For These I Cry - Moshe Rabbenu's Existence and Leadership Came From Not Giving Up on the Underdog

Please be sure to read the entire blog post before responding. As I have learned, there are pros and cons to both sides. And too much "unknown." The larger issue I am raising and addressing is a solution for the neshamas of those who will likely be lost in the longer-term.

Parshat Shemot

by Rabbi Avi Billet

When one reads through Parshat Shemot, one can easily become enamored by the background story that produced Moshe. Whether it’s the defiance of the Pharaoh’s decree in his being placed in a basket, rather than thrown in the water; whether it’s all the anonymous women in 2:1-10 who save him; whether it’s the fact that he ends up growing up being nursed by his own mother (with Pharaoh paying her to do so!) and then in the palace of the king, the story is incredible. And the sacrifice everyone around him is giving so that he can survive is inspiring.

Then, when we go into his stories in his early experience in Egypt and Midian, we find him standing up for a Jew being beaten by an Egyptian, then for a Jew being beaten by a Jew, then for women who were being harassed by shepherds. All victims were underdogs. According to the Midrash, what brought him to the Burning Bush was his looking out for one lost sheep! Even a sheep who can’t fend for himself is an underdog.

The Talmudic tale that claims how Moshe came to be born is even more enamoring. After Pharaoh made his decree that all boys were to be thrown in the Nile, Moshe’s parents separated, in order to prevent the birth of boys. And Miriam, their daughter, effectively said, “In preventing boys from being killed, you’re preventing girls from being born. And who knows? Maybe a boy will be born, he will survive, and be the leader to take our people out of Egypt.” So Amram and Yocheved reunited, they had a boy named Moshe, and that boy saved the Jewish people.

All those who did not give up on Moshe allowed for him to become who he became, and he in turn did not give up on those who were abandoned by those around them.

I am a rabbi of a shul. In the last few weeks I’ve been on the receiving end of a grave concern, which is facing the future of our communities. My training is not in science, but as a rabbi, my job is to listen. 

I have heard two sides in the discussions about vaccination. One side – the mainstream position – is that vaccinations have eradicated some illnesses, put other diseases at bay, and keep everyone safer. The other side is that some vaccinations are unnecessary to give to little children and others have a track record of causing what are called "vaccine injuries" in many documented cases, as proven by drug company payouts from lawsuits.

The mainstream view is well-known and needs no defense. The other view is certainly not mainstream, but I have discovered that it is much larger than “fringe.” People are genuinely afraid of vaccines and the possibility of life-altering injury. Of course all parents are obligated to do research (one need not be a doctor to do research) and make what they feel is the most informed decisions for their families. It has been made clear to me that no amount of policy-making will get those in the smaller camp to change their view, as their homework has put them in this path of believing vaccines are not the best choice for their family. (In other words, "the debate is settled" is not a good answer.)

My biggest issue in the debate concerns the character assassination done against those in the non-mainstream camp, which is most disgraceful. While there are extremists on both sides, not everyone is “extreme.” But the majority shuns the minority in a way Beit Hillel never did to Beit Shammai. This happens in very emotional issues - sometimes we forget our "middot." 

What concerns me is the immediate result, which is real and before us, as opposed to what might be a possibility, depending on the season. And what I am asking for is solutions to the following problem. 

Those who are non-conformists in this issue are faced with the reality that their healthy children are being kicked out of schools and yeshivas.

And this should be a concern for all of us.

Because here is what has happened in the aftermath of these full-sweep policy decisions.

• Hundreds of children have been thrown out of schools. 
• Families are not inviting unvaccinated children to birthday parties, bar mitzvahs, bat mitzvahs. 
• I heard a story of a rabbi who would not convert a couple, because a condition of conversion is that their children will go to day school. Since they choose not to vaccinate, and their children will not be allowed into day school, they can’t convert. 
• One colleague told me of people in his shul who normally cook food for families with a new baby, who spoke of not cooking for a family that just had a baby, who also do not vaccinate their children. 

Where will this end? Will we be asking potential suitors if they are in the not-vaccinate camp? Will potential shidduchim be called off or never introduced over this? Will families stop talking with each other, and cousins no longer be able to play or hang out together?

We are a community who has moved to the ends of the earth for drug addicts, those with alcohol addiction, people who are “Off the Derech,” Baalei Teshuva and converts (many of whom are feeling isolated and marginalized on account of their own vaccination stance), children with special needs, resource rooms for the academically challenged, making schools nut free for the child with an allergy, and many other support groups for the widows, divorcees, singles and needy.

Assuming that the reasonable people I have met are not crazy, and don't want their personal stance to become the standard for all (they are not "anti-vax," they just want free-choice in this issue), most arguments against them start with absolute character assassination, including the label in the quotes in the parentheses in this sentence. “They are murderers!” “They want my children to die!” “They brought it on themselves!” “Let them start their own schools and shuls.” “Let one of their children get sick and die so they’ll learn the lesson.” “Let them send their children to public school!”

Seriously? There is a significant difference many of us may have in so many areas in philosophy of community, fitting in, and doing what everyone else does. Now, some people think differently, and they are thrown out completely?

That was Amram’s attitude. In kowtowing to Pharaoh's decree he was destroying the potential lives of all the unborn - including females not subject to the decree and males who might avoid it through subterfuge. Not to mention that every now and then some full-sweep decrees are overturned when reconsidered on account of the wrong nature of the policy (Pharaoh had said "Every male child is to be thrown in the River" which included Egyptian male babies!)

Had it not been for Miriam, Moshe never would have been born. 

Those who are militant about this (in both directions) are demonstrating a “sinat yisrael” (hatred of one's fellow Jew) I have not seen in my lifetime. And the neshamas of many precious children are being sacrificed as a result. Who’s to say which one might become a great scholar, rabbi, leader, or otherwise, and now will not because they will not be given the education their parents were hoping for them to receive in the place they felt was best for their children?

While I do not profess to touch Moshe Rabbeinu’s radius by thousands of feet, I can learn from him to look out for the underdog. We, as a community, can not justify throwing hundreds of Jewish families out. We must find a better solution.

Death with Dignity - the Frum Jewish Way

Parshat Vaychi

by Rabbi Avi Billet

When Yaakov dies at age 147, his sons range in age from 62 (Reuven) to 56 (Yosef and Zevulun and possibly Asher), to the youngest, Binyamin, who was around 48.

As we know how old Yosef is at his death, 110, and since Yosef is the one who is credited with being the first of the brothers to die, this means that the brothers all lived together in Egypt without their father for another 54 years.

And while we can argue whether Yaakov ever knew about the sale of Yosef and whether the brothers told the truth to Yosef in 50:16, we can also say with near certainty that since being reunited, Yosef has been only gracious, has shown only love, has expressed only the desire for his brothers to not feel guilt for having him sold, and that he would continue to provide for them for the rest of Yosef's days, if not the rest of their days as well.

And then over the next 54 years of his life, beyond personal achievements of which we know very little, Yosef clearly puts his house in order.
1. He makes a clear and final peace with his brothers (50:21)
2. They lived together and made a life in Egypt (50:22)
3. Yosef is blessed to LIVE (like his father, he too experiences “Vaychi,” to live a meaningful life, in Egypt) (50:22)
4. Yosef lived to be a great grandfather – this too is acknowledged as an accomplishment. And not only that, but he was close to them (50:23)
5. When Yosef is about to die, he leaves a last will and testament which becomes the living legacy that the Bnei Yisrael turn to as a reminder that their time in Egypt is limited. They WILL leave one day. (50:25)
6. He also makes a dying wish that he be reinterred in the Promised Land, that when they leave Egypt they are to take his bones with them for reburial in Eretz Canaan. (50:24)
7. And finally, after dying and being embalmed, his body is placed in a box in Egypt.

Seforno says about the box: “They put him in the same box where the embalming took place – that’s where his bones were. They did not bury him in the ground. This way his coffin[‘s whereabouts] was known for generations as it says, ‘And Moshe took Yosef’s bones…’”

In other words, the box will serve as a reminder for people for the next 139 years, until the moment of the Exodus, that there was a promise made that we’d be leaving one day. And it was made by that man, who is now in that box, that box that we’ll be taking out of Egypt with us when we leave.

What an incredible gift of hope and optimism that Yosef utilized in preparing for his death!

There is a natural concern people have, when they sense their life is going to end soon, about dying with dignity. I’m not going to go into the secular definition of it – of people who choose to end their lives to end the pain and the suffering, for people to only know them as they know themselves, before a diagnosed illness takes its toll on the body (and on life savings!). It’s not the halakhic way, but I’ll leave other ethicists to discuss it.

In Jewish terminology, one can argue that achieving Death with Dignity comes from living Life with Dignity. It means setting goals. It means having no regrets when life is over. The Yosef way.

It means I live a life in which I make peace with family members. Sometimes it’s a strain to get there. But imagine the regret, or regrettable nature of an estranged relationship, when children don’t care about their parents who have died, when siblings – either those sitting shiva together, or those who should be sitting in mourning for one another – don’t really see the point of having those feelings of loss, because they didn’t care about the deceased at all?

