A Modest Proposal For Overcoming Abuse of Power

Week of Parshat Va'Era 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

A scandalous story in Israel came to the first stage of a conclusion with the apparent suicide on Monday of a popular author in the "frum" community. With details still coming out and court cases that may never happen, this will not be the space in which that case will be discussed. 

If the allegations are true (as of this writing information is still coming out and by no means is a full investigation complete), it is not the first case of a person of influence and power controlling victims and getting away with bad behavior and it will likely not be the last. 

While of course we must have empathy for all victims, and even empathy and sadness for his family who are victims in their own way of the reputation he has taken to his grave which they now have to live with, there is a bigger issue which this is related to that also plagues our community. 

There are obvious lessons to be gleaned from this story regarding in what manner we allow our children and grandchildren to be put in any kind of compromised position where an abuser can gain control and destroy their lives. This also includes the need to protect anyone from falling under the spell of a charismatic persona who takes advantage of being in a position of power to control people's lives. We must create an environment of protection so that a person in such a position is impressed with the reality that there is “someone watching” and that there is oversight and accountability for actions and behaviors that go too far. 

Of course it must be stated that we are allowed to trust people, because most people ARE good people. 

And yet, there are outliers. There must be an address where people who are taken advantage of can go, in safety, where they will be heard, where the mistreatment - and I want to emphasize that not all mistreatment is specifically criminal behavior - can be addressed. If it is criminal behavior, the authorities who have the legal power to deal with investigations and to supervise repercussions should be alerted immediately if the accusation is credible and there is danger for further victims. If the behavior is not criminal but is nevertheless disturbing, it must be dealt with, because we cannot have people in positions of power taking abuse of those positions to the detriment of others' lives. 

This is not about when people have differences of opinion. We should absolutely feel comfortable challenging opinions, if it’s a conversation worth having, and that should always be done respectfully in both directions - focused on the differences in point of view but never on the personality of the person who holds a different point of view. Holding a different opinion, or even an unpopular opinion, doesn’t make the person who has that opinion a bad or dangerous person. Our society does itself a serious injustice in judging people negatively for having unpopular opinions. It is sad to see and sad to say that the Jewish community is not immune from this terrible scourge of judgmentalism when it comes to what can be boiled down (in most cases) to a political flavor of the day, one which is too often dictated by the largest media outlet. It should not be that way at all, and we, in the Jewish community, must be better than that. As is well known, in the realm of opinion, even when agreement is impossible, people may "agree to disagree." After all, in a civil society, people who disagree are allowed to do so, and should still be able to live together in harmony. Usually much more unites us than divides us.

How does a person in a position of influence get to be so powerful that people are afraid of challenging the person when he or she does wrong things? Usually people accept the reality of that person's actions either because they don't want to be "involved in machlokes" or they feel no one will listen anyway because the person is so controlling and so powerful. [Perhaps if a leader or rabbi is ever described as being "powerful," our community should take a second look at what has been wrought. I imagine in some cases there is room to distinguish if someone is, for example, a "powerful force in Tzedakah" when all of the person's efforts and influence is in doing chesed and the person isn't ever involved in controversy.]

When there is a leader of influence who takes advantage of a position of power, the problem we will often face is that the address to which complaints might go are individuals who know the particular leader, and who may be quick to dismiss the complaints thinking "I know the person. That's just the way s/he is! Don't think too deeply about it." A further concern is of whitewashing the complaint because the person does so much good and has such a wonderful way that calling other manipulative behaviors into question might delegitimize the person's positive impact or may even cause a "Chillul Hashem." 

This is why any concerns of this nature (non criminal abusive behavior) must be able to be presented before neutral parties who do not view either side in a particularly favorable way but can simply assess the claims on their own merit. Sad to say, while a Bet Din could be an address, sometimes one or both parties don't want to go to Bet Din, sometimes the issue is not Bet Din-worthy, and sometimes the Bet Din costs are the kind neither side wish to absorb.

We, the Jewish people, and especially those who are enjoined through their positions to be leaders, must be able to hear victims, must be able to empathize with the ways people are mistreated, and must be able to call out bad behavior, even when it is not criminal behavior, but simply behavior which is unbecoming of a Jewish leader. This includes marginalizing people who think differently, ostracizing people who have different points of view, and deciding who, based on criteria that have nothing to do with Torah, is either worthy or unworthy of being part of the Jewish community. 

Years ago there was a very popular rabbi in Israel who was accused of sexual crimes – with boys – that had spanned decades. He was involved in Chinukh, he jumped from position to position, because when an accusation was made, the move was often seen as a way to get him away from that space, where he can turn over a new leaf and stop his errant behavior. Surely the effort expended in protecting him was entirely unsuitable - was WRONG - as it led to more victims over the years. He was eventually barred from being involved in Chinukh – despite his charisma and his followers who kept having a blind eye to his deeds and crimes. There was an article in the Jerusalem Post from this past March entitled “Convicted Sex Offender” and it mentioned his name “relinquishes his rabbi title.” 

I recall reading an article, a reflection of some kind, of someone who had visited the offices of this rabbi, from a popular publication the rabbi had started that made its rounds to the 4 corners of Israel, and having an eerie feeling that something was very weird. The rabbi’s picture was everywhere – on every publication, on the walls of the offices, in a manner that goes beyond, for example, how newspapers might put a small photo of the contributing writer in an op-ed or article. This was clearly by design of the rabbi himself. And the writer was opining that ego was certainly one component driving the man, and that was fueling his untouchable nature – because he seriously was very popular and charismatic – and all those positives put up a veneer that blinded some, if not many people to the possibility that he was a serial abuser who had hurt many students through his decades in Chinukh. 

There is a very simple solution to this, and it’s the model we have from Moshe Rabbenu. Moshe Rabbenu did not want the job he got. He did what God told him to do in all his dealings with Pharaoh. And with the exception of what we will read next week, when Moshe leaves from Pharaoh in a fury of anger when Pharaoh ignores the warning of what will happen to the first borns of Egypt, Moshe remains a pretty even-keeled defender of Bnei Yisrael (a people he would never take advantage of in any way), and even of Everyman Egyptian who need not suffer on account of Pharaoh’s stubbornness. What drove Pharaoh to destroy his own people? Ego. Plain and simple. Not a Pharaoh was immune from ego – look at the edifices, statues, pyramids, etc that they built for their legacies. 

And of Moshe, what do we have? ענו מכל אדם. All of Moshe’s actions were NEVER about Moshe. He was ready to give his own life for the people he shepherded. He had his share of dissenters, those who challenged him. Yet God was in his corner, because he only did the will of God, and so even in his being the greatest leader the Jewish people have ever known, his shining light of modeling leadership was his lack of ego. 

Was Moshe Rabbenu perfect? I don’t know. The Torah never points at anyone as perfect. There are kind accolades for Chanokh, for Noach, for Yaakov. Chazal speak of some individuals who never sinned. But Moshe Rabbenu is not on that list. So… perfect? No. 

Or HaChaim has a long comment in Parshas Beshalach, when the people are thirsting for water, and as they complain to Moshe, he turns to God and says “עוד מעט וסקלוני” – they are about ready to kill me. Or HaChaim asks why in that instance did Moshe not turn to Tefillah, as he did in so many other instances, and instead threw this accusation at the people which seems to ignore their plight and their thirst? 

Or HaChaim writes that God was testing the people, to teach them, to guide them, to turn to the heavens and to pray when things are troubling, because this is a fundamental arena in which Emunah – faith and trust in God – and the completeness of the soul – השלמת הנפש – are achieved. 

The problem in those instances – complaints of hunger and thirst – were that the people didn’t turn to God. They challenged God through complaining to Moshe, but they didn’t turn to God not to forsake them in their having been taken out of slavery to… what? 

Moshe understood what the problem was, so he too didn’t pray on behalf of the people because that would have been an easy fix and the people would not have learned the important lesson they needed to learn. He knew that the first thing that needed to happen was for the complaints to stop. Maybe even for things to get a little worse so the people would themselves turn to God. After all, as we read last week, it was their cries that caused God to appear to Moshe at the burning bush. 

