Nuanced Respect

Parshat Va'era

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Before the plagues begin the Torah takes a brief detour to tell us the lineage of the tribes of Reuven, Shimon and Levi, in order to get to Moshe and Aharon. Now that we understand the context of our heroes’ origins, the Torah tells us, “This is Aharon and Moshe, to whom G-d told them ‘Take the Israelites out of Egypt according to their hosts.’ They are the ones speaking to Pharaoh, King of Egypt, to take the Israelites out of Egypt. This is Moshe and Aharon (6:26-27).”

It is clear that these two verses are almost exact replicas of one another, with perhaps two essential differences. The first is that one verse speaks of what G-d told them to do, while the other explains that they are speaking to Pharaoh. The second difference is in the order their names are presented. First Aharon precedes Moshe, and then Moshe precedes Aharon.

While there is not much discussion in the commentaries over why the content of the two verses are essentially the same, many thoughts are shared over why Aharon is listed first in 6:26 and why Moshe is listed first in 6:27.

Rashi suggests there is no rhyme or reason to pit one before the other — indeed, the Torah switches back and forth simply because they are equal in every way. There is no way to otherwise indicate their equality beyond taking turns being listed first.

Ibn Ezra suggests Aharon is listed first because he was greater than Moshe and also because he was a prophet for the Israelites before Moshe returned from Midyan. Rabbi Yosef Karo suggests Aharon received prophecy earlier in his life than Moshe did, which was why he was listed first. By the time the two reach Pharaoh, however, Moshe has caught up in prophecy and is listed first.

Other commentators (Rashbam, Chizkuni and more) explain the discrepancies rather simply, following the more specific context in which their names are listed. Aharon was older, and is therefore listed first at the end of the genealogy list. In terms of G-d speaking to them, Moshe was the greater prophet and was therefore listed first.Alternatively, Rabbi Yosef Karo suggests that when Aharon is listed first it is because Moshe is giving him the honor he deserves. When Moshe is listed first, it is on account of Aharon giving him the honor he deserves.

The Kli Yakar approaches this dilemma from a completely different angle. He explains that in each case, we might have given one brother less credit, so that brother ends up being listed first to prove his importance in that context. As G-d’s messenger, we saw the importance of Moshe’s appointment in chapters 3-4. Aharon is listed first to show us that he was important in this endeavor as well. Regarding speaking to Pharaoh, our assumption is that Moshe, the man with the speech difficulty, is less relevant because the role of speaking to Pharoah will be fulfilled by Aharon. Thus we are told of Moshe first, to indicate his role is extremely important.

That some of the commentaries directly contradict one another in terms of who, at this point, was a greater prophet, it stands to reason that the question of who was a greater prophet might not be the strongest answer for the discrepancy in the order of their names.

I met someone this past weekend who devotes much of his Biblical research into countering Biblical criticism and its multiple-authors theory. As names and descriptions sometimes appear contradictory in the Torah, he suggested that every time a person appears or is described in the Torah, the person’s title or position must be understood from either the perspective of the narrative itself or that of a specific character in the narrative.

The latter method seems to be the approach of the Netziv who says that “In Pharaoh’s eyes, Moshe was always greater than Aharon. He knew Moshe’s name and wisdom (Moshe grew up in the palace of the king), as opposed to Aharon’s.” In other words, Pharaoh had likely never met Aharon before, and had no reason to put Aharon before Moshe in 6:27, when the brothers are mentioned in relation to their conversations with Pharaoh, and Moshe is listed first.

It would follow that Aharon is listed first in the context of 6:26 when it becomes clear to the people who these two leaders are and where they come from. Aharon, after all, has been with them all this time. Aharon has been the prophet and leader of record until now. Aharon does not need to prove he is a messenger of G-d to the people, because this is a role he has always played for them.

When someone asks how we are related to someone perhaps we should think twice before answering. Am I “her brother” or is she “my sister?” Am I “my parents’ child,” or are they “my parents?” The answer would be determined based on whom our fellow conversant knows better.

