. חנה refuses and demands that Eli have mercy on Samuel.

Here is the Gemara-

״אֶל הַנַּעַר הַזֶּה הִתְפַּלָּלְתִּי״. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שְׁמוּאֵל מוֹרֵה הֲלָכָה לִפְנֵי רַבּוֹ הָיָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּשְׁחֲטוּ אֶת הַפָּר וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶת הַנַּעַר אֶל עֵלִי״. מִשּׁוּם דְּ״וַיִּשְׁחֲטוּ אֶת הַפָּר״ הֵבִיאוּ הַנַּעַר אֶל עֵלִי?

אֶלָּא, אָמַר לָהֶן עֵלִי: קִרְאוּ כֹּהֵן, לֵיתֵי וְלִשְׁחוֹט. חֲזַנְהוּ שְׁמוּאֵל דַּהֲווֹ מְהַדְּרִי בָּתַר כֹּהֵן לְמִישְׁחַט, אֲמַר לְהוּ: לְמָה לְכוּ לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי בָּתַר כֹּהֵן לְמִישְׁחַט? שְׁחִיטָה בְּזָר כְּשֵׁרָה! אַיְיתוּהוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּעֵלִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְנָא לָךְ הָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי כְּתִיב ״וְשָׁחַט הַכֹּהֵן״?! ״וְהִקְרִיבוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים״ כְּתִיב, מִקַּבָּלָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהוּנָּה, מִכָּאן לַשְּׁחִיטָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁרָה בְּזָר.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מֵימָר שַׁפִּיר קָא אָמְרַתְּ, מִיהוּ מוֹרֶה הֲלָכָה בִּפְנֵי רַבָּךְ אַתְּ, וְכׇל הַמּוֹרֶה הֲלָכָה בִּפְנֵי רַבּוֹ חַיָּיב מִיתָה. אָתְיָא חַנָּה וְקָא צָוְוחָה קַמֵּיהּ: ״אֲנִי הָאִשָּׁה הַנִּצֶּבֶת עִמְּכָה בָּזֶה״ וְגוֹ׳. אֲמַר לַהּ: שִׁבְקִי לִי דְּאֶעֶנְשֵׁיהּ, וּבְעֵינָא רַחֲמֵי, וְיָהֵיב לָךְ רַבָּא מִינֵּיהּ. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: ״אֶל הַנַּעַר הַזֶּה הִתְפַּלָּלְתִּי״.

Additionally, Hannah’s emphasis in speaking to Eli, “for this youth I prayed” (I Samuel 1:27), indicates that she came to protect him from danger. As Rabbi Elazar said: Samuel was one who taught halakha in the presence of his teacher. Hannah wanted to pray that he not be punished by death at the hand of Heaven for his transgression, as it is stated: “And they slaughtered the cow and they brought the youth to Eli” (I Samuel 1:25). This verse is puzzling. Because they slaughtered the cow, therefore, they brought the youth to Eli? What does one have to do with the next?

Rather, this is what happened: Eli said to those who brought the offering: Call a priest; he will come and slaughter the offering. Samuel saw them looking for a priest to slaughter the animal. He said to them: Why do you need to look for a priest to slaughter it? Slaughter of an offering performed by a non-priest is valid. They brought him before Eli to clarify his statement. Eli said to him: How do you know this? Samuel said to him: Is it written in the Torah: And the priest shall slaughter indicating that the offering may only be slaughtered by a priest? It is written: “And the priests shall offer,” only from the stage of receiving the blood in the bowls and onward is it a mitzva incumbent upon priests alone. From here the halakha that slaughter by a non-priest is acceptable is derived.

Eli said to Samuel: You have spoken well and your statement is correct, but nevertheless, you are one who issued a halakhic ruling in the presence of your teacher, and anyone who issues a halakhic ruling in the presence of his teacher, even if the particular halakha is correct, is liable for death at the hand of Heaven for showing contempt for his teacher. Hannah came and shouted before him: “I am the woman who stood here with you to pray to the Lord;” do not punish the child who was born of my prayers. He said to her: Let me punish him, and I will pray for mercy, that the Holy One, Blessed be He, will grant you a son who will be greater than this one. She said to him: “For this youth I prayed” and I want no other.

                    וישב

לז,לא וַיִּקְחוּ, אֶת-כְּתֹנֶת יוֹסֵף; וַיִּשְׁחֲטוּ שְׂעִיר 
עִזִּים, וַיִּטְבְּלוּ אֶת-הַכֻּתֹּנֶת בַּדָּם

לז,לב וַיְשַׁלְּחוּ אֶת-כְּתֹנֶת הַפַּסִּים, וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶל-אֲבִיהֶם, וַיֹּאמְרוּ, זֹאת מָצָאנוּ:  הַכֶּר-נָא, הַכְּתֹנֶת בִּנְךָ הִוא--אִם-לֹא.

