Pick Your Parshanut Preferences - Yaakov and Esav

Originally published on Nishmablog on 12/21/10, 9:13 am.

Which approach do you prefer?

A. Choice #1. Genesis 25 / Hebrew Bible in English / Mechon-Mamre
27 And the boys grew; and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a quiet man, dwelling in tents.
28 Now Isaac loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison; and Rebekah loved Jacob.
29 And Jacob sod pottage; and Esau came in from the field, and he was faint.
30 And Esau said to Jacob: 'Let me swallow, I pray thee, some of this red, red pottage; for I am faint.' Therefore was his name called Edom. 31 And Jacob said: 'Sell me first thy birthright.'
32 And Esau said: 'Behold, I am at the point to die; and what profit shall the birthright do to me?'
33 And Jacob said: 'Swear to me first'; and he swore unto him; and he sold his birthright unto Jacob.
34 And Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentils; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way. So* Esau despised his birthright.
* new JPS has "Thereby"

Or

B. Choice #2. FREE Online Youngs Literal Translation. Genesis Chapter 25:1-34.
GEN 25:27 And the youths grew, and Esau is a man acquainted `with' hunting, a man of the field; and Jacob `is' a plain man, inhabiting tents;GEN 25:28 and Isaac loveth Esau, for `his' hunting `is' in his mouth; and Rebekah is loving Jacob.GEN 25:29 And Jacob boileth pottage, and Esau cometh in from the field, and he `is' weary;
GEN 25:30 and Esau saith unto Jacob, `Let me eat, I pray thee, some of this red red thing, for I `am' weary;' therefore hath `one' called his name Edom `Red';
GEN 25:31 and Jacob saith, `Sell to-day thy birthright to me.' GEN 25:32 And Esau saith, `Lo, I am going to die, and what is this to me -- birthright?'
GEN 25:33 and Jacob saith, `Swear to me to-day:' and he sweareth to him, and selleth his birthright to Jacob;
GEN 25:34 and Jacob hath given to Esau bread and pottage of lentiles, and he eateth, and drinketh, and riseth, and goeth; and Esau despiseth the birthright.

------------------------
Questions:
A Kayyom - do you prefer "first" or "to-day"?
B Vayivez do you prefer "And Esau" vs.
"So/Thereby"
C. How does Yaakov come across differently across the 2 translations?
D. How does Esau come across differently across the 2 translations?


Shalom,
RRW

Parsha: Toldot, "Sometimes a Concordance is better than a Dictionary"

Quite a while ago, a friend asked me, what does "gadalta" mean in Tehillim: 104:1?

Why does it say that Hashem is very great? If Hashem cannot be defined by SIZE, then how can Hashem grow bigger or older?

In order to answer my friend's question, I picked up a Concordance.

Eureka!

One of the first entries for the word, "gadalta," is found in Parshat Toldot at the start of shlishi, the third aliya. Bereishit: 26:13: Vayigdal Ho'ish ...

In this context, Yitzchak Avinu wasn't growing spiritually. Instead, his r'chush - possessions, property, and portfolio - were all increasing! Yitzchak was becoming a "billionaire."

Let's look back at Tehillim:104:1. It's talking about the tz'va hashamayim; the wonders of the heavenly bodies.

Here, the words of praise mean that,  Hashem, YOU possess a magnificent portfolio of astronomical proportions. The words are praising Hashem's possession, not His Self or His Middot.  Hashem is GDL, great, in the sense of "Koneh Shamayim va'aretz." His property is Heaven and Earth.

------------------------

Tangentially, this peirush directly relates to the piyyutim found in Birkat Yotzeir, Keil Adon and Eil Baruch GD'oL dei'ah. Through reciting this magnificent "Kapittel" on Rosh Hodesh, we remember the Creator and His creation.

In summary:  we've illustrated what I call the "Concordance Technique for Parshanut" and have learned how to parse Psalm 104.

------------------------

Years ago, I learned this technique from Rashi, Z"L. He often uses the TaNa"Ch itself as a resource when he explains a difficult word without using the Talmud, Midrash or Targum.  Through this technique, Rashi both presents a peirush and teaches us how to create our own original peirushim. 

BE"H I will illustrate Rashi's usage and a few of my own based upon following Rashi's methodology

Shalom,

RRW

Parsha: Toldot, "Be Careful of What You Pray For, Your Wish may be Fulfilled!"