Or HaChaim concludes that perhaps that was the reason they didn’t consider Tefillah as an option. They felt that if God had done everything to take us out of Egypt, He certainly wouldn’t have done so to abandon us and not provide for us. So, "NU? Where is the sustenance?"

Or HaChaim’s point is that we can never rest on laurels and go with any assumptions that everything seems OK, or seems scripted, and therefore we can relax in our need to connect with God because He is going to provide anyway.

God simply doesn’t work that way. 

And in the trigger for this discussion, we must be vigilant and never rest on laurels that assume charismatic and popular personas who have a significant following don't ever let it get to their heads. We must be extremely careful of charismatic leaders who create an empire around their personality and who build up support systems that seem to be more about them, and less about the good they are achieving. A cult of personality is very un-Jewish - it was the hallmark of Korach in the Torah, of Avshalom in the Prophets, of Shabtai Zevi in his time - and it led to their (and all ego-ists in history) respective downfalls, or to their having a negative reputation when people were able to wise-up to their reality.

There is certainly good in everyone. But sometimes the good is too good, and there could be an ulterior motive behind the empire. Is it power? Is it control? Is there a secret bully and manipulator hiding behind the smile and the efficacious demeanor? Is it a mistaken notion that other people shouldn’t have the ability to make their own decisions because the leader/personality/egotist knows what’s best for the followers? 

Yes. Yes. Yes. And Yes. 

A person without ego doesn’t even attempt to do anything that is manipulative or destroying others’ lives, because there is nothing to be gained from it. There is no ego. The person merely wants to serve God and wouldn’t do anything of significance that would erode the most important relationship a Jew must strive to have – being as close to the Master of the World as possible. 

Moshe Rabbenu knew very well that what matters is God and our relationship with Him. Moshe Rabbenu’s job, both in his dealings with Pharaoh and with the Bnei Yisrael, was to inspire people to the truth of Hashem Echad. It wasn’t about selling books. It wasn’t about Facebook, Twitter and Instagram followers. It wasn’t about counting blog post clicks. It wasn’t about pasting a personal photo everywhere. And it wasn’t about being popular. 

His job as a leader was to help people achieve their potential. To see, for example, the power of Tefillah. To listen to God’s instruction. To realize that all of us, with respect to the Almighty, are nothing, and should all therefore be exceedingly humble. And he modeled by example, by being the greatest leader who himself was defined by his humility. Humility didn’t mean he felt he had no role to play or that he was a piece of trash to be walked over. It means he knew his role, knew what he had to do, but never never made his existence or his role about himself. 

The Jewish people should only merit to have leaders who take this lesson from Moshe Rabbenu, and we should be blessed to see the eradication of any kind of abuse of power. Jewish leaders are charged to follow the model of Moshe Rabbenu, to fit their role with modesty, humility, earning respect while running from the limelight. In the end we all have to answer to God. 

May we be blessed to live lives that help us have much less to answer for and much more to be proud of – because what is said about us is that we are humble and modest and we respect every Jew's right to find their own path to God, and of course to live lives unencumbered by bullying and manipulation and any kind of abuse. 

The leader who lives up to this charge, who is truly humble before God, could never be so controlling or abusive to take advantage of anyone in any capacity because he or she knows it is never about himself/herself but it is only about how we can all have positive influences and impacts on the lives of those who trust us because we are all servants of the Almighty and have rules and safeguards which are meant to keep us all in check from overstepping any kinds of necessary boundaries.

May all victims of abuse find healing and support from the community and from the leaders who take their tafkid seriously and with humility, never allowing any kind of abuse (including abuse of power) to go unchecked. 

Why a Snake?

 Parshat Shemot

by Rabbi Avi Billet

During the sequence of events at the Burning Bush, Moshe has many reservations about the task before him, which lead to him telling God, “The people will not believe me, they will not listen to me saying ‘God did not appear to you.’” 

God then asks him what he is holding in his hands. “A staff (מטה)!” “Throw it to the ground,” which Moshe does, and it turns into a snake (נחש). The word the Torah uses here to describe what happens to the staff is different than the word used for what happens before Pharaoh in chapter 7:9-10, when Aharon’s staff is turned into a Tannin (תנין). [That distinction is the subject of a different discussion and see also here] 

Why a snake? 

There are essentially three approaches to answering this question: 1. A response/punishment to Moshe, 2. A symbolic message for Moshe, 3. A symbolic message for Pharaoh. Some of the commentaries presented below crossover into two or even all three of these approaches. 

 

Punishment 

Rashi tells us Moshe had spoken Lashon Hara about Israel in denying they’d believe him, and since slander is the field of the snake (think the original serpent) he was given a reminder through this symbolic switch. 

Like Rashi, Ramban notes the connection to the original serpent, and that the second sign was therefore a punishment to Moshe for his having spoken Lashon Hara. But he goes further. 

 Symbolic Message for Moshe 

Ramban writes “I do not understand why G-d performed the signs before Moses. Moses believed that it is the Holy One, blessed be He, Who speaks with him, and it would have been fitting for Him to say, “The staff that is in your hand you shall cast on the ground before them, and it shall become a serpent,” and the same also with respect to the second sign, [i.e., his hand becoming leprous], just as He said at the third sign [and thou shalt take of the water of the river, and pour it upon the dry land]” 

 “Moshe ran from the serpent because He feared lest he would be punished and the serpent would bite him, since every person naturally avoids danger, even though Moses knew that if it was indeed G-d’s desire [to punish him], there was no one that could deliver him out of His hand.” [Netziv also describes Moshe’s running from the snake as a simple, natural reaction that did not involve much of a thought process.] 

Ramban’s concluding message is that God “wished to show him that with this Name signs and wonders would be done, changing the natural order of things, so that the matter would be firmly established in Moses’ heart and that he should in truth know that with the Great Name he will perform new things in the world. The first two signs were sufficient for Moshe, and therefore the third miracle of the water [turning into blood] was not done here. Instead, G-d commanded him to do the third sign in the sight of the people.” 

The Pesikta, as well as other Midrashim, suggest the snake was to show Moshe something about Pharaoh. The Midrash writes, “just as a snake can put its tail next to its ears to block out the voices of those who whisper, Pharaoh will block out the noise of your telling him to let the people go – so My wonders may be publicized more.” 

 R Chaim Paltiel focuses on the impurity of both the snake and the tzara’as noting that the lesson was for Moshe to see that God could control things which are impure (טמא) and that He could surely take Israel out of the midst of the Egyptians who were טמאים. Just as God made the snake (טמא) into a staff (טהור) and something with tzara’as into something pure again (Moshe’s hand), He can take Israel out of their state of impurity living among the Egyptian nation, which is טמא. 

 Rabbenu Bachaye looks at the deeper symbolism, combining the first two approaches: 

 The first two signs were showing Moshe that God has the power to bring death and to resurrect. But the practice run (Moshe doing this in the wilderness at the Burning Bush, without an audience) needed to happen in the wilderness where Moshe was as a sign to him alone, as a punishment for his speaking about the Israelites. What took place in Egypt was a sign for the Israelites to believe he had been sent by God. 

 Symbolism Regarding Pharaoh

Da’at Zekenim also look at this as symbolism regarding the specific situation: A snake bites and kills. Pharaoh and his servants would bite and kill Israelites (so to speak). That the snake turned into a staff demonstrated that the Egyptians were to be proven to be as dry (lifeless) as wood.

 After regurgitating some of the thoughts that have been presented above Alshikh presents three obstacles to the Israelites believing Moshe had been sent by God. 

 1. Could it be that someone who had to run away from Pharaoh so many years ago has the strength to stand up to Pharaoh? And how could he return to Egypt if, by law, there is still a price on his head (even if all those who wanted him dead are no longer alive!)? 

2. Moshe knew the Israelites were idolators and presumably unworthy of redemption 

3. When Moshe said you’ll be redeemed soon, by all accounts there were another 190 years left in Egypt? 

To the first query, Alshikh notes that Pharaoh is compared to a snake, or to a mighty Tannin. When Moshe is in Pharaoh’s presence, Pharaoh is like a staff in Moshe’s hand. There is nothing for Moshe to worry about as he controls Pharaoh. Alshikh even takes this comparison back to Moshe’s childhood, that when little Moshe took the crown off Pharaoh’s head he was as if a מטה, harmless. When Pharaoh wanted to kill Moshe for having killed the Egyptian, Pharaoh was like a snake who is intent on killing his prey. On his return to Egypt, with confidence, where Pharaoh will not be able to tell him what to, Pharaoh is once again a staff in Moshe’s hand. 