Here are a few take home lessons from Yosef.

1. Yosef makes peace with his brothers. They are ALL at his deathbed. And they ALL make the promise that his bones will be taken out of Egypt. For us this means that even if we don’t live close by, we can still be in touch, to not lose that connection. Even if it takes a lot of work and effort
2. A dignified life is one defined by meaningful choices. Whether it’s an elevated life of Torah and Mitzvos, a thoughtful life of constantly growing, having and sharing new experiences, a life of learning, or a life of a consistent schedule which gives a person a sense of purpose. This is what it means to live a life of dignity.
 3. Yosef lived to see generations. Perhaps not everyone merits that. Some die young, some don’t have children. These are realities. But those realities don’t mean people can’t have good relationships in the time they are allotted.
 4. Yosef leaves a will and testament to his family, in which he talks about God, and what he believes God has in store for his family in the future. That they should never forget that God is there.
 5. And Yosef knows he is in exile, but in the end, he wants to be buried in the Holy Land. With that thought, he taught his children to be mindful to look forward to a future redemption.

Many who lived with dignity died with the ultimate dignity, having made all the necessary plans and arrangements for their families, so they too left no regrets, except the only we always feel: “I wish we had more time to spend together.”

The “The Debate is Settled” Lie

Parshat Vayigash Sermon
“And Yaakov Didn’t Believe Them” 

How Do We Know What is True?

Rabbi Avi Billet

Having seen and experienced a number of serious altercations over the years, one thing I have learned is that people sometimes, if not often or always, have or live in their own reality. 

When claims were made about the size of the crowd at the 2017 presidential inauguration, we were introduced to a new phrase, “alternative facts.” Now, of course, there is no such thing as “alternative facts.” There are facts we like, facts we don’t like, facts we choose to pay attention to, facts we ignore. There are facts which support our positions, facts which go against our positions. 

I’ll give you an example of how “facts” can do exactly this. This week has been a rough week in Israel, with several terror attacks, a number of dead, including a baby forced to be delivered prematurely, who lived 4 days. If you did not see the interview of the father whose son in Nahal Haredi was killed, you should try to watch it. This man served in the army when he was a young man, was “Chozer Bitshuva” and described how proud they were of their son who was serving the Jewish people with honor. Who was so proud that he had this opportunity, to protect Am Yisrael. These are horrible stories. They continue to overwhelm us, to the point that there were demonstrations this week in Israel, people ANGRY at the government for not doing enough to prevent these attacks. 

The Guardian, a British rag, produced a headline that on a particularly nice day Goebbels would have produced. “Two Israelis and Two Palestinians killed in West Bank Violence.” Now, before I give you the real story, we have to understand why this garbage is perfect for them. Because it shows balance! Proportion! And… because the two Arabs in question were killed earlier in the week (btw, the Guardian ignored the story where people were shot and the baby murdered!). 

So now here’s the real story, as told by the great Hillel Neuer of UN Watch. 

The Guardian is equating today's terrorist murder of two Israelis with yesterday's IDF killing of "two Palestinians"—the terrorists who murdered the baby Amiad Ish-Ran on Sunday, the other who murdered 29-year-old Kim Yehezkel & Ziv Hajbi, 35, in October. Imagine if a 9/11 headline read, "Americans and Saudis die." 

After their twisted headline & opening, later in the article The Guardian writes that one of the Palestinians is "accused" of shooting at Israelis & the other "suspected" of shooting two Israelis dead. But they didn't report and the headline omitted that Hamas and Fatah both claim them as martyrs and heroes for their murders of Jews. 

So, yes, 2 and 2 are dead. But the story leaves out facts the Guardian doesn’t like, and uses the word “killed” in place of “murder” even though there is a significant difference between the two. 

So facts are the item in question. 

Not "alternative facts," but "the whole picture facts."

When Yosef’s brothers return from Egypt to get their father and their families, they send the message to their father that Yosef is alive and ruling over Egypt. 

Yaakov’s response: וַיָּ֣פָג לִבּ֔וֹ כִּ֥י לֹא־הֶאֱמִ֖ין לָהֶֽם: 

According to the Artscroll, that phrase means “His heart rejected it for he could not believe them.” 

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan in the Living Torah, translates, “[Jacob's] heart became numb, for he could not believe them.” 

Rashbam explains it to mean that he switched his heart, convincing himself this wasn’t true. 

The Hirsch Chumash’s translation “And his heart stood still for he did not believe them.” 

Hirsch explains that the word פוג denotes cessation of movement. ויפג לבו means his mind was confused, his heart froze out of doubt, for he did not believe them; he could not adjust all at once to the good news which had reached him. 

I think we can all relate in some way to the idea that his heart “skipped a beat” or had a strange surge of “palpitations” or some other reaction… this is incredible news Yaakov could have never anticipated, especially since he has believed Yosef to be dead for so long. 

But the idea that he could not believe them is unbelievable to me! Maybe “unbelievable” is the wrong word. Meaning, I can believe that he didn’t believe them. But it is fantastic. What kind of relationship did they have, that they give the one piece of news Yaakov may have held open in the back of the back of his mind… you know, we never did find a body… 

Wouldn’t he want to believe them? 

A number of Midrashim share the teaching of Rabbi Chiya - תני ר' חייא כך עונשו של בדאי אפילו אומר דבר של אמת אין מאמינין אותו. This is the punishment to a deceitful person. Even when he tells the truth, no one believes him. 

So what does it take? Well, we know what got Yaakov to believe them. When he saw the עגלות, he figured it out. Radak explains that, of course, for the last leg of the journey the brothers ran ahead of the wagon train, and began talking to their father in anticipation of everything else showing up. So they’re breaking the news to their father, he doesn’t accept it, then he sees the wagons that have just showed up and he realizes, OK. It’s true. 

Amazing.

But it’s not really amazing. I mean, the Radak is correct in a “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” sense that people who are not trustworthy are not believed. But what about the facts? What about the evidence? 

One has to be open to hearing it, to seeing the evidence, then one can be convinced. 

There’s a small tiny person inside of me who wishes that everyone would think the way I think. It would make my existence great, I would never need to explain, to justify, anything. 

But then there’s the real me who says that having different minds, different brains, different ways of thinking makes humanity richer. 

Which is why the phrase “the debate is settled” is so unsettling to me. 

It’s only settled when one side concedes and says “your evidence is overwhelmingly clear, and whatever I was thinking or thought I knew is wrong.”

That’s why there is a debate. And may continue to be one. Sometimes one side wins one round, sometimes the other side wins a round. 

That’s how it goes in politics. 

Where can we say the debate is settled? I think everyone in this country agrees that slavery is immoral. While I wish everyone would agree racism and Naziism are also immoral, I have yet to find anyone in those camps who have a reasonable argument as to why judging people based on distorted and untrue perceptions and stereotypes has merit. 

But every political argument you hear is not settled. Each side has merit! Guns, abortion, health care. It’s a debate! And it remains a debate. 

And that’s how it goes in Judaism. I heard a speech once by a Reform rabbi, who claimed that only Reform Judaism has the right solution for gay people, for transgender people, for intermarried couples. I’ll concede the point! While I like to think we have empathy for marginalized people – and I would imagine that despite whatever one thinks is one’s bias, when confronted with an actual individual who struggles, or who does not fit in easily, that we would have empathy – the Orthodox community does not have a simple solution for these people. On which side of the mechitza does a transgender person sit? Can we give the person an Aliyah? In some cases it might not be their fault!

Intermarriage is a choice. But it’s not simple! I can tell you from personal experience, because I often get calls from people looking for a mohel, when the mother isn’t Jewish. I get when only the mother is Jewish as well. But in the former case, I can’t help them. Mother isn’t Jewish? Baby isn’t Jewish! No requirement for a bris! And the story is often the same. “Rabbi, I didn’t care when I fell in love. But now that I have a kid, my Judaism is very important to me. And she’s agreeing to raise the kids Jewish!” 

So Reform, who basically accepts everyone, has that over us. 

But in terms of carrying the mantle of Torah, sad to say they will never win that round. 

Is the debate settled? Clearly there are very different perspectives. What makes it very sad is that it is only a short amount of time – one or two generations – before the Orthodox will no longer consider the Reform as Jews-according-to-halakha at all, because we define Jews as either being born to a Jewish mother or as having converted through a program that insists on Shmirat Mitzvot. 

Which is sad. Because Hitler would still kill all of us if he could. So what’s wrong with us? 

So how can we know what’s true? The reality is that sometimes contradictory things can be true at the same time. 

In his book, Maybe (Maybe Not), Robert Fulghum – author of All I Ever Really Needed to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, writes. 

I once began a list of the contradictory notions I hold: 

Look before you leap. 

He who hesitates is lost. 

Two heads are better than one. 

If you want something done right, do it yourself. 

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. 

Better safe than sorry. 

Out of sight, out of mind. 

Absence makes the heart grow fonder. 

You can’t tell a book by its cover. 