 Yitzchak's Tefilla & Unintended Consequences. 

וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה' וַתַּהַר רִבְקָה אִשְׁתּוֹ. 

(Breishis 25:21.)

"We see that it is possible for a tefilla to be answered even when, unbeknown st to the mispallel, the desired answer is ultimately injurious. The one who is praying knows nothing about the collateral effect of the answer to his tefilla. He is only doing what the Torah teaches- when you need something, pray. But if he davens well enough and hard enough and long enough, sometimes the tefilla is answered as he desires, and this sets into motion a cascade of unintended and unexpected and unwanted consequences.
It's like Robert Merton's law of unintended consequences. a widely quoted admonition that intervention in a complex system always creates unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes. Does this sound reasonable to you?" (Havolim)

Shalom,

RRW

Parsha: Hayyei Sarah & Toldoth, "Navi vs. Halachah"

There is a story told in Y'shivot

A Hossid will give you

15 answers to a single question

A Litvak will give you 

a single answer to 15 questions.

Here are two related knotty problems.

In Hayyei Sarah, Avraham assigns Eliezer to find Yitzchak a mate. The Talmud admonishes us that we should not act the same way since Eliezer's technique involved "Nichush."  If so, then how could Eliezer use this means to select a proper shidduch? Alternatively, how can it be that Yitzchak's great match was manifested through such "under-handed" means?

Similarly, in Toldot, Yaakov "usurps" the brachah from Esav via deception.One may not excuse Yaakov's behavior on the grounds that he was obeying his mother, since one may not violate Halachah on the say so of a parent. So how was Yaakov permitted to engage in such a masquerade?

My approach is similar and simple. In each case, the alleged offense was committed under the instruction of a Prophet/Prophetess; Scripture actually makes this quite clear on a P'shat level

Avraham told Eliezer that a Malach will accompany him and that Hashem will cause him to succeed. Given this CONTEXT, his Nichush was under Divine Providence and therefore did not involve superstition or "dark forces"

Similarly, Hashem told Rivka [directly so - if we set aside Rashi] that "Rav Yaavod Tsa'ir." Given that this n'vuah is also in the text, her command to Yaakov is therefore that of a prophetess and not simply that of a Mom. Yaakov is therefore engaged to commit this deception in this extraordinary circumstance.

This also explains why the text orders these Prophetic pronouncements just before the questionable behaviour. It does so to set up a proper context so that we would understand the dynamic here and not learn the wrong lessons about Nichush and deception

Shalom,
RRW

Parsha: Hayyei Sarah, "K'turah"

This came from another list:

This past Shabbat, totally out of the blue, a congregant came up to me and asked me a question. Apparently, I must have missed that class. I didn't know the answer. Forgive me as I post my ignorance, but as I do not have the answer, I turn to you...

When Sara hears that she will become pregnant, her response includes the fact that she says Abraham is old. She implies that he is not exactly the stallion he may have been in his younger years.

Much later on, we discover that Abraham has married Ketura and had more children. How did he do it?

---"Reuven"

Here are two approaches:

1. Both Abraham and Sara had a rebirth/rejuvenation (reJEWvenation?) when their names got changed because of the principle that a Convert is like a newborn [ger shinisgayer kekatan shenolad dami].
   
   
2. Ein mukdam um'uchar batorah. This story is out of sequence. It's just here as part of a flashback sequence to fill us in on the old news that Abraham had previously married another woman named Keturah.  It's placed right next to Abraham designating Isaac as his successor (excluding Isaac's half-siblings) before Abraham's own death.

Shalom,
RRW

Parsha: Hayyei Sarah, "Sh'nei Hayyei"

The pun on Sh'nei Hayyei Sarah offers much in the way of Drash when read as "Sarah led [past tense] TWO lives"
Here are some of my favourites...

1. A life here in Olam Hazzeh, and another life in Olam Habba.
2. A life as a wife, and another life as a mother.
3. A life as a public figure, and another life as a private figure, for example, as both mother and wife.
4. Similar to #1 a Life as a real alive human being, and a postmortem life as a Matriarch and iconic legacy for the ages.

Shalom
RRW

P V'a'yeira: Hagar's Eyes Open

Originally published 11/5/09, 4:18 pm.