 Every encounter, every life experience, every time we merit to feel God’s presence, we have the opportunity to look deeper at what is going on and ask ourselves, “What is God telling me?” Sometimes we have life-changing epiphanies, sometimes we think we get the message, and sometimes we just miss it. 

 How does it impact our path going forward? Someone just sent me a video of an interview with Shannon Nuszen (look her up) who relatively recently has gone public about her anti-missionary work in Israel, which is highly informed by the fact that she was once a missionary before she converted to Judaism. Her journey is one informed by challenges to faith, challenges to a life lived, challenges to a belief system, and a discovery, through certain life events and prescient moments, through which she gleaned the messages she needed that brought her to the life she’s in now – inspiring others and standing for the truth she has discovered on her journey. 

Are we paying careful attention? Do we see when God is communicating with us? Do we heed the call, understand the message, and grow from every opportunity? 

 Moshe’s encounter with the snake demonstrated to him the need for him to become the greatest advocate for the people of Israel. It also may have given him a certain confidence boost he needed as time marched on and the people were stuck in the middle ground between slavery, plagues, and not-yet-emancipated. 

Between it all he knew God was on his side, that he could communicate with God, and that eventually everything would work out. All on account of the symbol of a snake.

Yaakov and his End-of-Life Decisions

Parshat Vaychi

by Rabbi Avi Billet

For TEAM Shabbos of the National Association of Chevra Kadisha (NASCK) - TEAM stands for Traditional End-of-Life Awareness Movement - it is appropriate to at least once a year give a little thought to the last transition life has to offer us. 

And while it is certainly not something any of us look forward to, we are all aware it will happen to us one day. What have we done to prepare for that time? 

Let us explore Yaakov’s end-of-life decisions. 

The parsha begins noting that Yaakov was 147, and that his life in Egypt was defined by Vaychi. ויהי ימי יעקב שני חייו – the years of Yaakov’s LIFE were 7 and 40 and 100. 

There is an idea that the both the word ויחי and חייו – which have the exact same letters – have a numerical (Gematria) equivalent of 34, perhaps indicating that the first 17 years of Yosef’s life – before his sale into slavery, and the last 17 years of Yaakov’s life, when he is reunited with his long-lost beloved Yosef, constitute the best years of his life. They are חייו! Literally what defined the goodness of and in his life! 

The first end-of-life decision is that when Yaakov realized that Egypt was to be his last hurrah, the place he was going to die, he made the most of it. If this is going to be where I’m going to live out my life, then I will make roots. I will enjoy life. I will surround myself with community. I will be involved in that community as much as I can. I will spend time with family – either because we’re physically close to each other, or because we’ll make the effort to substitute for quantity of time spent together with quality of time spent together. 

Yaakov does a lot of talking. A lot explaining. A lot of blessing-giving. First to Yosef. Then to Yosef in the presence of Ephraim and Menashe, Yosef’s sons who are Yaakov’s grandsons, and finally to all of his sons. There may have been other conversations we are unaware of, such as the one the brothers recount to Yosef after they’ve all returned from burying their father (though it is also possible that they made up that conversation). 

The second end-of-life decision is to make sure the family is intact, and they are prepared for what is coming. Yaakov has to explain to Yosef certain life decisions, such as why he had to bury Rachel where he buried her. He needs to explain to Yosef how since reuniting he has come to the exalted decision that Yosef, not Reuven, is the true “bechor” of the family, and that Yosef’s sons are in effect Yaakov’s sons, equal as tribes with Yaakov’s actual sons. He tells ALL of his sons what he thinks of them in past, present and future. He focuses on their strengths, and gives them blessings and wishes that their strengths should be utilized in their own fashion, in the creation of tribes that are not all the same, that don’t all think the same, that don’t all look the same, but are nonetheless united as one family, as one nation under God. 

Yaakov makes his own funeral, or at least burial, arrangements. בקברי אשר כריתי לי בארץ כנען שמה תקברני. I dug my own grave, before I even left Canaan! That means Yaakov dug it at least 17 years earlier, if not at the time that he buried Leah. Talk about preparation! 

Of course, Yaakov didn’t have to pay for it – his grandfather Avraham had taken care of that. But nonetheless, it was prepared, and ready for him upon arrival. 

Yaakov does another thing that we don’t often think about. He makes his son Yosef swear that he will follow through with his requests. There are a number of reasons why Yaakov may have needed Yosef to swear – one of which is related to Yosef needing to get permission from Pharaoh to go. But it also relates to a final will. I want it done THIS way. I need you to promise that my NEEDS will be fulfilled. 

The third end-of-life decision is to take care of burial and funeral arrangements pre-need. It is a tough decision, whether to be buried here, closer to one’s children if they live elsewhere, or in Israel. The following are thoughts to consider: 

1. Yaakov wanted Israel. Yosef wanted Israel. Yaakov was buried in Israel. Yosef was re-interred there. 

2. We don’t know what the future of the Jewish people holds. Most cemeteries in Europe, if they still exist, are overgrown and done. Maybe March of Living visits them or some other “Jewish Heritage” trip visits them. In some cases there may be an elderly caretaker. But some municipalities are even talking about getting rid of the Jewish cemetery. Because who cares about dead Jews? 

3. Do you want or care if people ever visit your grave? 

4. On the other hand, unless we have paid for it ourselves, the more the travel, the more the expense and burden it is on the family who has to deal with it over a longer period. 

 5. South Florida Jewish Cemetery in Lantana, FL is THE model cemetery of the NASCK. (https://www.nasck.org/sfjc/) 

The Gemara in Nazir 65a discusses the halakha of re-interment, stating that when doing so, one must take the equivalent of 3 fingers-ful of dirt from the original place of burial. This is learned from the pasuk, when Yaakov says ושכבתי עם אבותי ונשאתני ממצרים. From which the gemara derives that Yaakov was briefly buried in Egypt, based on the word ושכבתי. Chizkuni even says on that Pasuk, quoting the Gemara, that Yaakov was buried briefly in Egypt! Of course, a number of great rabbis question this reality, because the Torah does not say he was buried in Egypt. But one of the things the Torah does tell us is that there was an Avel (mourning) done for Yaakov before his burial in Canaan. 

Generally speaking, in our tradition, mourning doesn’t begin until AFTER BURIAL. Too much to worry about and think about! So the fact that there was so much crying, and in fact an AVEL before burial in Canaan might best be allowed and facilitated by a burial in Egypt that had taken place prior. 

On the other hand, some commentaries in fact suggest that this Shiva, the AVEL for Yaakov, was done before burial. 

From a different perspective, which may also explain why Yosef needed permission to take Yaakov out of Egypt, we may attempt to answer for the Gemara AND takes into account Egyptian realities. 

Who gets embalmed? Royalty. And how was royalty buried in Egypt? In the ground? No! In the Valley of the Kings! In crypts! So Yaakov, being Yosef’s father, may have very well been “buried” in Egypt, in a crypt, so Egypt could mourn properly, and then he was exhumed so he could be taken to Canaan. Chizkuni even suggests that when they did the AVEL in Canaan, י"מ ששם באו לכבדו אלופי עשו ונשיאי ישמעאל ובני קטורה ושם עשו אבל חדש כי כן דרך כשבא אחר מקרובי המת הם בוכים כבתחלה. [“Some say that the many who came to honor him included the families of Eisav, the princes of Yishmael AND the descendants of Keturah, and that they then mourned for a month, because that is the way it is done, when others who are related to the deceased show up, they too cry as if at the beginning.”] 

Which shows that Yaakov was aware of, and honored, local custom, while also getting what he wanted, a proper Jewish funeral and burial, in ground. And to be honored by distant relatives at that time as well. Indeed, he was able to have his crypt and burial too. 

NASCK has made a website for this weekend. But it’s available year-round. Shabbosvayechi.org or Teamshabbos.org. It has a link called Protect Life and also Halachic Living Will Download which I would encourage you to look at. Through their regular website NASCK.org you can find information on the following topics. 