Clothes make the man. 

Many hands make light work. 

Too many cooks spoil the broth. 

You can’t teach an old dog new tricks. 

It’s never too late to learn. 

Never sweat the small stuff. 

God is in the details. 

And so on. The list goes on forever. Once I got so caught up in this kind of thinking that I wore two buttons on my smock when I was teaching art. One said, "Trust me, I’m a teacher." The other replied, "Question Authority." 

Different things can be true at the same time, yet be contradictory. 

Yaakov was faced with a dilemma. These are the same guys who brought me a blood stained coat but no body. 

As the Netziv put it, in terms of believing they would never lie – not happening. He was already suspicious that they had lied back in the day. 

Honestly, they had even insulted his intelligence when they said הכר נא, do you recognize this coat? Of course he knew which coat it was. Their playing dumb was unimpressive. 

Netziv continues and says that when they told him now about Yosef, he was doubtful, until he saw the wagons. 

Or HaChaim has a different perspective. These were guys who never really spoke of what happened that day when Yosef disappeared and they presented his coat to their father. There had been many questions left unanswered, many conversations that hadn’t been had. 

But now, when they were opening the conversation again, putting themselves and their story in jeopardy, subject to scrutiny, all that had caused their father pain and the crying over the years… now Yaakov has a chance to react. 

And his heart reacts. And לא האמין להם. 

What does לא האמין להם mean? What did he not believe? That Yosef was alive? Or does he see the whole picture now and realize that he couldn’t believe what they did 22 years ago. He couldn’t believe what they did to Yosef. And he couldn’t believe what they did to Yosef’s coat. And he couldn’t believe they lied to him back then. When everything comes down to a reality, 22 years later, now that the truth is out, now Yaakov knows, the debate is settled. 

Yosef’s dreams were true. They’ve come about. 

I was wrong in interpreting his dream the way I did. 

You brothers were wrong in how you viewed his dreams and in how you treated him. 

I probably shouldn’t have given him the coat. 

We were all wrong. In one form or another. 

But the evidence now, the “alternative facts” that are inconvenient for you, have come to light. And now we all know the indisputable truth. 

It is only then – when all sides see the absolute truth – that we know what is true, versus the false notion that a debate is settled. Let us not be victims of our own biases. Sometimes much research and study of different views and facts are necessary to come to the right conclusion. 

Let us remember that when we see two sides in ANY dispute: There is a dispute. Both sides likely have a point and a perspective. Truth is either somewhere in between, or two parallel or contradictory notions might both have elements of truth. 

To give you an example regarding Israel, I’ll share with you a line I once read in an article in National Review. By Kevin D. Williamson. 

“The Arab–Israeli conflict is a bitter and ugly one. My own view of it is that the Palestinian Arabs have some legitimate grievances, and that I stopped caring about them when they started blowing up children in pizza shops. You can thank the courageous heroes of the Battle of Sbarro for that. Israel isn’t my country, but it is my country’s ally, and it is impossible for a liberty-loving American to fail to admire what the Jewish state has done.” 

I agree that the Palestinian Arabs may have grievances. But the reason I don't side with them is exactly that - their method of Jew-hatred is not deserving of their getting what they want. 

We want truth to prevail. But when there’s gray, and not a clear black and white, sometimes the debate carries on and we remain at an impasse. Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel didn’t agree on everything. The only reason we follow the rulings of Bais Hillel is because we needed a ruling, and so the majority ruled. But do you know who paskened like Bais Shammai? Bais Shammai. Because they weren’t wrong. They just weren’t the majority. (And their debates surrounded halakhic debates, not philosophical ones, which might never be resolved)

But they still followed their way of life. And the people of both schools married into families of those with whom they disagreed. Because debate is one thing. But peace in our ranks is a much higher value. 

Saying there aren’t two sides, is a dishonest way of saying “I don’t want to have this conversation.” Sometimes that sentiment is unfair and unreasonable character assassination. 

In a debate, one side might concede more, and every now and then one side wins a round. But in the bigger picture, it should not always be about winning as much as it should be about coming to a compromise and learning to live together in peace.

True Penitence Requires No More Explanation

Parshat Vayigash

by Rabbi Avi Billet

After one of the most incredible cliffhangers that exist between Torah portions, our parsha opens with arguably the most impassioned plea in all of the Bible – when Yehuda pours out his heart to the man who holds Binyamin’s freedom in the balance.

Don’t be thrown by the Chumash’s chapter break that separates Yehuda’s argument from Yosef’s response. In the Torah itself, the narrative is straight, with no added space, suggesting that perhaps Yehuda was filibustering, hoping that one of his arguments might break the veneer being presented to him.

In other words, I find it hard to believe that Yehuda’s speech ended, and Yosef’s response followed. Yehuda wasn’t done! The narrative interrupts to tell us “Yosef could not hold in his emotions…” but Yehuda did not know that the person to whom he was speaking was Yosef! He was hoping for compassion – for something to penetrate. But he was not expecting the potentate to have an emotional breakdown!

Rabbis Yaakov Medan and Yoel Bin Nun have conceptually argued over the question of why Yosef never wrote a letter to his father. Some of the evidence explaining Yosef’s non-contact is hinged upon what we learn from Yehuda in this speech, about what Yaakov knew, how Yaakov has been in mourning, and what Binyamin means to both Yaakov and the other brothers.

If it’s correct that Yosef interrupted Yehuda’s speech, it is worth going through each of Yehuda’s emotional appeals, and Yosef’s initial reaction, to discover which button pushed Yosef to throw his lot back with the brothers, giving up the game and revealing his true identity.

“And now, when I come to your servant our father, the lad will not be with us. His soul is bound up with [the lad's] soul!”

It’s not clear how much Yaakov’s soul means to Yosef at this point. Yosef will soon say “I am Yosef, is my father still alive?” But many commentaries note the emphasis on “is MY father” – how Yaakov has been portrayed now with respect to Yehuda and Binyamin has been part of the impediment to Yosef caring about his father through this whole ordeal.

“When he sees that the lad is not there, he will die! I will have brought your servant our father's white head down to the grave in misery.”

This argument doesn’t work either. Yosef is not impressed by the way Yehuda will be perceived in perpetuity by his father and the family. Yehuda wasn’t so nice to him in the olden days either.

“Besides, I offered myself to my father as a guarantee for the lad, and I said, 'If I do not bring him back to you, I will have sinned to my father for all time.'”

Again, Yehuda’s place in a world to come is irrelevant to Yosef. This argument carries no weight.

“'So now let me remain as your slave in place of the lad. Let the lad go back with his brothers!’”

Wait a minute. This is something different. Yehuda is offering himself in Binyamin’s place? He is willing to give up his own freedom? He is willing to be the slave he once sold Yosef to be?

“’For how can I go back to my father if the lad is not with me? I cannot bear to see the evil misery that my father would suffer!'”

Yehuda is essentially saying that what happened in the days of Yosef’s disappearance made the plot back in its time into one which had minimal – if any – benefits. Even though when the brothers got rid of Yosef they believed they were doing a justifiable act, the truth is that they lost their father on that day too. He had never gotten over it (or at least moved on – very few people could be expected to “get over” the one-two punch Yaakov received first in losing Rachel, then a short time later losing his first-born from her, the handsome favorite, Yosef), he had never been the same, and now he was at real risk of actually dying from heartbreak – even though his heart has been broken for 22 years.

Yehuda has indeed learned an important life lesson! He was easily able to bear bringing the terrible news of Yosef’s disappaearance to their father. But now, facing round 2, 22 years later, he “cannot bear to see the evil misery” his father would face if Binyamin is also enslaved. He is willing to go so far to replace Binyamin as a slave! What will his life be worth if he has to see that evil misery when he returns home emptyhanded?

This is quite the revelation for Yosef. And so he interrupts Yehuda, because he too can’t bear to see the evil misery. He clears the room, and the verse tells us “Yosef said to his brothers, 'I am Yosef! Is my father still alive?'”

It almost seems a silly question, because he is clearly moved by what his father’s experience will be should Binyamin not return. But we all know he’s not asking if Yaakov is physically alive. He is asking about his father’s relationship with him (Yosef) – how would he handle the news that the son he thought dead is alive?

“When they came closer, he said, 'I am Yosef your brother! You sold me to Egypt…’” Even in this reaction, one has to wonder what Yosef’s tone is. Is he accusing them? Is he stating matter-of-factly that this is what they did? Is he noting the change – you sold me, but you clearly would never sell Binyamin, and that is a blessing to see? Is it a lament – you sold me! How could you?

More than likely it’s a statement loaded with many emotions, impossible to confine to one emotion, and that Yosef is not lamenting, as he says in the very next verse – “Now don't worry or feel guilty because you sold me. Look! God has sent me ahead of you to save lives!”

What is most clear to me in this story is how much people can change over 22 years. Or, perhaps, over any length of time, if the life lessons they come across during that passage of time are heeded.

