Paraphrasing the Zohar as cited in Hok l'Yisra'el, Vo'eira Yom Sheini Mussar section
Causing the death of the fetus causes sorrow in the world, and Hashem's Withdrawal. Pestilence and plagues are visited.
Praised be Israel, that despite the Decree of Par'oh to kill all the baby boys, none of the Israelites aborted their children. And Bizchut this, Israel merited the Exodus from Exile.
Kol Tuv,
RRW
Saturday 2 January 2021
Parsha: Sh'mot, "The Risks of Political Partisanship"
originally posted on Dec. 26, 2015
As the popular hypothesis goes - the Hyksos Pharaohs [the so-called Shepherd Kings] allied themselves with the Hebrews. Then, when the Hyksos' dynasty was overthrown, the Hebrews were left high and dry - especially since native Egyptians detested shepherds. [Miqqetz 43:32]
There are hints in Vayigash and Sh'mot that support this. In Vayigash, Pharaoh seems interested in tying Joseph's family to his own interests. He asks the brothers about becoming his personal Royal Shepherds [47:6]. However, we see that a new King [dynasty?] arose that knew not Joseph [1:8] in Sh'mot.
If this is true, then there is a pragmatic lesson here: "Don't put your [political] eggs in one basket." Although Joseph and his brothers enjoyed ascendancy when allied to that Hyksos dynasty, they were subsequently exiled to the political wilderness when their patrons were removed from power.
Simply said, since the Hebrews were unanimously allied to one single party, they were powerless when that party lost power.
Something to think about when making "political bedfellows"
Shalom,
RRW
As the popular hypothesis goes - the Hyksos Pharaohs [the so-called Shepherd Kings] allied themselves with the Hebrews. Then, when the Hyksos' dynasty was overthrown, the Hebrews were left high and dry - especially since native Egyptians detested shepherds. [Miqqetz 43:32]
There are hints in Vayigash and Sh'mot that support this. In Vayigash, Pharaoh seems interested in tying Joseph's family to his own interests. He asks the brothers about becoming his personal Royal Shepherds [47:6]. However, we see that a new King [dynasty?] arose that knew not Joseph [1:8] in Sh'mot.
If this is true, then there is a pragmatic lesson here: "Don't put your [political] eggs in one basket." Although Joseph and his brothers enjoyed ascendancy when allied to that Hyksos dynasty, they were subsequently exiled to the political wilderness when their patrons were removed from power.
Simply said, since the Hebrews were unanimously allied to one single party, they were powerless when that party lost power.
Something to think about when making "political bedfellows"
Shalom,
RRW
Sunday 27 December 2020
Parsha: Vaychi, "Umoladta Asher Holadta Achareihem"
In Vaychi 48:5,6, we have an interesting debate between Rashi and the Torah Temimah. [Yes, one MAY argue with Rashi and still be a Kosher Yid!] :-)
Rashi posits that any future children Yoseph WILL have after Ephraim and Menashe would be subsumed under THEIR names. So, any of Yoseph's potential future children would be referred to as part of Ephraim and Menashe.
The Torah Temimah 48:5:5 objects because "Holadta" is written in the past tense. Instead, the Torah Temimah suggests that this refers to the respective children of Ephraim and Menashe, some of which may have already been born.
Tangentially one may understand the quoted G'mara as quoting Passuq 5 as its source text as also referring to Passuq 6, Ayein Sham.
Shalom, RRW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)