This question has bothered students of Torah for many generations:
How could Avraham Avinu, the epitome of Hessed, fail to provide adequate water for his son and estranged wife?

The commentaries address this using several approaches. Some maintain that that Avraham was generous to Hagar after all.
Let's look at the text and see.

It says that Hagar's Canteen ran out of water. And she gave up - so to speak - and fell into melancholy.
After Yishma'el's prayer, it states that Hashem opened Hagar's eyes - and behold, there was a well!

Well!  Perhaps all was well all along. Maybe Avraham had given them sufficient water to make it to a well, but when Hagar ran out of water, her emotions overtook her and she suppressed her own ability to see the well in front of her. In response to her prayer, Hashem removed Hagar's self-imposed blinders and she could see the well all ended well!
All along,  Avraham had well-planned the rationing of the water, anticipating that Hagar would reach that well. But Hagar was not emotionally well enough to see well.

KT
RRW

Parsha: Vayeira, "Aqeida, and Masorah - Rabbis Soloveichik and Rosenfeld"

I serve as a rotating Shabbat Chaplain for CareOne nursing center in Teaneck. I've become friendly with one of the residents whose daughter and son-in-law visit her nearly every Friday Night.

It so happens that this son-in-law is none other than Rabbi Harvey Rosenfeld! We have chatted many times. I was quite pleased to see his d'var torah in our local Jewish Paper "The Jewish Standard". Given Rabbi Rosenfeld's background, both the content of the d'var torah and its appearance here on this blog is a bit unconventional.

Enjoy R' Rosenfeld's d'var torah anyway! I'm confident you will.

Shalom,
RRW

Parsha: Vayeira, "Is Seeing What's Already There a Miracle?"

I Witnessed A Small Miracle

Mark, Your friend was just under a lot of stress and likely "misplaces things" typical of someone with ADD/ADHD. When objects like wallets re-emerge from what I call "small object purgatory" (despite looking in that place before, sometimes compulsively looking again & again in that same place) as in your friend's experience, it is likely stress and his subconscious intervening so he literally can't see/find it. He had a subconscious hidden agenda for not seeing it, such as not wanting to spend the money, etc. This used to happen to me when I really did not want to date someone anymore, I'd misplace my wallet or my car keys just before going out, then they would appear right where I "knew" I'd left them. Your friend may have hit the nail on the head about it falling off the chair. (F.Lee Billy's comment on Emotional Times, September 27, 2010.)

Does this explain "Vayiphtach Elokim et eineha, vateira b'eir mayyim"? (Vayeira 21:19) If the well had always existed in that spot, then the miracle was noticing it.

Is it possible that Avraham knew the well was there? Could depression have clouded Hagar's vision until, via prayer, Elokim lifted it?

Could this unexpected appearance of the well be the "miracle" of simply seeing what was already there? 

Shalom,
RRW

Parsha: Vayeira, Lot's Lot

Rabbi Y Seplowitz: 

«Lot was a man of contradictions.  He moved to Sodom to get away from his uncle Abraham.  He didn’t want to live near his uncle; Abraham was too . . . “religious.”  (“I can’t tolerate Abram or his G-d!” — Rashi’s commentary on Genesis, 13:11)

Yet, he adhered to many of the practices he had learned in his uncle’s home.  Abraham placed great emphasis on the Mitzvah of entertaining guests.  Although hospitality was actually outlawed in Sodom, Lot risked his life by inviting strangers to his home.  He served them Matzah, since it was Passover.  (He had learned from his uncle, who was, of course, a prophet, that there would some day be such a holiday  at that time of year.

Lot chose to live among the Sodomites; he was attracted by the material wealth the city had to offer.  The fact that it was a hotbed of evil and immorality didn’t faze him.  In fact, he seems to have preferred the decadent lifestyleof his neighbors over the restrictive morals of his uncle’s home.  Given the choice of Jerusalem vs. San Francisco, Lot chose ‘Frisco!»

“The Most Powerful Force on Earth”
http://wp.me/pBfWQ-8R
 

To further our understanding re: Lot - a thought once popped into my head about Lot's Middah k'neged Middah. Lot had proposed that Anshei S'dom could do what they want with his 2 daughters. And it turns around, that's what happened to Lot himself, he wound up having relations with them shortly after having been mafkir them.

The Torah text is subtle, yet upon reflection, the juxtaposition of these texts does suggest a literary connection.