While commentaries are split on how Yosef as a young man behaved towards his brothers, and even in his efforts to see if they were still doing the same things they were doing 22 years earlier, it is clear from the moment he reveals himself to them that he bears them no ill-will, that he is God-fearing and believes everything done to him was God’s plan, and he is looking forward to supporting them for the rest of their lives (even as he encourages them to continue working!)

Yehuda, having lost two sons and having had the experience of losing a wife and undergoing an embarrassing episode with Tamar, has learned that life is not always candies and chocolates. You can’t just throw away those you don’t like. You have to live with the people in life who are not exactly like you, and you also will have to move on from losses – even those most painful, such as the death of a child and a spouse.

Maybe Yehuda had to go through those losses to understand his father’s eternal mourning for Yosef (though the Torah does indicate clearly that what happened to Er and Onan was of their own making and not specifically a punishment to Yehuda). It seems clear that Yehuda’s losses in chapter 38 molded him into the beginnings of a kind of leadership his older brothers lacked – one which inspires his father to say his tribe will be the tribe of Malchut (kingship) in Israel.

We remain with a simple question to ponder. Yosef tests his brothers to see if they’ve changed and grown up over the course of 22 years. And in the process demonstrates that he has changed and grown up as well.

Do we continue to judge people based on how we knew them 5, 10, 22 (or more!) years ago? Or do we recognize that the life experiences in another person’s life have likely shaped the person into someone we don’t really know? How do we view people we know (or sometimes don’t know, but read about) who have been to prison? Why are certain misdeeds and crimes of the past the way we always look at certain people, even after they’ve done their restitution, paid their debt to society, and – as far as we know (innocent until proven guilty) – are not doing those things anymore?

Yosef tested his brothers and found they were no longer selling sons of Rachel down to Egypt, and were even willing to give up everything to prevent it from happening again! That is penitence – when the opportunity comes and not only does the person not take the bait, but does a 180 reverse in the other direction.

And when we see that, it is time for us to forgive as well, and accept that a person who might not have behaved once upon a time but behaves now is as welcome in our home and community as Yosef felt those who had sold him into slavery were welcome in his palace.

P're'-Union - Short Term and Long Term Panoramic History Notes

Parshat Miketz

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Reading through Chapter 42 from a panoramic perspective of history – both looking at the narratives surrounding Chapter 42 of pre-Egypt through slavery and Exodus, and in the larger scheme of history – one can’t help but see much premonition, foreshadowing, and indication of many things that were and will be for the descendants of Yaakov. 

The best way to do the following is with the original Hebrew, but what follows is much of the chapter in Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s translation (from the Living Torah), modified slightly by me, with my comments embedded in the text. Anything in quotes is the Torah translated. Not in quotes is my comment. At the end, there will be a small recap. 

“When Yosef's brothers arrived, they prostrated themselves to him, with their faces to the ground” in fulfillment of his first dream. “Yosef recognized his brothers, but they did not recognize him.” This is sometimes the largest failing of the Jewish people. We are united when the world is united against us. Otherwise our disagreements, and our definition of what makes someone Jewish, make us not even recognize who is our brother. 

“You are spies!' he said to them. 'You have come to see where the land is exposed to attack.” As Yosef is talking to ten brothers, sure enough some time in the not-too-distant future there will be ten spies who will prove that this is their exact intent. In that case, the ten spies will die, and those who listen to their report will be punished with being unable to enter the land. 

“We are twelve brothers,' they pleaded. 'We are the sons of one man who is in Canaan. Right now the youngest brother is with our father, and one brother is gone.” Their inability to explain Yosef’s whereabouts shows they are still in a place of denial of their role in his disappearance. Though they certainly have no reason to suspect he is dead, they aren’t up front about what happened to him. Not that they need to be to the potentate before whom they stand, but for the purposes of the narrative, it would certainly be helpful for us to see they are changed. 

“'There is only one way that you can convince me. By Pharaoh's life, [all of] you will not leave this place unless your youngest brother comes here.” What a strange idea for Yosef to tie their ‘not leaving’ to a mention of Pharaoh! One could argue whether the slaves (in the book of Shmot) were really bound, or whether they could have left at any time from Egypt, except that they wanted to leave with permission. There is a known Midrash that a good portion of Israelites tried to leave Egypt a little early. And the tribe they were from was… Ephraim (Yosef’s son!) Additionally, Moshe’s successor, Yehoshua, was from the tribe of Ephraim. So Yosef is showing that someone from his tribe will not be included in the 10 spies (though one of the ten spies was from Menashe), and that Ephraim might try to leave even without Pharaoh’s say-so, because Yosef is currently not including himself in whatever he is saying to the ten brothers standing before him. 

“Let one of you go back and bring your brother.” This is an indicator that Yosef knows all it would have taken was one person to protect him back in the day. But while Reuven did suggest they not kill him, Yosef was unaware of anyone defending him in any capacity. The minute he showed up in Dotan, they stripped him of his clothes and threw him in a pit. When he was taken out, he was immediately sent off to Egypt with the traveling salesmen. 

“Yosef had them placed under arrest (mishmar) for three days.” The last time we saw “3 days” was when Yosef interpreted the dreams of Pharaoh’s officers at the end of last week’s parsha. They too were in a Mishmar. They got clarity on the interpretations of dreams after three days. Yosef was giving his brothers a 3-day cooling period, after which he gives them clarity. 

After Yosef lets them go, while keeping Shimon under arrest, “but they said to one another, 'We deserve to be punished because of what we did to our brother. We saw him suffering when he pleaded with us, but we would not listen. That's why this great misfortune has come upon us now.' Reuven interrupted them. 'Didn't I tell you not to commit a crime against the boy?' he said. 'You wouldn't listen. Now a [divine] accounting is being demanded for his blood!'” 

This is the first time Yosef hears anything about anyone standing up for him. This is why he changes his plan and decides to put their money back in the bags. 

In giving them money, with a promise he will not see them unless they bring Binyamin, he is recreating the scene, of the brothers being paid to bring the son of Rachel down to Egypt. This is the ultimate test of whether they’ll protect him or let him be sold into slavery. 

When they return to their father and tell him the whole story, he says, “'You're making me lose my children! Yosef is gone! Shimon is gone! And now you want to take Binyamin! Everything is happening to me!'” I think it’s fascinating to consider why Yosef took Shimon. After all, Reuven is the oldest. Perhaps Yosef, having heard Reuven rebuke the brothers, saw Reuven was more innocent than the others, less involved, and so he took the next oldest as a prisoner. 

Reuven, noticing his luck, tries to take responsibility for Binyamin, in a way he did not with Yosef 22 years earlier. 

“Reuven tried to reason with his father. 'If I do not bring [Binyamin] back to you,' he said, 'you can put my two sons to death. Let him be my responsibility, and I will bring him back to you.'” 

Reuven’s comment here requires explanation, because most will assume, as Rashi does, that he’s a fool for offering the deaths of his sons in exchange for Yosef and whatever might happen to Binyamin. As if Yaakov would be happy if two of his grandsons would be killed as punishment for Binyamin’s disappearance. 

The Ta”z on the Torah explains that what Reuven was offering was to give up his portion of being like two sons – in other words, his being firstborn – if he did not bring Binyamin back. Of course, this ends up happening! (Wise people should be careful with the things they say!) The person who ends up having his tribe split in two (a blessing!) is Yosef! 

“'My son will not go with you!' replied Yaakov.” Yaakov’s explanation continues, but the Ta”Z writes that Yaakov’s response, as recorded in the Midrash and Rashi, “My son is a fool, does he not think his children are my children as well?” means that Reuven would need to contend in the future with the fact that his children are not split into two separate tribes. This becomes a moot point, because in the next chapter, Yehuda’s responsibility for Binyamin is accepted by their father. 

But Reuven’s comment, in light of Ta”Z’s explanation may explain why when Yaakov eventually blesses Yosef regarding Ephraim and Menashe, he notes that they “will be like Reuven and Shimon to me.” Yosef’s reappearance on the stage makes making him the first born an easy choice, while Yaakov’s claim regarding Yosef’s children removes all rights of firstborn from the actual Reuven’s hands and from his descendants. 

Much of the Torah needs to be examined more carefully because these kinds of premonitions and prophetic hints are there for the finding. Miketz is always read on the Shabbat of Chanukah. Where do we find references to the Chanukah story in the parsha? The experience of Yosef as ruler versus his brothers as subservient members of the Bnei Yisrael is a start. Read through the text, see what you find! 

And be inspired by the reunion of this family afterwards, a reunion that should be the ultimate model of Jewish unity for all time.

Yehuda and Tamar - an odd tale

Parshat Vayeshev

by Rabbi Avi Billet

When we look at the “Yehuda and Tamar” story (Chapter 38), there are many questions.

Timeline questions: Did Yehuda marry before or after the sale of Yosef? How old was Tamar? How old were Yehuda’s sons at their respective marriages and deaths? How much younger than Er and Onan was Shelah, the surviving son who was not given Tamar as his bride? Considering that Peretz’s sons (Perets is the older son of Tanar!) are included in those who descend to Egypt (at a time when Yehuda is no more than 44), everyone in the story is really young!