 • The Torah’s View of the Sanctity of Life vs. the Medical/Secular View That Defines Life By Its Quality 

• Burial - Here or in Israel 

• Halachic Wills 

• Traditional Jewish Burial 

• Respecting the Body After Death / Preventing Autopsy 

• Caring for Elderly Parents 

• Pre-Need Funeral Arrangements 

• Buying Graves 

• Halachic Living Wills / Healthcare Proxies 

Who will make medical decisions for you in the case of severe illness and you are unable to make them? Who in your circle is best suited for this task? Do they know what you want, and what Halacha demands? What if there is a disagreement amongst your closest relatives? What laws pertain to making such decisions. What to do with the Halachic Living Will once it is executed? 

• End-of-Life Discussions for Kiruv Purposes 

• Reaching Out to Those Around Us to Prevent Cremation 

How we treat our dead tells us a lot about ourselves and our society. “We burn trash. We bury treasure.” 

• Ethical Wills 

An ethical will is a heartfelt expression of what truly matters most in your life. An ethical will is a way to share your values, blessings, life’s lessons, hopes and dreams for the future. It is an opportunity to express love and forgiveness to your family, friends, and community. It’s a great tool for growth, your own growth and the growth of those around us. 

• Chessed Shel Emes: Joining and Appreciating the Chevra Kadisha 

These are topics each of us should think about discuss with loved ones. It is also always nice to include your shul in end-of-life charitable giving. 

Most practically, a few more things to think about, just in terms of being organized. 

Preparing the following is very thoughtful and helpful. But your loved ones or friends should know where the information is. Whether it’s a file drawer, or in the hands of a lawyer or trusted friend or advisor. 

Where is your will? Do you have a will? Is it up to date? Do you have life insurance? Where is the policy? With which company? Who is the life insurance agent? Have you assigned a health care proxy? People who are married halakhically but not legally – as sometimes happens in second/ later marriages – really need to be mindful of this. In addition, when there are multiple children, and varied interests, concerns and worries, this conversation is best held with them BEFORE anything comes up. BEFORE there are issues. So who the main decision maker or makers are is CLEAR. 

The three lessons we learned from Yaakov were: 

FIRST: to make the most of the last few years of life. In Yaakov’s case there were 17 years from his move to Egypt until he died. Many people have retired to our community. For those who are planning for this to be the last vertical move, I certainly wish there to be many more than 17 years – in good health, and with growth in Jewish commitment and involvement, and enjoyment of all the good and wonderful fun life has to offer within this community. But it’s up to each of us to milk this time for what it can be for us in fulfillment of these pursuits and goals. 

SECOND: To make sure the family is intact. Everyone should know they are equally loved. We should express often and clearly how proud we are of them. Let them know there are no regrets. We will disagree about things in life. But if our disagreement doesn’t become a point of fight and departure, but a clear expression of love, there will not be hard feelings. Those of us who are older and might anticipate departing from this earth first must always remember. It is those we leave behind who live with the regret. So let us not let the regret be because of what we did or said, or on account of what we didn’t say. 

THIRD: To take care of whatever arrangements in advance. We often talk about how arranging for burial and actual burying is Chesed Shel Emet. The truest kindness. But think about the kind of kindness we could do for our loved ones if we take care of it for them, and all they need to do is make a phone call, write a eulogy, and shovel the dirt? 

That’s a chesed that they can’t repay to you. They can only pay it forward and take care of their own arrangements in advance of their own funerals. Until 120, in good health, for all. 

With Hashem’s help, may the arrangements we make soon not be needed for a very long time.

What’s Up With Goshen?

 Parshat Vayigash

by Rabbi Avi Billet

After revealing his identity to his brothers, Yosef tells them to tell their father to descend to Egypt, “And you will live in the Land of Goshen and you will be close to me… I will provide for you in the remaining five years of famine.” (45:9-11) 

Pharaoh comes into the scene and he says, “[When you family comes down here] I shall give you of the best of the Land of Egypt.” (45:18-20) Note how he does not specify which land. 

This is followed with Yaakov deliberately sending Yehuda down ahead of everyone to “Set up Goshen before [his arrival]” (46:28). Yosef specifically heads to Goshen to meet his father (46:29). He then seems to set up some kind of plan with his brothers for them to convey to Pharaoh that they are shepherds (or “Anshei Mikneh” – this is a larger discussion surrounding how they are supposed to present themselves and how much they follow Yosef’s script) “so that you will settle in the Land of Goshen” (46:34) for Egypt’s relationship with shepherds is תועבה (again – there is a large discussion surrounding what this means). 

 Finally in chapter 47, Yosef to comes to Pharaoh with some of his brothers saying that his family has arrived “And behold they are in Goshen” (47:1). Pharaoh asks them what they do, and they note how they are shepherds and that they have come to sojourn in the land and “may we please settle in Goshen?” (47:4) Pharaoh responds: “The Land of Egypt is before you, have your family stay in the best of the land, they will stay in the Land of Goshen…” 

All the hints, and all the roundabout ways they aimed to get this land granted to them seem to have worked! 

Whose idea was it for them to move to Goshen? Why? Why didn’t Yosef just speak with Pharaoh directly about it? Why the secrets and the codes and the hints and the backhanded manner of getting what they wanted? 

The commentaries who discuss Goshen go from very practical to esoteric to even historical claims to the area that make this a good fit for the burgeoning Bnei Yisrael. 

 Ramban notes that Goshen wasn’t part of Egypt proper, and that Yosef felt that was a better fit for his father who would not do well in the idolatrous land of Egypt proper (which, absent the merits of Canaan, would have been bad for his soul). The idea of it being more North than other parts of Egypt, and therefore closer to Eretz Yisrael, also serves in its favor, according to Daat Zekenim. Netziv notes that it wasn’t a particularly settled area associated with Egypt. It could easily be cleared out as it wasn’t more than an outpost. These are all geographical and logistical considerations. 

Another consideration is the idea that it is great pasture land for people who take care of sheep (Rashi), a profession that was apparently not very Egyptian. In fact, using the verse from Yehoshua 11:16 which indicates the Israelites conquered and settled in a place called Goshen in Canaan, Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetzky argued that “Goshen” is more likely a generic term for a land that has much pasture for animals. 

 For family reasons, Yosef considered the following options: Netziv writes that Yosef’s main goal was to set his family up for success in avoiding assimilating into Egyptian culture. Their living in Goshen, apart from Egyptian society, would help preserve their culture and heritage. 

 There are a number of reasons for the hints that Yosef fed his brothers (and not his father) to share with Pharaoh. Abrabanel writes that Yosef didn’t want his father to worry that their living in Goshen was anything but a sure thing. As Yosef wanted his brothers to remain shepherds (and not work for Pharaoh directly), which Abrabanel describes as “their profession, a holy endeavor,” and he felt that if the suggestion to go to Goshen were to come from Pharaoh it would be far less regrettable on Egypt’s part than if it came from Yosef – clearly a concern of being accused of nepotism. As Netziv puts it, Yosef wanted their profession of shepherding to be so disturbing to the Egyptians that the Egyptians would prefer they have their own land. To that effect (back to Abrabanel in ch. 46), he had his brothers drop hints to Pharaoh, such as “we’re not planning to be here for too long.” That should give Egypt less pause to think about whether this move is a long term concern of theirs. Yosef’s hints to Pharaoh essentially led Pharaoh to indicate it’s less important if Pharaoh gives that land, but more important that Yosef give them the land. After all, as Pharaoh puts it, “Your father and your brothers have come TO YOU.” Yosef was insistent that no land giving (or land grabbing) were to take place without the express permission from the king. This is certainly why he wanted any final decision to come from the king himself. 