-----------------------------------------
Shalom and Best Regards,
RRW 

Parsha: Vayeira, "Tiqqun Soferim"

 "Avraham is still standing in front of Hashem" (Vayeria 18:22)
Take a look at the Rashi on that passuq.

Due to Tiqqun Soferim it got switched around, even though the opposite is the case. This was not, however,  literally done by some "editor" who changed the text. EG see Iqqar siftei Hachamim 1.(Any such idea of an editorial change could be deemed a perfect mis-understanding.)

IIRC R Dr. MS Feldblum explained that tiqqun sof'rim is an idiomatic expression simply meaning "euphemism". This is only a slightly different interpretation than the Iqqar Siftei Hachamim's. The sentiment is similar. It's not an editorial change to the text, but rather a LINGUISTIC change to say one thing but mean another.

Shalom,
RRW

Vayeira Destroy What Needs To Be Destroyed

Guest Post:
Cantor Richard Wolberg
Adapted from an article by Rabbi Noson Weisz.
* * * * *

In the conversation between God and Abraham where God informs Abraham that he is about to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham challenged God's justice and demanded Divine mercy with a ferocity that leaves the reader astonished at his sheer audacity. Abraham then proceeds to demand mercy in terms that are almost as insistent, declaring, "Behold now, I desired to speak to my Lord although I am but dust and ashes. What if the fifty righteous people should lack five? Would You destroy the entire city because of the five?" [Gen. 18: 27-28]
How does such a ringing challenge emerge from the mouth of a person who regards himself as no more than a pile of dust and ashes?
To appreciate the utter impossibility of this conversation, remember that we are not Abraham. For us, God exists only in the abstract: He is a being we have never personally met and in whose existence we only vaguely believe. But to Abraham, God was a Being he knew and spoke to. Imagine that the Almighty Himself came to inform you about His decision to destroy Sodom and Gomorra on account of the great evil that He discovered there. Would you presume to challenge His judgment, and with such force?
The point here is that God came to inform him about His decision to destroy Sodom. If the proposed destruction was none of his business, God didn't have to tell him about it in advance. So the fact that God told Abraham, then that was Abraham's cue to respond.

Whereas your or I might have said to God: "Great! Destroy those evil people. Who needs them? All they are is trouble." Abraham was on a much higher level, so he asked for God's mercy, indicating a tremendous sensitivity to all of God's creatures. In His great wisdom, however, the Almighty did what needed to be done.

Parsha: Lech Lecha, Galut Mitzrayim - 400 Years or 210 Years?‏

Here is a simple approach to what appears to be a big s'teerah between the 400 years in Mitzrayim as per Torah Shebichtav, vs. the 210 years as per TSBP.
[Note: I'm not addressing the case of 430 years, but one can extrapolate an answer from this approach]

Rashi [Lech Lecha 15:13] suggests that the 400 years in a "Land not theirs" commences with the birth of Yitzchak, and that the actual descent to Mitzrayim actually comes 190 years later.

Extrapolating from Rashi here is my approach:

There are "2 dinnim" re: Egypt

1. The physical Land of Egypt
2. The extended Empire of Egypt.

Background:
Modern Archaeologists consider the Ancient Land of Canaan during that era as under the influence [Suzerainty] of the Egyptian Empire, perhaps similar to Poland used to be when it was under the Soviet Sphere of influence.

So, in a sense, during those first 190 years, the Avot were not in the physical Land of Egypt, yet the galut of the Empire of Egypt indeed did start earlier on - because Canaan was under the Social and Political Influence of Egypt, and by extension they were in a "Spiritual Galus Mitzrayim."

And so both figures work.
210 years in Physical Egypt
400 years as subject to Egyptian Social Mores.

Kol Tuv,
RRW

Parsha Lech Lecha - "Pere Adam"

Chofetz Chaim on Lech Lecha 16:12

http://books.google.com/books?id=XFBY8qhhfx8C&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=chofetz+chaim+on+hagar+and+arabs&source=bl&ots=1RWIBJEO-C&sig=uuhV5JMz1nvu5607hX-ma2P46AE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g9lWVOjQGenuigKcpIHYBA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=chofetz%20chaim%20on%20hagar%20and%20arabs&f=false
 
Kol Tuv,
RRW

Abra(ha)m Received An A+

Guest Post:

Cantor Richard Wolberg
* * * * *

We all know that Abram, the progenitor of the Jewish people, was told to "Go forth," etc. The question everyone asks is why is "lamed chof" repeated twice. Once would have been enough. "Lech" — "Go forth".