“What really happened” questions: Why did Er die? Why did Onan die? Why was Shelah not given Tamar? Considering their ages, were the people in question ever really married? Did Yehuda “really” know it was Tamar when he met her on the crossroad? Did Yehuda really call for her to be burned at the stake as a consequence for her pregnancy?

Sin questions: What made Er sinful? What made Onan sinful? Did Yehuda sin in approaching the disguised Tamar? Was Tamar the sinful one? Both Yehuda and Tamar may seem vindicated in the end – so what? That doesn’t mean bad behavior never took place!

Motivation questions: Why did Yehuda not allow Shelah to marry Tamar? What motivated Tamar to disguise herself and stand at a crossroad when Yehuda was coming? Considering that she does not approach him, but he approaches her, what was her plan had he not been entranced by her? P Perhaps if we can understand Tamar’s motivation in the tale, we’ll be better equipped to answer most of these questions.

Rashi notes she wanted to be part of Yehuda's line. Echoing that sentiments, Netziv says Tamar wanted to be part of this family because she saw something in Yehuda. She did not realize at first that Er and Onan (and perhaps also Shelah), being sons of a Canaanite woman, could not be the continuation of the Israelite line. Haktav V’hakabbalah and others note that Er and Onan never consummated a marriage with her (whatever they did was a capital offense in God’s eyes – see Sanhedrin 57), which means she wasn’t really Yehuda’s daughter-in-law, and was fully available to him.

Having been married to Er and then Onan, watching them both die, one wonders why Tamar would want to remain part of this family. Does she feel she owes it to them? Yehuda is surely the instigation behind any concept of her remaining in the family, first through insisting Onan marry his dead brother’s wife, then in telling her to wait as a widow until Shelah is old enough to marry her.

How long does Shelah need to wait? The Talmud in Sotah notes the problem in the passage of time. If Yehuda’s marriage takes place after the sale of Yosef, only 22 years pass from his nuptials, through his sons growing to be marriage-age, their dying, and his having new twin sons (born after their death), one of whom grows up to be a father before the family descends to Egypt. Because of this seeming impossibility, the Talmud’s conclusion is that all of them (except Yehuda) were married when they were under ten years old (Yehuda was around 21 at the time of the sale of Yosef – though he certainly could have been a father by that time).

Riv’a asks how Er and Onan could be punished with death at that age, and he concludes that “God sees the heart.” While it is true that a person is not punished for deeds under the age of 20, it is also true that some can be looked at“al shem sofam” – based on how they will turn out. This may be why Yehuda was pushing off Shelah’s marriage – he needed to reach an older age – not the same age that Er and Onan had been (under ten) in order to be mature enough to wed her properly and survive.

Rabbi Chaim Paltiel agrees that Er and Onan a. never consummated their respective marriages, and b. each “marriage” was a sham anyway because they were so young. He also notes the change in language – when Yehuda meets her at the crossroads he thinks she is a “Zonah.” When he sends his friend with a sheep, to give her in exchange for the items he left with her, she is called a “Kedesha.” Rabbi Paltiel notes that the word “Zonah” means “one who pursues” – which can be translated differently depending on context and about whom we are speaking. One type of Zonah is a woman who pursues married men (a prostitute), another Zonah in one who pursues idolatry (as in the quote from the Shema – “asher atem zonim”), another Zonah is a woman who is an innkeeper (such as Rachav in Yehoshua 2) who looks after her houseguests, while still another Zonah is a woman who pursues a man for marriage – as was the woman with the covered face in this story. When she is called a “Kedesha,” that is from the language of “Kedushin” (betrothal) because their encounter made for a betrothal in the mores of that time period. (Rabbi Paltiel suggests Yehuda found her to be a virgin!)

The verse tells us that after Yehuda married “bat Shua” and had three children “Yehuda took a woman for Er, his first born, and her name was Tamar.”

A woman? Was Tamar considerably older than Er, Onan, and Shelah? If it’s true that Er and Onan were considerably younger, what was Yehuda thinking? Could it be that he wanted her near him? Could it be he saw her as unavailable because he was married, and he thought – let her be a part of my family through my son?

Perhaps Tamar had similar hopes, which is why she agreed, neither of them knowing how things would remarkably turn out for them in the end. [There is a debate in the Talmud and among many commentators as to whether the words “v’lo yasaf od l’da’atah” (38:26) from after her "punishment" was revoked means he was never intimate with her again or he remained her ‘husband’ forever.]

After Yehuda became widowed, however, she took matters into her own hands. Though she certainly found a willing participant in Yehuda.

Rabbi Paltiel suggests that the 3 things Yehuda gave her, his signet ring, his staff, and his cloak served, respectively, as a wedding band, and the pole and tallis for their chuppah. (He notes that others view the three items as representative of the three obligations a husband has to provide for his wife – food (the phrase “mateh lechem”), clothing, and marital relations (“the seal of circumcision”)).

When Yehuda declared she should be taken out and burned, commentaries debate what this means. Some say burned at the stake – suggesting that was the law of the land. Others suggest she should have a mark branded to her, much like Hawthorne’s Hester Prynne. Rabbi Paltiel suggests that “Tisaref” was a code word for a kind of non-capital penalty (a “k’nas”), perhaps a whipping or flogging (not nice, agreed, but certainly more palatable than death by fire). Of course, this punishment was not carried out when the truth was revealed. Chizkuni notes that the reason for possibly punishing her was because it was assumed she had become pregnant from a Canaanite, which was unbecoming of a woman who had cast her lot with the Israelites.

Haktav V’hakabbalah further notes that when Yehuda says “Tzadkah” – she is righteous, he was noting her intent was “for the sake of heaven” for seeking him out specifically rather than any other younger man. This does not account for what Tamar would have done had Yehuda not approached her, but perhaps, knowing of his widowhood and loneliness, she felt she had a sure thing coming.

It is clear that the Davidic line comes from a significant number of eyebrow-raising male/female relationships which include: Lot and his daughters, Yehuda and Tamar, Ruth and Boaz, David and Batsheva. Ramban notes that this was by design of the Almighty that the Davidic line of kings should never get too haughty and think of themselves as better than the people they serve as kings, considering their background.

That is probably the most important message of all. Even great kings have skeletons in the closet and pedigree that ought to remind them to be humble and not to think of themselves as better than anyone.

At the same time, Tamar’s story is an incredible nod to the power of truth, dedication, and a certain pursuit of justice. If, for example, Tamar was meant to be redeemed through the equivalent of a levirate marriage in Yehuda’s family, her effort came to fruitful conclusions when she took matters into her own hands.

Not everyone is blessed to have such insight. And certainly the behavior in this tale leaves much to be desired. But history and legend have the benefit of hindsight, and we know where this story stands in the scheme of the history of the Jewish people.

Death Of Rachel - Tragedy Beyond Words

Parshat Vayishlach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

While opinions abound as to how old Rachel was at her death, one thing is pretty clear – from the time Yaakov meets her at the well until she dies is a period of no more than 22 years.

This means that her children, Yosef and Binyamin, were respectively 8 and a newborn at her passing.

Knowing what I know now, it boggles my mind that Yosef’s brothers treated him the way they did into the teenage years, seemingly not having a sensitivity that their younger brother, bereft of his mother, might need a different kind of treatment, be given a pass more often, due to his tragic reality.

A confession: When I was a novice teacher in high school, I was asked to give a dvar torah at a school shabbaton, and somehow I mentioned in a terrible moment of naïvete (I don’t remember the parsha – but it was pretty early in the school year) that “thank God it doesn’t happen today, but the Torah is teaching us how to treat those who are orphaned at a young age.”

One of the administrators called me over afterwards and told me that one of my students had lost her mother a few years prior. It was an eye-opening moment. I later apologized to the student for my insensitivity, and have since tried to be a lot more careful – knowing that the facts of life are simply facts, and that opining about them is where we get into trouble.

Of course since then, I’ve seen too many people pass away far too early. In the last 6 months, I’ve seen peers of mine, all in their 30s, burying spouses. And I’ve heard of other similar stories. In the count of the recent families I know (sadly there are more) – 15 children are now without one parent. The ones I mention died of natural causes. What of those who are killed in terrorist attacks? Battles? Or (not to equate, though the tragic results are the same) car accidents?

In the context of talking about “Daas Torah” and what it means for rabbis heavily embedded in Torah study to have a keener sense and understanding of the world, Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein shared an incredible anecdote, which has troubled me since the first time I read it.

“Many years ago, I travelled to Bnei Brak to console my rabbi and teacher, Rav Yitzchak Hutner zt'l, in his mourning, when his wife had passed away.
“When I went to see him, I found him sitting alone. We had a private conversation, and this was conducted in a very open and honest fashion, from one heart to another. Rav Hutner told me that one of the talmidei chachamim who came to console him, tried to convince him and to 'explain' to him how his wife's passing was 'positive', inasmuch as she was now in the world of truth, a world which is entirely positive and other such nonsense.
“And indeed, it is not uncommon to hear such things when one goes to console a mourner, especially when the deceased passed away while being involved in a mitzva or has fallen in battle, in sanctification of Hashem's name.
“It is superfluous to state that saying such things is totally unsuitable. I remember that when Rav Hutner told me this, he raised his voice and he applied the following severe words of the Midrash to that talmid chacham (Vayikra Rabba 1): "Any talmid chacham who lacks 'da’at' is worse than a putrid animal carcass!" 