 For his family, Abrabanel writes (now in 45:9) that since Egypt looked unfavorably upon shepherds and had an unfavorable disposition to Ivrim (Hebrews), not to mention its being steeped in idolatry, it would be in the family’s best interest to avoid the distractions with which regular everyday Egypt would challenge them. So Yosef argued that Goshen was good for them because 

1. Yosef will be close to them if they are in Goshen. 

2. It is big enough for all the family and all their animals (consider that in Canaan they needed to go to Shechem from Hevron for their sheep to graze) 

3. Yosef can easily provide for them when they are in Goshen (more easily than if they are elsewhere in Egypt – what with the supply chain being a bit broken) 

4. There really isn’t a better choice with our anticipating another 5 years of famine. 

 In both 45:10 and 46:31 Alshikh raises a thought from Pirkei D’rabi Eliezer which suggests that when Avraham and Sarah came down to Egypt the Pharaoh at that time gifted her this land of Goshen. Therefore the land itself was invested with Kedusha (holiness) on the one hand, and on a different hand already belongs to the family (!) so the current Pharaoh will not feel as if he is giving anything away! 

Ultimately, as Netziv puts it, Yosef’s instructions to his brothers, their changing the plans from his instruction to their way, Pharaoh coming to the conclusions on his own, was all what God ordained to happen. As Riv”a puts it, Pharaoh could have limited them to Goshen, but instead he expanded their own benefits in the land when he said in 45:18 they’ll have “the best of Egypt available to them.” This promise allowed for them to have the longest possible grace period in Egypt, as they ultimately did not endure slavery for close to one hundred years from their arrival in Egypt, only experiencing slavery (in the relative scheme of things) for around 115 years of the originally ordained 400 years.

 Many plans come in the hands of man. Some fail, and some work out for the best. Only God knows the full reasons for the exile of Avraham’s descendants to Egypt. But the circumstances surrounding Goshen indicate that at the very least in that tale God had a plan that human intervention only moved right along in the manner God had devised. 

 This is a thought process that many of us see in practical terms in many if not every aspect of our lives. It didn’t start with Goshen, and it certainly didn’t finish with Goshen. It’s God’s world – we do our best to serve Him and always hope that things turn out for the best in terms we can understand. In one way or another it is all for the best. Hopefully we can always be blessed to see that. 

 If I may borrow from Ahad Ha’am, more than the Jews kept to Goshen, Goshen kept the Jews. Certainly being in Egypt was far from perfect in many ways, but the idea that Goshen was gifted to the family from Pharaoh turned out to be one of the greatest gifts which allowed Bnei Yisrael to create their own society within the larger society which ultimately led to their survival both physically and especially spiritually.

When Things Are Beyond Our Control

 Parshat Miketz

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Last week it was Eli (Eliyahu) Kay, HYD, killed by a terrorist not far from the Western Wall. This week it was Tate Myre, who along with Madisyn Baldwin and Hanna St. Julian was murdered by a classmate in Michigan. Last Saturday night also brought the news of the passing of a former campmate, Moti Kest of Los Angeles, at the age of 42, of a brain tumor. 

It is hard to navigate all these stories when young people, and in the cases cited exceptional young people are taken from us at the hands of murderers or the hand of God. Do an Internet search on these people, see what those who knew them had to say of their impact in all their relatively short times on this earth. 

 This is not to take away from every loss, no matter the age, which is always difficult for loved ones and those closest to the deceased. But we can all imagine the heartbreak of parents who have to bury their child, as we all know that is not the right order of the world. Which parent wouldn’t give their life in a heartbeat for the guarantee that their child would have a long and happy life? Sadly, such an option isn’t really in our hands to make, nor a choice available to us under the kinds of tragic circumstances noted which are typically out of our control. Tate Myre charged at his killer and saved lives while giving up his own.

The true story of Chanukah and its aftermath, which is a much longer story than a military victory and a miracle of oil, complete with political maneuverings, religious corruption, and Hasmonean dynasty chicanery, is a demonstration of where things can go when people use their power of free choice to make the kinds of moves that history can only look back at and ask “what were you thinking?” 

The story of Yosef in Parshat Miketz is THE classic rags to riches story, the most remarkable tale of turnaround, from slavery to second-in-command in an instant, known to man. Most rises from nothing to positions of influence or star-status are gradual, with a person having a demonstrable record of achievement, even if the person spends years under the radar prior to the rise to gedulah. 

Yosef certainly spent years under the radar, first as a slave in Potiphar’s house and then as a prisoner. In what some might call irony but others might call training, Yosef rose to the highest level possible in both of those places, answering to no one but Potiphar (39:3-6,9) and having freedom of authority in prison under the auspices of the sar Beit haSohar (39:21-23). Undoubtedly, these life experiences not only familiarized him with the Egyptian language, they helped him understand the culture of the average Egyptian and even helped him be quite comfortable communicating with people of position as he clearly found himself in the house of political prisoners at the end of Parshat Vayeshev (chapter 40). 

These experiences made Yosef into the man he became. They allowed him to assert himself before Pharaoh, expressing the need for Pharaoh to find a perfect second-in-command to run things, hinting to his own suitability as the job in question would be simply a much larger scale of what Yosef had done on a smaller scale in Potiphar’s home and in the prison. To Yosef’s credit, through all his experiences he never seems to lose his values (see chapter 39), never really loses his humility (see his deference to the prisoners of chapter 40 and how he speaks to Pharaoh before, during and after interpreting dreams; see also Seforno 42:7 where Yosef’s response to his brothers is described as an anomaly in his normally humble behavior), and gets very emotional about the prospects of reuniting with his family (42:24, 43:30, 45:1-2), even as he needs to see if his brothers have changed from their early impetuous behavior (see chapters 34 and 37). 

How much of Yosef’s experiences were beyond his control? 

There is a well-known teaching attributed to Rabbi Yisrael Salantar, the founder of the Mussar Movement:

 “When I was a young man, I wanted to change the world. But I found it was difficult to change the world, so I tried to change my nation. When I found I couldn’t change my country, I began to focus on my town. However, I discovered that I couldn’t change the town, and so as I grew older, I tried to change my family. Now, as an old man, I realize the only thing I can change is myself.” 

 This is the quote as most often seen. However, I have found some citations continuing the quote “but I’ve come to recognize that if long ago I had started with myself, then I could have made an impact on my family. And, my family and I could have made an impact on our town. And that, in turn, could have changed the nation and we could all indeed have changed the world.” 

The part of Rabbi Salantar’s quote which is in bold above is something that Yosef, and all of the people mentioned in the opening paragraph, realized and actualized. What is in our control is ourselves, and how we go about making the choices and decisions, and the ways in which we navigate our own existence. 

 A simple example: As my children get to the age where the State believes they are competent enough to drive, I tell them (after the many hours of practice and preparation for the license exam), “I trust you. I believe you will do fine. So whatever is in your control is OK with me. BUT you can not control the weather, so drive carefully in the rain. And you can not control other drivers. So be extremely cautious always.” 

Alcoholics Anonymous uses the shortened version of the Serenity Prayer as part of their twelve step program, “God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, the courage to change the things we can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” 

While the circumstances for that prayer, at a point post-addiction, may be in a time after a person has arguably lost control, the point of that organization is to help its participants regain control of their lives. Ultimately, as Rabbi Salantar put it, each of us is responsible first-and-foremost to effecting the change most within us to impact: ourselves. 

 The Hasmoneans saw that the Assyrian-Greeks were asserting their own version of control into the lives of the Judeans living in the Holy Land, influencing countless Judeans to assimilate into the pervading culture, and they rose to regain control of their Temple, their lives, their destiny. Drastic circumstances sometimes call for drastic measures. For the purposes of removing their tormentors victory came with the help of Almighty God, a point which was acknowledged through the establishment of Chanukah, when those who had surrendered control to God set in motion a holiday which is still celebrated 2000 years later as a time when circumstances beyond our control were reined in and our people rose yet again. 

The corruption and political sheningans which followed were a result of people forgetting priorities, focusing on their own power and presumed legacy, rather than what is best for the Jewish people going forward. In other words, Rabbi Salantar’s teaching was not part of their lexicon. 

The heroic young people who recently died under different circumstances were certainly aware that some things are beyond our control. But in their lives which will continue to inspire others, they demonstrated that what is in our control, our own choices and abilities, are where we can shine. Y’hi zichram baruch. 

Yosef HaTzaddik didn’t let the things that were beyond his control knock him down. With every punch and every fall he once again rose to the top. All he did was evolve. All he did was change himself. All he did was take every failure as an opportunity to learn and to grow until he reached the pinnacle of a struggled life at age 30 to come before the king, lay everything on the line, and ultimately change and save the world. 