Many different explanations have been advanced for the double "lamed chof" to which I'll add another.  What is the best score one can receive? One hundred percent. "Lamed chof" equals fifty (lamed=30 and chof=20). Lamed chof  twice is 100. 

Abraham passed the various tests of God with flying colors.  A midrash interprets the use of the double word to mean "Go forth to find your authentic self, to learn who you are meant to be". So the use of the double lamed chof informs us that he received one hundred percent!

--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
Rabbi RichWolpoe

Lech Lecha: The Involvement of Self

From the archives of Nishma's Online Library at http://www.nishma.org/, we have chosen an article that relates to the week's parsha, both to direct you to this dvar Torah but also for the purposes of initiating some discussion.

This week's parsha is Lech Lecha and the topic is the self. We invite you to look at an article on this topic at http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/spark5756-2.html.

Lech Lecha: The Personality of Blessings

From the archives of Nishma's Online Library at http://www.nishma.org/, we have chosen an article that relates to the week's parsha, both to direct you to this dvar Torah but also for the purposes of initiating some discussion.

This week's parsha is Lech Lecha and the topic is blessings, specifically what blessings say about the person being blessed. What one considers a blessing tells us much about that person. For a further discussion on this idea, see http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/insight5761-07.htm

Parsha: Lech Lecha, "Skin-Garment-House"

An interesting linkage is made on the first verse in Parshat Lech Lecha (Beraishit: 12:1)
"A person has 3 protective casings:
The Bassar, the Begged, and the Bayit.

-  New translation P. 288, RSR Hirsch

This point dovetails completely with the 3 forms of afflictions listed in Tazria-Metzora:

• afflictions of the Skin, surface, dermatological
• Garments
• Houses

In the cases in Vayiqra, the afflictions [Nega'I'm] proceed from the inner to the outer.I don't see any explicit connection made by R. Hirsch in Lech Lecha itself, but the parallel is more than skin-deep!

When Avraham leaves Haran he is asked to leave his:

• Country
• Birthplace
• House of your Father

Or from outer to inner. This is highly counter-intuitive. It is also a major salient point in R. Hirsch's brief essay


Shalom,
RRW

Parsha: Lech Lecha, "Leaving Israel"

In  Mishna Torah: Hilchot Melachim: 5:9, the Rambam writes that:


"Even though it was a famine and one is permitted to leave Israel [nevertheless] "einah middat hassidut" ... [It is not the mark of a pious character]
And because of that Machalon and Kilyon - 2 "gedolei hador" [great ones of their generation] ..left and were liable to destruction by "the Maqom".

Questions:
1. If it's Halachically permitted to leave the land of Israel, then who cares about "Middat Hassidut"?

2 If all Jews are on the same level of obligation and liability, then how does being a "Gadol Hador" change someone's level?

3. If even the Rambam concedes that Machalon and Kilyon's leaving Eretz Yisrael was Halachically permitted, then why did he say they were punished? 

4. In Lech L'cha, Avraham Avinu left the Holy Land under similar circumstances - and he seemed to be rewarded and not punished! How does this Rambam address that case?

For further sources

• Torah Temimah on Lech L'cha 12:10 quoting Bava Qama 60b
• Note 13 quoting Bava Batra 91a

Shalom, RRW

The "Oat Brit" Linguisitic Pattern

The "Oat Brit" [Os Bris] Pattern

First - please see these sections

P B'reishis     R'vii 4:15
P. Noach     Hamishi 9:5-17
P. Lech Lecha     Shishi-Sh'vii 17:2-21
P. Ki Tissa     End of Rishon 31:13-17
In the last 3 Oat and Brit [Os and Bris] appear in tandem, often repeatedly. Re: Kayin, only "Oat"

Q:
Have any "Parshanim" connected all of these dots together?
EG the number of times Oat and Brit are used? The sequencing?

For a limited example -
See Torah Temimah on Lech Lecha 17:11 quoting a Meimra from Rav Nachman bar Yitzchok in TB: Shabbat 132a, concerning "Meelah docheh Shabbos" which addresses a small subset of this pattern.


Kol Tuv,
RRW