In the end, it might not really matter. But if we are to learn from the Torah even minute details of how to live, this little nuance gives even more respect to the people with whom we converse, to other members of our families and ultimately to ourselves.
*****************************************************
My Babi Phyllis Katz passed away this Wednesday. I don't know how keen she'd be on anything being "dedicated" to her memory - certainly not this early, I still can't believe she's not with us anymore - so I am not doing that. I would like to mention how much she enjoyed reading my dvar Torah each week. I will miss her feedback and excitement over "the new one from this shabbos."

And God has a funny way of having things work out, because I wrote this dvar Torah last Sunday, certainly knowing she was ill, but not knowing when would be her last day.

I am sure that no matter how you might have asked her about our relationship, she would say, "How are Avi Billet and I related? He's my grandson."

And I, most likely, would also tell people (particularly her friends who I would recognize, who might not remember me from time to time, sometimes with a beard, sometimes without) "I am Phyllis' grandson."

And while I have been very happy in this role, now that I have been hearing all the wonderful things people have to say about her, and knowing how much she'll be missed by so many people, I hope I am not overstepping any boundaries by (a little selfishly) claiming her to be "My Babi" (shared with my siblings and cousins, of course, along with all her 23 great-grandchildren).T'hay nishmasah tzrurah bitzror Hachaim.



Faygah bas David Yaakov, yarzeit 22 Teves 5771

Looking Like An Egyptian

Parshat Sh'mot

by Rabbi Avi Billet

From his first introduction to us, most of the Torah depicts Moshe as the quintessential leader par excellence. The ultimate Jewish figure, he continues to hold that enigmatic quality that Jewish mothers dream about for their children — “Maybe one day you can be as great as Moses.”

And yet, there is one description of him that is so out of character, we wonder how it came to pass that he would be called such. After Moshe saves the daughters of Yitro from the shepherds who were mistreating them, they tell their father that an “Ish Mitzri,” an Egyptian man, saved them from the shepherds (2:19).

Oddly enough, only two other people in the Torah are described as “Ish Mitzri.” The first is Potiphar, Yosef’s first Egyptian master (Bereshit 39:1). The second is the man Moshe killed earlier in our chapter, for striking the Hebrew slave (2:11). The term appears in Vayikra 24:10 as well, but most people identify the Ish Mitzri there (the father of the blasphemer) as the same Egyptian man that Moshe killed in 2:11.

Certainly Moshe has little, if anything, in common with Potiphar and the violent Egyptian. How could the Torah give him the same title as these other Egyptian men?

I do not yet have an explanation as to whether a comparison to Potiphar is valid, unless in his case, as in Moshe’s, it refers to a member of Egyptian aristocracy.

Regardless, Rabbenu Bachaye records a beautiful interpretation that appears in a number of places in the Midrash. Yitro’s daughters were thanking their lucky stars that Moshe was present at the well. It was his flight on account of killing the “Ish Mitzri” of 2:11 that brought him to Midian. In this light, they were saying that the circumstances that brought Moshe to be at that well to save them was on account of an Ish Mitzri whom Moshe killed. In this interpretation, the last three times the term appears in the Torah all refer to the same Ish Mitzri - while the term is not being used to describe Moshe.

Of course, the simple explanation is that Moshe, who grew up in the palace of the king, was dressed like and spoke the language of an Egyptian.

I think that his being an Ish Mitzri here is just another challenge for him to overcome in the pursuit of his identity. Different Midrashim paint his time period in Midian to between 40 and 60 years, meaning he’ll have much time to contemplate who he is and what his mission in life will ultimately be.

The story is told that when the Russian Tzar decreed the Jews could no longer wear “Jewish” clothing, many rabbis felt the need to oppose the legislation and to wear Jewish clothing at all costs. The Kotzker rebbe, on the other hand, was against such an approach, as he felt the only real “Jewish clothing” are the tallis and techelet, both of which can always be worn, either when praying, or underneath one’s outer garments.