 May we be so blessed to always evolve and change ourselves for the better, for the betterment of ourselves, our families, the nation of Israel, and mankind.

The Humility Theme of Vayeshev

 Parshat Vayeshev

by Rabbi Avi Billet

One of the themes of Chanukah is outlined in the Al HaNissim prayer when we hear of the defeat of the רבים (many) at the hands of the few (ביד מעטים). 

One wonders what that must have felt like, to know you are significantly outnumbered by both the Assyrian Greeks and the Hellenized Jews, and yet to know that your truth has merit and value and that there is nothing they can say or do to have you abandon your beliefs. There is a humility that surely comes from the overwhelming outnumbering while also realizing that when you trust in God, you are not alone. That too is very humbling. 

 As the narrative of the Torah shifts from focusing on Yaakov to focusing on Yosef and his brothers, one other brother features significantly in the coming narratives, Yehuda. (That Yehuda’s name is reflective of the first time someone in the Torah is recorded of having given thanks so there is the Thanksgiving connection for those who are looking for it!) 

 Over time, many leaders of the Jewish people were from these tribes. Yehoshua bin Nun was from Ephraim (Yosef). Five of the Judges (Shoftim) were from Yosef’s tribes, while  2 were from Yehuda. $$$$$$$ The kingdoms of Israel, after the division, were often referred to as the Kingdom of Yehuda (source of the word Jew) and the kingdom of Ephraim. The books of prophets sometimes refer to the conflict between בית יהודה and בית יוסף or אפרים. 

 Both Yehuda and Yosef are described in Vayeshev as experiencing a descent – Yosef to Egypt and Yehuda from his brothers (38:1) – and they both rise to their final confrontation in Parshat Vayigash when they clash over Binyamin’s fate.

What makes them the leaders of their siblings, then and through the centuries and even millennia to follow – as we ultimately await both משיח בן יוסף and משיח בן דוד? 

Despite Yaakov’s favoritism towards him, Yosef is nevertheless viewed by some of the classic commentaries as someone who didn’t let his position get to his head. He is described as a נער to the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. Haktav V’hakabbalah explains the word “Naar” here as a “meshares” – one who serves someone else. “היה יוסף מתנהג במדת ענוה ושפלות לשרת את בני בלהה וזלפה אף שהם בני השפחות” – Yosef conducted himself with humility and submission to serve the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah even though they were the sons of the maids. Rabbi Mecklenberg (Haktav…) suggests that Yosef’s dreams – which aim to demonstrate how he’d rise in the family – were only shown to him on account of his humility, because “כי לפני כבוד ענוה, ועקב ענוה עושר וכבוד” – as Mishlei says. Humility is first, then honor comes. And it’s not because one seeks or demands the kavod. But it is there. And, presumably, even if people give it, the person is still running from it. 

 That is real humility. 

 In Yosef’s case, his loftiness wasn’t coming from himself. It came to him as a sort of prophesy, in the form of a dream. 

 But even for Yosef, it was a process. And not a simple one. The Or HaChaim notes that all that Yosef went through, in being sold as a slave and serving in Potiphar’s court and eventually landing in prison all turns out to be washed away when he becomes a king in Egypt. The suffering, the (noun) humbling one experiences is not counted when it is a means to a goal, such as the one Yosef ultimately achieved. (we’ll return to this point below) 

 Yosef’s humility continues when his father calls him to send him to his brothers in Shechem, into the lions’ den. Despite every warning and sign sent his way, Yosef still says “את אחי אנכי מבקש” – I am seeking my brothers – when he could have turned around and gone home. 

 Because he doesn’t care if they hate him, if they are jealous of him. He wants a connection. And he is going out of his comfort zone, being near their father, in order to find them. 

In noting his Middos, Malbim says every person has characterisitcs that pull him or her in opposite directions: haughty v humble. Spendthrift v miserly. Merciful v Cruel. Yosef followed the second of the following three life options outlined by Malbim. 

1. Following one’s nature – whether good or bad. 

 2. One who follows one’s sechel – which distinguishes between tzaddik and Rasha 

3. And one who behaves differently, depending on who the people around him are. A wicked person, for example, humbles himself before those more wealthy and more powerful, and behaves like an arrogant cruel person to the humble, kind, righteous people 

Yehuda 

We need to shift gears for a moment to examine Yehuda’s story. Yehuda starts off Chapter 38 being fairly controlling Tamar’s life. But then his wife passes away, and after Tamar meets Yehuda on the crossroads, when it is discovered that Tamar is pregnant, Yehuda’s power of her comes to a head when he says – הוציאוה ותשרף which either means burn her to death, brand her (similar to the Scarlet Letter), or some other punishment. 

When Yehuda is confronted with the reality that he is the father of her babies, his admission of her righteousness and being correct prompted Radak to note how humbling this admission is - a prelude to much of how the Davidic line functions. Think of Lot and his daughter – quite the scandal. Think of Ruth and Boaz – appropriate though very slightly scandalous. David and Bat Sheva – not appropriate and quite scandalous. Radak writes: לפי שמלכות נתנה האל לדוד ולזרעו עד עולם כדי שלא יתגאו מלכות יהודה על ישראל, ויזכרו צור חצבו ממנו ויהיו שפלי רוח וינהיגו המלכות בענוה ובתם לבב: God gave the kingship to the Davidic line so they should ALWAYS BE HUMBLE EVEN IN THEIR ROLE AS KINGS. 

Yehuda suffers in this story through the death of his two sons and his wife. He looks to a strange mysterious woman for a little comfort. Had there been no baby, no one would have known about it. And yet in his admission (and he had cause for plausible denial with Tamar keeping mum about the incident), he embarrassed and humiliated himself. 

How humbling. How leader-creating. 

There are plenty of ways to justify the actual physical encounter! He was single. She was single. They were technically Noachides. They were not forbidden to each other. Even if levirate marriage was a thing, the father can do this for the dead son. Yehuda wasn’t planning to have her punished because of what happened between him and her! He didn’t know she was the woman he had been with! He was having her punished because they assumed it was a Canaanite she had been with. But once he knew the truth… צקדה ממני.. And of course she was not punished. 

How many leaders today, caught in a scandal, admit their involvement and look to rectify? Too often they either lie, excuse, or simply resign so the news story will go away. 

These are the leaders of the Jewish people, in their infant stages of leadership. Yosef and Yehuda. 

Let’s return to the Or HaChaim’s comment, that the suffering one experiences is nothing if all’s well that ends well. Could such a thing be true? 

It really depends on the suffering, and what the “ends well” is.

It could work for Yosef! He was a young single guy who needed to pay his dues. He suffered through slavery and imprisonment and had a pretty good job for the rest of his life from the age of 30. During his difficult times he had no dependents who needed to rely on him. 

For Yehuda, even though he emerges with two new sons, it’s hard to say all is well in the end. 

People suffer. Suffering is part of life, and as many of us know all too well, there was never a guarantee that anything would be smooth sailing. 

Yosef and Yehuda learned and modeled for us. When we look at the other person, and certainly when we contemplate the Almighty, what we should walk away with is the feeling of utmost humility. 

The humble person at least recognizes that the goodness I have in my life is a gift, and that in whatever way I feel God watching over me is the greatest Chesed. So if life throws curveballs and hard times my way, the tough times teach me humility and the goodness teaches me humility. And humility, both in any interaction with people and especially in one’s relationship with God, is what makes a metaphorical mountain out of a man or woman. 

A mountain doesn’t move, shift or budge, when a storm pummels it, or when a pickax strikes at it. The mountain may be hurt, it may have a slightly different shape, it may not always look the same. But it stands tall and has its head turned heavenward, as it simply and humbly fulfills its purpose on earth: to be a reliable rock that people can turn to, sometimes for direction, sometimes for a place to rest, sometimes for something to lean on, or even a challenge to climb and overcome, but always awe-inspiring as we take in its majesty.

Death of Devorah

 Short thought on Vayishlach

A trivia question was recently presented to me: Name 7 women whose personal deaths are recorded in the Torah (in other words not as part of a group). Most of them are in the book of Bereishis (two are in the book of Bamidbar) and two of them are in our parsha. 