לז,לג וַיַּכִּירָהּ וַיֹּאמֶר כְּתֹנֶת בְּנִי, חַיָּה רָעָה אֲכָלָתְהוּ; טָרֹף טֹרַף, יוֹסֵף.

Its interesting that the midrash says that this כתנת is actually the same garment that יעקב used to fool his father יצחק, in thinking that he was blessing his brother עשו. 

There are some interesting terms used in these pasukim that can possibly be reminding us of the conflict between יעקב and עשו and the deception of יצחק.
The terms שעיר and אדום) דם)  seems to allude to the other names of עשו.
The fooling by Joseph's brothers of יעקב, with the same garment to convince יעקב that his son is dead; when in fact he was really sold(as עשו sold the firstborn rights to יעקב). 
The other reminder is the fact that the garment was dipped in the blood of עיזים-the same animal that רבקה prepared the dish for יעקב to feed his father יצחק. Also notice the language of the pasuk when יצחק bless יעקב-
כז,כג וְלֹא הִכִּירוֹ--כִּי-הָיוּ יָדָיו כִּידֵי עֵשָׂו אָחִיו, שְׂעִרֹת; וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ
And now the language of הכר נא and ויכירה when the brothers are fooling יעקב

We also saw this play out when לבן told יעקב after switching לאה ( the oldest) for רחל in marriage. Hear the irony in the words of לבן when לבן says in פרשת ויצא

 כט,כו וַיֹּאמֶר לָבָן, לֹא-יֵעָשֶׂה כֵן בִּמְקוֹמֵנוּ--לָתֵת הַצְּעִירָה, לִפְנֵי הַבְּכִירָה

when it was לבן's sister (רבקה) that devised the plan in the first place; in order that יעקב should steal the blessings from her oldest son. Where would רבקה learn the rules of deception, if not from the family of her childhood-לבן

As long as we are on this subject of לבן, this may  also explain where the midrash picked up the story that רחל gave the סימנים to her sister לאה in order that she not be humiliated; just like רבקה gave the סימנים to her son יעקב in order to fool his father. The only difference here is that the midrash is having the youngest daughter give the סימנים to the oldest daughter, in order to fool her future husband.  Now in this parsha, the children of the oldest are using סימנים to once again deceive the parent of the true whereabouts of the youngest.

Is the Torah being critical of the deception by Yaakov of his father יצחק, by showing us in these stories consequences of our actions/decisions  and how history repeats itself...?

                            פרשת וישב



לז,כו וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה, אֶל-אֶחָיו:  מַה-בֶּצַע, כִּי 
נַהֲרֹג אֶת-אָחִינוּ, וְכִסִּינוּ, אֶת-דָּמוֹ

לז,כז לְכוּ וְנִמְכְּרֶנּוּ לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים, וְיָדֵנוּ אַל-תְּהִי-בוֹ, כִּי-אָחִינוּ בְשָׂרֵנוּ, הוּא; וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ, אֶחָיו.

לז,כח וַיַּעַבְרוּ אֲנָשִׁים מִדְיָנִים סֹחֲרִים, וַיִּמְשְׁכוּ וַיַּעֲלוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף מִן-הַבּוֹר, וַיִּמְכְּרוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים, בְּעֶשְׂרִים כָּסֶף; וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף, מִצְרָיְמָה.

The question everyone discusses here is why the switch between ישמעאלים and  

 מדינים?                                                          

                                                     

 I don't believe that the question is so difficult. It is very common in the slave trade to have slave traders that arrange the sale for buyers. When יהודה decided to sell יוסף to the Egyptians, it was the midyanim that were the traders and     arranged and completed the sale to the Egyptians.                                                  
 What I find fascinating is the fact that the two people chosen in this story to arrange the sale of Joseph, were the very same children that were sent away by Joseph's great grandfather Abraham; and now the very descendants of those children are now involved in sending Joseph away from his father.                 

Its Jan 1st 2020 and it's been over ten years since I last wrote on my blog. Life has changed for the Guttman clan and so has my state of mind. Over the years I have been analyzing midrashim and the nuances in the Torah that may have triggered the author of the midrash to arrive at the understanding of the pasuk that he commented on. I also noticed some interesting similarities, repetition of words and ideas in many of the stories, events and mitzvot of the pasukim of the weekly parsha reading.
I hope to use this blog to document many of those chidushim and ideas for many years to come.
Note- I also completed the  גבעונים  and דינה comparison from 2011 by adding a thought that I mentioned by my son Daniel's sheva Berachot. Look back to see my chidush.