Moshe was dressed like a Mitzri, even though he was a Hebrew, says the Midrash. He demonstrated his concern for the other in every encounter he had in the Torah's first depictions of his behavior.

For us, the question becomes one of how much our dressing like the “mitzri” affects who we are as Hebrews. I recall fondly one of the musser talks I heard from one of my high school rebbeim about how “the clothes make the man.” I wonder if I remain a more conservative dresser, to this day, on account of that 20 minute monologue.

I still marvel over how many of us fall into the trap of “needing” to be up-to-date in terms of styles and accessories. While the Kotzker rebbe was right that “Jewish clothing” are a tallis and techeilet, there is also a “Jewish dress code” that the Kotzker rebbe felt no need to refer to because he lived in a time when everyone dressed more conservatively.

The Jewish dress code of modesty is not just one of how much skin or form is exposed to onlookers. That element, one would hope, is more obvious. Modesty is also about how much attention we draw to ourselves on account of what we are wearing. There is nothing wrong with receiving a compliment from those we know, but if even those we don’t know are turning heads and gaping at our chosen form of attire, it is time to reconsider our priorities and whether we are looking too much like a “mitzri.”

Whether Yitro’s daughters referred to the Egyptian Moshe killed or thought he himself was an Egyptian, it did not take long for Moshe to set the record straight and eventually become Moshe Rabbenu. We must take the bull by the horns, swallow our need to be a walking showcase for the latest design and designers and focus on promoting the Jewish dress code of modesty and furthering our own spiritual pursuits.

It’s not just about what part of us people see. It is more about how people see us. And unlike Moshe who soon joined the family who may have viewed him otherwise, we don’t always get to set the record straight.

Yisrael and Yaakov

A few years after writing this, I revisited the subject here 

Parshat Vaychi

by Rabbi Avi Billet

When I was studying in yeshiva, I recall asking one of the rabbis if there is a theme as to when the name Yaakov is used to describe the third patriarch, as opposed to when the name he was given later, Yisrael, is used.

The rabbi was of the opinion that the name Yisrael is used in a context that has national and historical significance, while Yaakov is used when referring to the specific family of the patriarch and their personal experiences.

This theory is nice, but on close examination it does not hold water.

Looking Out For Father

Parshat Vayigash
by Rabbi Avi Billet

When Tzafnat Pane'ach reveals his true identity to his brothers, he says "I am Yosef. Is my father still alive?" (45:3)

Speechless, the brothers say nothing, forcing Yosef to say, "I am Yosef your brother whom you sold to Egypt." He recognizes that all was part of God's master plan, and makes clear he will not take revenge against them in any way.

Why is Yosef's first question "Is my father still alive?" From all the talk that has transpired between Yosef and the brothers, it seems to be beyond question that Yaakov is still alive.

While some (Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch and others) suggest Yosef revealed himself at this moment to determine if the brothers were lying – had they been using their father as a tool for a sympathy vote? –

The Kallah and the Shver

This can also be read in the Jewish Star (check out their new layout!)

Parshat Miketz

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Shortly after Yosef is given his new title, he is introduced to his new wife – Asenath bat Poti Phera, the priest of On. Paroh, King of Egypt was the shadchan.

As Yosef was not really given a chance to polish up his own shidduch resume (though "Viceroy" is pretty good "yichus"), or to check out his bride's before they wed, we may wonder what brought these two people together, other than their illustrious matchmaker? And who is this two-named individual (Poti Phera – see Sofrim 5:12, Yerushalmi Megillah Chapter 1, 1:9) who now becomes the father-in-law of the new viceroy of Egypt?

The classic interpretation is that Poti Phera is Potiphar, Yosef's former master. Midrash Rabba (86:3) says the word "Phera" means he pulled himself towards pagan idolatry. The gemara (Sotah 13b) says Potiphar's name was changed because he had become emasculated ("Phera" means his masculinity had been "removed," a divine punishment he received for having eyes for Yosef). Most commentaries follow the latter interpretation, quoting Rashi who takes the lead in this direction.