 While the death of Rachel is certainly tragic, one wonders about the death of Devorah, Rivkah’s “nurse” (35:8). In all likelihood she was very old, certainly even older than Sarah was at her death. And, her being a secondary character, it seems odd that her death would be recorded altogether in the Torah. The most common interpretations is that Devorah was sent to tell Yaakov to come home, or that Devorah was sent to tell Yaakov of the death of Rivkah. 

 But Midrash Aggadah suggests that Devorah was actually Rivkah’s mother, presumably accompanying Yaakov (at a very old age!) to hopefully see her daughter before her death. 

 And Midrash Sechel Tov indicates the significance of her being buried at the side of the road under a tree. To this latter idea perhaps it was a way of laying the groundwork (no pun intended) for the coming burial of Rachel, after Yaakov’s children had already seen that when someone dies while you’re traveling, you tend to burial needs right away. In this way, when Yaakov later needs to explain to Yosef from his sickbed in Egypt why he buried Rachel where he did, he need not go into heavy explanations because he knows Yosef saw how he had buried Devorah. 

 The lesson of respecting the dead was therefore well learned.

He Was Afraid and It Stressed Him

Parshat Vayishlach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Our parsha opens with Yaakov sending a message to Eisav telling him of his experiences at Lavan’s house and the wealth which is accompanying him on his return to the land of Canaan. His messengers return with the news that “Eisav is coming to you, accompanied by 400 men.” Not knowing Eisav’s intent Yaakov’s initial reaction is described in the Torah in this way: ויירא יעקב מאד ויצר לו – and Yaakov was very afraid and it distressed him. 

 While most of the commentaries focus on what he feared and what distressed him, Netziv suggests that “that fear fell upon him distressed him, because from this he understood that badness was facing him.” [Alshikh similarly notes: וזהו ויירא ויצר לו על המורא] The idea that the fear itself distressed him is rather compelling because כבר אמר החכם העבר אין העתיד עדיין דאגה מנין – the wise one said ‘the past is gone, the future hasn’t happened yet, why worry?’ (see Piskei Teshuvot 230, footnote 20) 

What was really bothering Yaakov? 

Rashi says he was afraid he’d be killed and it distressed him that he might be forced to kill others. This view is suggested by many midrashim, and many commentaries use it as a starting point for their discussion on this verse, varying only in who Yaakov was afraid he may end up killing, Eisav himself or Eisav’s men (Gur Aryeh), many of whom may have had no skin in the fight but were brought there by force by Eisav (Siftei Chachamim indicates that Eisav’s men may have been instructed only to kill Yaakov’s men and not to touch Yaakov). The Pesikta adds that if Yaakov were to kill Eisav it would be a public relations nightmare, his killing someone who has been a. living in Eretz Yisrael, and b. most honoring his aged parents (see also Targum Yonatan). (Rashi later suggests Yaakov was concerned that “the sin” would cause him to have fewer merits – the sin being that he was away from home for 20 years.) Another possibility raised by the Pesikta is that Yaakov had passed the place where he made his vow (Bet El) and did not fulfill his vow by giving a 10th to the Almighty yet, putting him in a sinful position of not keeping his promise to God.

An additional concern raised by the Midrash Sechel Tov is that if Eisav is indeed coming to kill Yaakov, that could mean that Eisav’s commitment “When my father dies I will kill my brother” has come to pass, meaning Yitzchak has died and Yaakov will never see his father again (Daat Zekenim as well). 

Or HaChaim puts Yaakov’s dilemma in this way: Yaakov was afraid of not preparing for a fight, as Eisav might be coming to fight so Yaakov best be prepared for a confrontation. But it distressed him because perhaps Eisav had no evil intent at all, and were he to see Yaakov all dressed up for battle Eisav would come to the conclusion that Yaakov intends to do harm to him and his men, which would reawaken his hatred for Yaakov, which he had gotten over some time earlier. Chizkuni focuses on the stress of not knowing Eisav’s plans. [This is how he explains Yaakov’s two camps – one demonstrating love and affection and the other prepared for war.] B’chor Shor essentially paints this dilemma as a fear of the unknown. He was afraid and distressed simply because he did not know what to do! Ramban adds that since Yaakov’s messengers carried no return message from Eisav, their report was additionally distressing. 

Chizkuni goes in a different direction, focusing on the word מלאך, suggesting that while Yaakov had the angel Micha’el advocating for him and accompanying him, but Eisav had the angel Sama’el advocating for him and accompanying him. 

Ro”sh suggests that Yaakov alone had the merit when he crossed the Jordan alone just with a walking stick. Now that he has the responsibility of his entire family PLUS all his servants and animals, he does not know if his merit alone suffices to protect anyone else or certainly everyone else! Rabbenu Bachaye holds that he was simply worried for his family members, as anyone who faces uncertainty for them would worry. As Baal HaTurim notes – Yaakov was promised his children would be numerous – but perhaps that promise would be fulfilled through children not yet born.

Alshikh paints Yaakov as having a series of unknowns. 

1. Has Eisav’s anger subsided and has he let the past be forgotten? (This is why Yaakov sent messengers) 

2. When the messengers reported about the 400 men, would Eisav wait to kill him until after Yitzchak’s death as he had indicated, and instead take out all his wrath now against Yaakov’s belongings and family? 

3. Would Eisav’s merits (living in the Land, honoring his parents) be to his benefit in any confrontation? 

The Maharal asks how Yaakov could be afraid if, as the Talmud states, everything that God does is for the best! This would even include Eisav using his free will to kill Yaakov, because even if it goes against God’s wishes, God won’t stop a person from using his free will! [He doesn’t give a clear answer.

Bringing a most practical approach, Kli Yakar is of the view that Yaakov’s fear came from what he had just done (see opening paragraph above), in that he had sent messengers to Eisav to essentially flatter him into thinking that fighting with Yaakov was not in anyone’s best interest. The Talmud (Sotah 41b) quotes Rabbi Elazar as saying that anyone who flatters his friend will eventually fall into his friend’s hands. Between describing his wealth and referring to Eisav as his master and himself as the servant, Yaakov may have gone too far in flattering a person not deserving of that level of flattery, thus putting himself at risk from God’s perspective. 

 Malbim writes: “one who trusts in God need not fear a human being. Fear demonstrates that a person doesn’t have proper trust in God. Specficially because Yaakov had a promise/gurarantee from God and should not have been afraid, and because God doesn’t make miracles outside of nature happen for anyone except those with exceptional trust in Him, Yaakov’s becoming afraid distressed him very much because he knew he was unworthy of having miracles happen for himself” as perhaps happened to Avraham Avinu.

We all have stresses in life. These messages from the commentaries remind us that when we put our trust in God and dispense with worrying (not at all easy) we are demonstrating a sincere belief that He will carry us through to where we need to be. Not every road is smooth, not every path predictable. 

 Yaakov took his unpredictable path, and as Chatam Sofer, Rabbenu Bachaye and Malbim put it, he made the preparations he felt necessary to demonstrate how a person prepares for what it seemingly unknown.

It is certainly true that uncertainty and unknowns can be frightening, in so many aspects of the human experience. Most of the time we ignore them – for example, we likely don’t think we’ll get into a car accident every time we step behind a wheel.

We can learn from Yaakov, however, that stressing over unknowns when we think about them doesn’t help as much as having a plan of action, and having a trust in God that He will pull us through.

The Beautiful and Beloved Imahot

Parshat Vayetze 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

There are two times when a quality of Leah and Rachel is mentioned in our parsha – the first is immediately before Yaakov tells Lavan he will work for seven years to marry Rachel, the Torah inserts a parenthetical comment that “ועיני לאה רכות ורחל היתה יפץ תואר וטבת מראה.” (29:17) Leah’s eyes were “rakot” (see possible explanations below) and Rachel was very beautiful and pleasing to look at. 

The second time is shortly after Yaakov marries Rachel (according to most commentaries this happens a week after he marries Leah), the Torah tells us that “וירא ה' כי שנואה לאה ויפתח את רחמה ורחל עקרה.” And God saw that Leah was “s’nuah” and He opened her womb, while Rachel was (remained) barren. 

