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.