Rabbi Lichtenstein shared the rest of Rav Hutner’s comments (you can find it here, http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/daatTorahLichtenstein.pdf on pages 8-9) to support his point in the article. But the story is what resonated most with me.

Are there people who are so unaware, that they could say the most ridiculous things, just to fill the awkwardness of silence in a house of mourning?

Rachel’s death was a travesty. It destroyed Yaakov. He was never the same again. He didn’t deal with the brothers properly, even as he spoiled Yosef. He was ridiculously overprotective of Binyamin, who will still be identified as a “naar” when he is an adult of 30, the father of ten children, unable to leave his father’s side, because his leaving may cause Yaakov to die.

But there is one thing we can take from Rachel’s death, because just before she died she gave birth to a child. The same verse that she says she named him “Ben Oni” says that his father called him “Binyamin.”

Some commentaries say Ben Oni means “the son of my suffering.” Others, such as the Malbim and Ramban, suggest that Oni means “strength.” Ramban essentially says that Yaakov took from pain and turned it into strength, while Malbim says the “change” reframes the name and makes it more clear. Calling him Binyamin (“son of right hand”) means the same thing. “Son of strength.”

Rabbenu Bachaye also says “Son of Strength” (30:23) as he notes that Rachel’s name for her son, Ben Oni, came from a perspective which denotes God’s name of judgment, while “Binyamin” invokes God’s name of mercy.

And this, I think, leads us to what is the most equitable response. The death of a loved one, at any age, combines God’s attributes of Judgment and Mercy. We understand neither, so for us there is only sadness.

However, there is hope – we give a blessing to people when we visit them that God should be the ultimate comforter. We bless a surviving spouse to eventually find strength amidst the pain. We commit as a community to be as helpful and supportive as we can. And we also must take extra care and be as sensitive as possible to the reality that while everyone is sad when losing a parent (at any age), children who lose a parent while they still live at home are the “Y’tomim” of which the Torah speaks – the ones who must be protected, cared for, watched over, and supported in any way possible. Because they are God’s children, and He expects us to fill the void.

Reality is sometimes troubling, difficult, exceedingly challenging. But like our ancestor Yaakov, who was renamed ישראל (Yisrael - Israel) twice in our parsha, we should be blessed to live up to our namesake as we too “struggle with God” and the challenges He sends us “yet we overcome.”

"Does He Have Peace?" "Peace..."

I feel like I'm in a time warp. I wrote the exact same message 6 years ago, but from a completely different angle. Why does Hamas like to attack Israel in the week of Parshat Vayetze? #SMH

Parshat Vayetze

by Rabbi Avi Billet

When Yaakov first arrived in Haran, he encountered shepherds waiting at a well. There is certainly a chance that this is the same well where his mother was discovered 97 years earlier. And if it is, certainly things have changed. Whereas once upon a time the girls of the town might come on their own to draw water, now some kind of pact has led to a large stone being placed atop the well, so all the shepherds can draw water and can keep each other honest.

Wanting to know a little bit about his uncle, Yaakov asked the shepherd a few questions, to which they provided very terse answers.

“Where are you from?” “From Haran.”

“Do you fellows know Lavan?” “We know.”

“Does he have Shalom?” “Shalom.”

It seems that they follow this response with a notice “And his daughter Rachel is coming with the sheep,” though it can also be read that the narrative is informing us that Rachel is on her way (compare it to 24:15 when Rivkah emerges), not the shepherds giving Yaakov new information.

Only when Yaakov asks them about why they’re hanging around the well, do they open up and answer in a complete sentence, “We can’t [water the animals] until all the flocks gather, and we all roll the stone off the top of the well, then we water the sheep.”

That they are more talkative when Yaakov asks them about themselves than about Lavan could just speak to their personalities. But why do they not even answer the question about the “Shalom” in Lavan’s home with a complete answer? (As in "He has Shalom in his home")

And if the introduction to Rachel was something they said, why did they offer that information when they weren’t even asked?

Let’s look at the second question first. A number of Midrashim and many commentaries suggest that these guys were not so talkative and weren’t particularly interested in talking to this stranger who was trying to play Haran-Geography. When they saw Rachel coming they saw an opportunity to get this nudnik off their case – she could tell him all about Lavan! Of course, as Yaakov was an experienced shepherd (his being described as a Yoshev Ohalim in 25:27 is reminiscent of Yaval, the Yoshev Ohel U’mikneh (shepherd) from Bereshit 4:20), talking shop with them opened them up to a conversation. By the time Rachel arrived at the well they were still chatting (29:9).

Some suggest their telling him Rachel was shepherding alone indicated that things were good for Lavan, because he (her father) didn’t have to worry about her, and she didn’t have to worry about herself being attacked or assaulted. (R Chaim Paltiel)

The Baal HaTurim notes that they did not respond to his last question about Shalom with a full response as there is a principle "There is no peace," says my God, "for the wicked." (Yeshayahu 57:21 – from the haftarah of Yom Kippur).

Or HaChaim argues that their incomplete answer to his question stemmed from the conception they had that Yaakov was asking two things: 1. Is Lavan “Shalem” (whole) in body and financially?, 2. Are they (the shepherds) at peace with Lavan? Their simple response, “Shalom” was vague enough that we’re not in a fight with him, and that he’s doing OK. In fact, his daughter is coming – she’s safe. We have no intentions of harming her.

On the other hand, Or HaChaim continues, the Shalom becomes increasingly vague when we realize that it doesn’t inform whether Lavan is doing well financially. It doesn’t say “Everything is great.” But if it leads into information that Rachel is coming, alone, with all her father’s sheep, that shows Lavan’s assets are nothing to write home about. Or that he is very cheap, and doesn’t care about his younger daughter, who has been raised to be the shepherd.

Alternatively, as the Torat Moshe puts it, there is peace with him because no one wants to associate with him. Since no one wants have anything to do with him, he can’t hire a shepherd other than his daughter. He does his own thing! He doesn’t bother anyone and no one bothers with him.

It’s the simplest ingredient for peace. Leave each other alone. Even if it is a cold peace because we have nothing to do with each other, at least we’re not fighting. And if every now and then we need to cross a border to go into town or to take care of our sheep, we can send an emissary who is not scary, dangerous, etc, who has no appeal to anyone else to bother with for any particular reason.

When fighting and rockets come flaring out of Gaza (as seems to happen on a mass scale every couple of years) this is all I can think of. Except for knowing that some elements of Hamas society and culture will never rest until all the Jews are dead and gone, I can not understand the mentality that refuses to say, “Why can’t we just make the best of our situation here and create a Singapore like nation? We don’t need military! We need creativity! To create, to export, to make jobs, to bring out the best of our people! We need education for our children, hope for our people – that we have the power to create!”

I thought a 100-years war was a thing of the past. And while I don’t want to be pessimistic, when I am blessed with grandchildren one day, they too will watch with sadness as the war continues.

The prophet Yeshayahu says in the two verses prior to the one quoted by the Baal Haturim: “‘[I] create the speech of the lips; peace, peace to the far and to the near,’ says the Lord, ‘and I will heal him.’ But the wicked are like the turbulent sea, for it cannot rest, and its waters cast up mud and dirt.”

Sad and true. And as we learn about Lavan through the parsha, we see why he had no friends. Same reason.

Veterans Day Sermon 2018

"Thank You For Your Service" 

Kristallnacht, Veterans Day, Parshat Toldot

Eighty years ago today, Jews in Europe woke up to a reality that few could ever fathom. The following day, the NY times had a very large headline which read

NAZIS SMASH, LOOT and BURN JEWISH SHOPS AND TEMPLES UNTIL GOEBBELS CALLS HALT

All Vienna’s Synagogues Attacked; Fires and Bombs Wreck 18 of 21

Jews are Beaten, Furniture and Goods Flung From Homes and Shops – 15,000 Are Jailed During Day – 20 are Suicides

And in another article on that page BANDS ROVE CITIES

Thousands Arrested for ‘Protection’ as Gangs Avenge Paris Death

It’s an incredible thing to observe what real fascism is. Gangs “Avenge” Paris death. One person murdered – let’s assume Hershel Grynspan was in the wrong. His act caused the outpouring of rage? That was just an excuse for a raging mob, who had been fed lie after lie after lie, to be unleashed, with police protection and even police participation, to wreak the havoc that, violence-wise, indicated what was in store for the Jews of Europe. All this was to AVENGE PARIS DEATH. Really? Less than a year later, Germany invaded Poland, and the rest is our very sad and tragic recent history.

Tragedies surround us. Some at the hands of man – as we saw in Pittsburgh to Shabboses ago, and in the recent night club shooting in California (where, in addition to 11 customers, 1 guard/officer was killed), some also at the hands of man but in car accidents (I mentioned one last week, there was another in Israel in the days following, and a 33 year old was killed by a car on Thursday in Far Rockaway) and the like. And some are in God’s hands. (California fires...)

Rabbi Jonathan Kroll recently shared with the Katz Yeshiva High School that he went to NY/NJ for the funeral of Dannie G____, the wife of Rabbi Josh G____, who spoke here this summer. She was in her 30s and had a brain tumor – a battle which tragically ended the same Shabbos as the Pittsburgh shooting. When he was in the airport on the way back, people saw his kippah and wished him condolences for his loss. He wondered how they knew about Mrs. G_____ and realized they were talking about Pittsburgh.

Near a shul vandalized in Brooklyn this week – the police have caught some of the suspects – a playground’s sidewalk was chalked up with messages of love. “Tree of Life – Never Forgotten” “Shalom to Jerusalem” “You are LOVED” in a heart. Love graffiti was shared in a synagogue in Western Massachusetts – the Forward had an article about it. 

Which goes to show that there are terrible people, very very very troubled people, and good people. Which – as we know – is the story of humanity.

Our parsha shares with us 3 stories. The first is the background of the birth of Eisav and Yaakov and the sale of the Bechora, the second is the one chapter dedicated to the life of Yitzchak, and the final tale concerns the blessings seemingly designated for Eisav which Yaakov received based on his mother’s intervention and instruction.

If I could summarize each of these stories with their aftermath objectively, based on the text we have, it would sound like this:

The First story is divided into two parts. Tension of pregnancy is resolved with assurance that two nations will emerge.

Tension between twins – if any – resolved through financial arrangement agreed to by both sides.

Second story. Also has two components.

The tension between sides is resolved when there is an understanding of who the parties are – Yitzchak and Rivkah being husband and wife.

Second part: Tension is resolved when Avimelekh – some time after having realized that Yitzchak’s being in his city was a blessing, and that his kicking Yitzchak out was not good for business – Avimelekh comes with his general and a group of ambassadors and tells Yitzchak that because they see God is with him, they want to be on his side. This is rather strange, of course, because when Avraham had his own encounters with the Gerarites some time ago, he noted to them that the reason he was not on the up and up about his relationship with Sarah, claiming to be her brother and not mentioning that she is also his wife – was because they were not God-fearing! One would think they’d have learned their lesson!

Nonetheless they do come around in our story, and the tension ends with a new treaty.

Third story. 

Tension between brothers does not come to resolution, because the only thing that will heal the raw hurt is time. But who is to blame? Who cheated whom? Where is the address for Eisav’s grievance? Against Yaakov? Against their mother? Against their father? Is Eisav’s grievance even warranted – after all, shouldn’t he have told his father, “I know what you want me to do, and why, but the fact is that while I am the older brother, I sold all merits of the bechora to my brother some time ago – so if this is about a blessing to a first born… you have the wrong guy.”

Eisav did not do that. That conversation might have given us a clearer picture into Yitzchak’s intentions – meaning if he had only called to EISAV, and not “בנו הגדול” we would know for sure. But once we see he’s dealing with a descriptive, then the question is who really owns that descriptive?

So is Eisav’s rage warranted in the end? He wants to kill his brother. Is that a proper response? Maybe a fair response is “let’s come to the table and come to an equitable solution or a resolution of this misunderstanding.”

Maybe I don’t know a whole lot about how brachas work – but surely this kind of discussion could be had at a negotiating table. Maybe Eisav could have even said “Thank you for keeping me honest!”

But there is a hatred that goes beyond reason. And this is why Eisav is described as Eisav Harasha. You don’t like what happened – your immediate response is rage and murder? To Eisav’s credit, he cared about his father too much so he didn’t do it right away.

But he did also believe his father was at death’s door. After all, Yitzchak was now 123, and he was within 5 years of the age his mother Sarah had been when she died.

How can we categorize these characters? Using the descriptives I outlined a littler earlier – terrible, very very troubled, or good people?

It’s complicated. I don’t know if Eisav was terrible – he certainly felt he was cheated and that his perspective was justified. But Yaakov felt his perspective was justified. And while Yitzchak may have felt, on the one hand, that he was deceived (he does say בא אחיך במרמה ויקח ברכתיך), on the other hand, the fact is that he does not undo the bracha and even supports it saying גם ברוך יהיה – the person who received the blessing should be blessed.

RAGE. What a powerful emotion. It is the kind we sometimes feel when we see terrible injustice. Every time there is a terrorist attack deliberately against a random Jew in Israel, I feel rage. Outrage. How does someone – whatever political and ideological differences may exist – take a knife, a gun, a car, a bomb, and use it to kill people against whom one has no specific difference. But even with that RAGE, you don’t see me or anyone who feels that rage going out and killing innocents! Insane!

I don’t justify the killing of someone not engaged in an act of violence. But one of my favorite examples of rage killing – completely justified – comes from the novel A Time to Kill by John Grisham, in which a black man in the south kills the two arrogant bigot white men who savagely ravaged his 10 year old daughter. When they were in custody. And his lawyer gets him acquitted.

That’s what we might call in Torah language – a גואל הדם. Justice to the criminals only. Rage against the perpetrators. They ruined his daughter’s life… he ruined their lives in the only way that was appropriate.

Which is why people with blood on their hands don’t deserve – in my opinion – the free medical treatment they sometimes get when they are injured. Or to have a Jewish doctor and nurse save your life, as the Pittsburgh killer did. Do they even express gratitude? Do they appreciate what people who do not know them, but who believe in the nobility of their profession, did for them?

Did Yaakov deserve that? Did he ruin Eisav’s life? On the contrary, he took a burden of the bechora – which Eisav did not value and did not want – and took it off his hands in an agreed upon transaction. And, in all honesty, owing to our knowing what Rivkah knows, he also followed through with what was rightly coming to him due to their prior agreements.

Eisav – you can’t have it both ways. Make an agreement, don’t hold yourself to it, then get angry when you don’t get what you might think is yours, but really isn’t.

And to think murder is the answer?

No.

There has to be a recognition that when someone does you a good turn – as Yaakov did in feeding you when you were hungry and exhausted, as Yaakov did in taking a spiritual burden off your hands, as Yaakov did in purchasing from you something you did not want –– the pasuk says וימכר and he SOLD his birthright to Yaakov. ויעקב נתן לעשו – he GAVE to Eisav the soup and bread and something to drink… That was not the PRICE of the birthright. That was a meal to celebrate the transaction ---- you owe, at the very least, a debt of gratitude, and an awareness that there are no takebacks. Your mother Rivkah, and in turn, your brother Yaakov kept you honest in taking the blessing that was Yaakov’s to receive. You should say THANK YOU!

Because otherwise, Eisav, you ARE a horrible person.

 I don’t need to explain why all those who participated in Kristallnacht were horrible people. There is NO justification for that night. No justification for the war which followed. And the War Against the Jews. No justification for blaming one nation’s problems on the Jewish people.

HATE and RAGE is not a justification for killing innocents. It is just an emotion that separates good people from bad people. Good people can feel rage and hate, but what do they do with it? Bad people turn to violence as their outlet.

And I think it can be said that some people don’t know the right way to express what should be their feelings of gratitude.

I read an article this week by a woman named Sara Carter, entitled “The Five Simple Words that SNL and Pete Davidson Should Learn to Say.”

There was a time in my life when I watched Saturday Night Live. I don’t know why. It was over 20 years ago… Since then I’ve seen clips. Most of them are not funny.

Recently, they mocked retired Navy SEAL and congressional candidate Dan Crenshaw, using a very crude joke about him based on the fact that he wears an eye-patch, which he lost while serving in Afghanistan.

Carter writes: Can you imagine what it’s like to lose your sight?

Imagine fighting overseas, far away from your loved ones, only to find yourself blinded in a momentary hail of gunfire and a grenade being lobbed over your head.

Imagine the last thing you see in your life was the pin of the grenade falling at your feet and your weapon falling from your hands.

Imagine asking the doctors at a makeshift hospital in Afghanistan if you can call your family before they wheel you into a surgery that they tell you, you may never survive.

That’s what happened to my husband, Marty, on Easter Sunday, 2011.

“Baby, I got dinged up a bit. I love you.”

That was all Marty said before the doctors came on the line and told me he might not make it through the surgery. He would endure three craniotomies and rehabilitation before he recovered.

Her husband made it through the surgery, but he is now completely blind.

Crenshaw was asked about the joke at his expense, and he said, “We have thick skin, but as veterans, it’s hard for us to understand why war wounds would elicit such raucous laughter from an audience.”

Carter went on to write that she believes most American’s didn’t find Davidson’s joke humorous, but can agree that this great nation is worth fighting for and dying for.

And she concluded with an important reminder. Every stranger that has thanked my husband and my family for our service has touched our hearts in more ways than they can imagine.”

Just to say to those who served “Thank you for your service.” Five simple words.

(Follow up from after Shabbos: Apology Accepted)

In honor of Veterans Day, a friend of mine shared with me a story he saw on Facebook. A story about Ann Margaret, the actress, and a man who served in Vietnam, and was shot by a sniper.

****

The man - named Richard - had a photo of her when she came to visit his unit with Bob Hope, and when he found out she was going to be doing a book signing in his neighborhood – sometime in the 2000s – he went to hopefully meet her and get her to sign the photo.

The people at the bookstore announced she’d only be signing the book and nothing else. He showed her the photo anyway – against the protests of the employees – saying “I just wanted her to see it."

She took one look at the photo, tears welled up in her eyes and she said, "This is one of my gentlemen from Viet Nam and I most certainly will sign his photo. I know what these men did for their country and I always have time for 'my gentlemen.'' With that, she pulled Richard across the table and planted a big kiss on him. She then made quite a to-do about the bravery of the young men she met over the years, how much she admired them, and how much she appreciated them. Took photos. Made it like he was the only person there.

That moment changed him, his wife writes. He walked a little straighter. A little prouder. And when she asked him at dinner if he wanted to talk about what had happened that day he broke down in tears.. ''That's the first time anyone ever thanked me for my time in the Army,'' he said.

****

I honestly don’t know enough about how the country takes care of the veterans. I hear mixed stories about VA hospitals – some good, some bad. The shooter in California this week was a vet – he is dead so we don’t know his motivation – was it PTSD? Was he a disturbed person who never had the chance to do this before? Or was he just evil? I don’t know. Would this have happened if the warning signs had been tended to? We’ll never know. We only have tragedy and sadness in the wake of it.

But I do know this. While there are few and rare people who do those kinds of things, there are many people who are gems, who served honorably and were discharged honorably, were never filled with hate or rage against their country or its citizens, and served for God and country. And only asked for a “thank you” in return. 

We can’t make sense of tragedy. Mayor of North Ogden, Utah, Brent Taylor, father of 7, was killed this week in Afghanistan. The Veterans continue to put their lives on the line, and sometimes make the ultimate sacrifice.

If you are a Veteran of the US military in this room, please raise your hand or stand. On behalf of all of us, we Thank You For Your Service. 

If you have a relative who served, please raise your hand now. We thank your relative for his or her service. 

The two most difficult tensions in the parsha were resolved with Avimelekh saying “We see God is with you,” and through Yaakov and Eisav having a separation of time – over 36 years – during which time, it seems, feelings relaxed and things could normalize. Though, it should be noted that when Yaakov and Eisav reunite in Vayishlach, Yitzchak IS still alive.

God, and time. 

If Eisav had been God-fearing, he would have been honest about the blessing. If he had let the time since the sale – which had taken place almost 50 years earlier – sink in to his new reality (even if he regretted it later!) he should have been honest about it. Instead he let his emotion, and ultimately RAGE rule his day.

He COULDN’T express gratitude, because he couldn’t be honest with himself about what the people around him were doing – freeing him from responsibility, and giving him a chance at the life he needed to live. A life of being a free spirit not bound to time and place.

When we are God-fearing, we don’t let our emotion overtake how we respond to others. When we realize that our raw feelings are overtaking us, we need to give time a chance to heal us, to set things aright, to help us see the bigger picture.

Time doesn’t heal everything, but it helps us move on. 

That is what those who lived through Kristallnacht and the Holocaust certainly know and knew.
That is what those who have been victims of terror in Israel know and knew.
That is what the people in Pittsburgh will come to see.

And to this crowd I will add that being God-fearing is an essential ingredient as well. Because otherwise, our task of trying to make sense of it all is fool-hardy. We will get nowhere.

Being God-fearing, and letting time help us gather the pieces. And of course of course, expressing gratitude to those who help us live in relative safety and peace from invading enemies: that is what we learn from Avimelekh, Yitzchak, Yaakov and Eisav. May these ingredients help all who served, and may they help all of us find peace in the right time.

Jealousy? Of What? ... the Age-Old Question

Parshat Toldot

by Rabbi Avi Billet

All I’ve been hearing and seeing in the last two weeks has been a mix of reactions to the tragic event in Tree of Life Congregation in Pittsburgh two Saturdays ago. While I don’t know how many people are living on the edge, worried about where or when the next attack will be (may all the worry be just worry and never come to anything!), it is a mix of feelings of sadness and “that’s refreshing” to see the kind of security upticks many communities are taking.

At the same time, the spike in vandalism in Manhattan, Brooklyn, California, and other places, in the last week alone, is most disturbing. What is wrong with people?

Finger pointing at left or right is silly. This is a deeper problem than political ideology – this is individuals who think that Jews are a problem in society. And why? Because we exist.

There’s no other rhyme or reason for Jew-hatred. Some people who have never met a Jew hate Jews. Why? Ignorance? Jealousy? Brainwashing? Fear? Israel?

The truth is, it’s an old story. A very old story.

Around the time of the Har Nof Massacre (4 years ago) I addressed the question of how Yitzchak reacted to the peace offer of Avimelekh and Phichol. (26:26) His reaction to them is, “Why have you come to me? You hate me! You sent me away from your land!”

That Yitzchak was sent away was on account of a dispute over wells, economics, control, etc. While he had originally been embraced in Gerar, it soon became clear that his success was extremely troubling to Avimelekh and co. And how did they treat Yitzchak before kicking him out? Instead of asking him to teach them his secrets, instead of honoring his success, they sought to vandalize his property. “And all of the wells that Avraham’s servants had dug in Avraham’s days were stuffed up with dirt and closed by the Phillistines.” (26:15)

Seriously? How immature! See how jealousy can spite your own face. You’re in a land where freshwater seems hard to come by. Wells are good! Yet because you don’t own them yourselves, you stuff them?

And this behavior – of the Phillistines! – is what leads Avimelekh to tell Yitzchak to leave town. 'Go away from us. You have become much more powerful than we are.'(26:16)

Is that, in fact, the problem? That when Jews are successful, that when Jews are influential, that when Jews play a significant role in a society, they hate us? Not all of society, for sure, but there is always an element. And it’s not just those who demonstrate lower intelligence (meaning, who have no really good reason for why they think “all Jews are a problem”). It is also an element of elitists who forget how this country was founded – “that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” also means that all citizens who share the same pursuits of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are not to be discriminated against for different beliefs.

The Jews who are loved and admired in society are most often not outwardly religious Jews. The religious – those who go to synagogue in whatever format – they are the ones undeserving of basic American rights. Right? (Let us make no mention of the fact that not all Jews are "successful" in the financial sense. Many struggle with jobs, livelihood, making ends meet... like, um, normal people)

So why was Yitzchak so upset? Didn’t he know this was his lot in life? Actually, their treatment of him was a total shock. Because while his father Avraham had some run-ins in the past, the thought was that when Avraham explained to the people of Gerar several decades earlier that the reason he had not told them Sarah was his wife was because they had not demonstrated a “fear of God,” the message seemed to strike home! They seemed to understand and appreciate that fear of God was an essential quality for living in peace with persons who are different.

One must see that the other person is created in the Image of God. One must recognize that the other person deserves basic human dignity, and should be treated with decency. One must realize that sharing in the human condition means that while we have differences of opinion, those differences are not meant to be settled through the lifting of a weapon. (While war between nations is tragic, sadly it is sometimes necessary. But it is extremely rare – if not unheard of – for democracies to war against each other.)

And so Yitzchak was in shock over their hate toward him. Because while he had been financially successful, he hadn’t done anything to them to warrant their hatred. Which simply meant their hatred came from a jealousy that was only countered after much introspection from Avimelekh and Phichol, who came to the conclusion that making peace with Yitzchak was necessary because “'We have indeed seen that God is with you,' they replied. 'We propose that there now be a dread oath between you and us. Let us make a treaty with you, that just as we did not touch you, you will do no harm to us. We did only good to you and let you leave in peace. Now you are the one who is blessed by God.' (26:28-29)

Hmmm. That’s not exactly how things went down.

But what does it mean? It means that the descendants of Yitzchak still encounter Avimelekhs: These are people who are all smiles, who will deny that they ever hated Jews, and they will also say things like, “Some of my best friends are Jews.” They’ll shift all blame off themselves, especially when they realize that being friendly is to their benefit.

But in Avimelekh’s case, there was one more reason. Targum Yonatan explains the following: “They said, ‘We saw that God’s word was helping you. In your merit we had good in our land. And since you left, the wells have dried up and the trees haven’t produced fruit. This is why we need you to come back and that the treaty between us be an investment in our future.’”

I do not believe in any silly notion that Jews are the key to all success in the world. But I do believe that Jews contribute in a significant way wherever they find themselves. It took Avimelekh to wonder WHAT HAPPENED TO MY LAND? to realize that the blessing he had for a number of years ceased around the time Yitzchak left. Which reminded him of what drew his nation to like Avraham in the first place. They had agreed to be God-fearing.

When that happens in truth and for real, we will all enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And Jews will not have to live in any kind of fear of where or when a next attack will come.