What are we to make of these depictions of their physical appearances and Leah’s status as mentioned before their respective wombs status? 

Rashi says Leah’s eyes were weak from crying. Everyone who knew the families said “Rivkah has two sons and Lavan has two daughters. The older (Eisav) will marry the older (Leah), and the younger (Yaakov) will marry the younger (Rachel).” [For many reasons it is hard to reconcile this rumor mill regarding two families which, though related, live hundreds of miles apart. But we’ll get back to this at the end.] 

Onkelos says the term describing Leah’s eyes means her eyes were beautiful. 

Ramban suggests Leah’s eyes may have been weakened by the sun. Along similar lines, Netziv says her eyes were sensitive and therefore she couldn’t be a shepherdess like her sister because she couldn’t spend too much time in the sun. 

Ibn Ezra quotes Ben Efrayim (likely a Kaaraite), who suggests the word “Rakot” is missing an Alef, and should have said “Arukhot” – meaning she had long eyes (Ibn Ezra doesn’t give full context, and we are left to conjecture as to what Ben Efrayim meant). Leaving aside the problem with the suggestion that the Torah is missing a letter, Ibn Ezra thinks the suggestion is so foolish he suggest that Ben Efrayim himself is missing an Alef – which either means means he is missing אלוף (wisdom), or that that Ben Efrayim’s name should be read Ben Parim – the son of cows – for making such a foolish suggestion (either way you look at it, clearly Ibn Ezra was not a fan of the Karaite). 

Rashbam says Leah’s eyes were pleasant, as the word “rakh” means soft. He concludes that a bride who has pleasant eyes does not need to be inspected for any other beautiful feature. (See Torah Temimah who makes a similar point quoting the Talmud Taanit 24a) 

Daat Zekeinim (Baalei Hatosafot) begin like Rashbam noting that “Rakot” means “soft and tender,” similar to the term “Rakh vatov” – soft and good. 

Then they say the parallel comparison of Leah’s eyes to Rachel’s beauty means the following: “She was beautiful because her eyes were beautiful, and she appeared soft and childlike. But Rachel was super praiseworthy in her beauty, save for the fact that her eyes were pained from crying because she feared she would fall into Eisav’s lot. [This fear was grounded in the fact that] she was barren, which would cause Yaakov to divorce her [for she could not bear children to him], which would cause Eisav to marry her off the rebound.” 

According to this, Leah’s eyes are mentioned because they were her most beautiful feature, while Rachel’s other beauty is focused upon, because her eyes were most unbecoming. 

The Sha"kh on the Torah (Rav Mordekhai HaKohen) goes in an entirely different direction than just about everyone else, somewhat related to the Daat Zekenim approach. 

When Rivkah first appeared on the scene in the Torah, we were immediately told וְהַנַּעֲרָ טֹבַת מַרְאֶה מְאֹד. Not so Rachel! She appeared on the scene, Yaakov first saw her, then he gave water to her sheep, then he kissed her, then he cried. After telling her why he gave her water, why he kissed her – because he is her cousin – he is brought to meet his uncle, who, after a month, asks him what his wages should be for working as a shepherd for Lavan's sheep. 

THEN the Torah tells us וְעֵינֵי לֵאָה רַכּוֹת וְרָחֵל הָיְתָה יְפַת תֹּאַר וִיפַת מַרְאֶה: :ח) וַיֶּאֱהַב יַעֲקֹב אֶת רָחֵל. After Yaakov had been around a month! 

Shakh writes: 

It would seem that Yaakov loved Rachel on account of her beauty… But it can’t be that this is so, for it would have told us when Yaakov first met her, ‘when Yaakov saw her, she was so beautiful, so he took the rock off the well for her…’ As a matter of fact, the Torah does not emphasize her beauty as it did with Rivkah! Rachel’s description was told to us not when she was introduced, but later, and is written in the past tense: Rachel – היתה יפת מראה - was [ie ‘had been’] beautiful and pleasant to look at. That was before she became a shepherd. Since then her beauty has depleted on account of her weariness, but Yaakov loved her nevertheless. When he heard she was a shepherd, he thought ‘Maybe she’s so ugly she became a shepherd. And because she’s so ugly, none of the male shepherds have anything to do with her.’ But when he saw her and how she resembled his mother, it tells us ‘when he saw her’ meaning her modesty, how she comes after all the shepherds, and walks among the sheep instead of in front of them, he knew she had nothing to do with the other shepherds. So he kissed her and told her of their relationship, to test her ‘welcoming guests’ skills. When she ran home to tell her father of their new guest, his feelings for her grew and the love became strong. 

This novel interpretation demonstrates what we all know to be true. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and is much deeper than skin deep. And no matter how we look at it, it is hard to come to a clear conclusion as to what the Torah is telling us through depicting Leah and Rachel in this way? 

The Alshikh explains Leah’s eyes were רכות from crying – but not as much because of what many suggest – the thought she might marry Eisav – but because she שהתחננה לה' ובכה תבכה. She would beseech God regularly and thus would cry. 

If the “talk of the town gossipers” (note brackets above in the 4th paragraph) is improbable due to distance and the likelihood that the people who knew Rivkah’s family did not know Lavan’s and vice versa, then Rachel’s personal fears of the possibility of not remaining married to Yaakov due to her own (perhaps known only to her) infertility is a fairly logical conclusion to draw. Her barrenness, then, is a feature to watch as Leah’s womb opens up with God’s help. 

So what are we to make of Leah being שנואה? Does that word mean hated? Or perhaps “less loved?” 

Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch writes “God chose precisely the one who felt slighted and disadvantaged, and made her the principal ancestress of His people. For the names that this less-loved wife gave to her sons show us that, precisely in her feeling of disadvantage, she was saturated with love for her husband; the names show us that she uplifted herself to fully appreciate the role of motherhood in the destiny of woman and the happiness of marriage, and that for both she cast her burden on God, Who sees and hears all and causes His Presence to dwell between man and woman. Her husband’s love was her goal, and with every child born to her, she hoped to add another layer to the foundation of this love. In the end, her hopes were fulfilled. What was denied to the bride and wife was granted to the mother of children.” 

There are certainly other possibilities of where this “hatred” feeling comes from.

 • He liked Leah as a cousin, but never wanted to marry her.

 • He had been tricked into marrying her, and hated her because he was victim of a rouse.

 • He had been tricked into marrying her, and he hated her because of her role in not owning up to her true identity,

 • She was a detestable woman, so he hated her. 

Some of these don’t really make sense. Because if Yaakov really hated her, it stands to reason he would have divorced her. After all, his marriage to her was made under false pretenses. 

So what does it mean that “she was hated?” A lot of it could have been in her mind, comparing herself to her sister. God’s perspective could also simply be a reflection of Leah’s feelings. It’s not farfetched to say that she was “less loved,” as the Torah doesn’t mince words in describing Yaakov’s love for Rachel (29:18,20,30) 

At the same time, Yaakov also gets angry at Rachel (30:2), in a manner we never see him treating Leah – even when Leah seems to be very forward after trading her “dudaim” (flowers – mandrakes?) to Rachel in exchange for the evening with Yaakov. 

So was it real hatred that was going on here? 

Reb Bunem of Pshischa had a different perspective in explaining Leah’s being “hated.” He suggests it is impossible that Yaakov hated her. Rather, she was hated by herself, the same way that a true righteous person is very hard on his or herself. She saw her own flaws, knew her inadequacies, may have had leftover feelings of sadness from the thought that at any time Yaakov might divorce her, leaving her open to being picked up by Eisav. 

Another approach, completely in the other direction, is the one offered by Rabbi Chaim Paltiel, based on one premise that Leah was actually greater than Rachel, and based on another premise that Yaakov actually felt Leah was out of his league (either because she was “too great” or because she was destined for Eisav). 

R Chaim Paltiel suggests the hatred was a rouse. “If I let on that I love her, Eisav’s hatred for ME will multiply.” And because Yaakov “hated her,” she had many children to contradict her beauty. Combining his approach here, we can better understand what he writes about Leah and Rachel’s beauty. 

He says Leah was more beautiful than Rachel. That’s why her eyes were weak!! Her father would hide her in an inner chamber, and when she’d emerge, her eyes became very sensitive because she was not used to light. 

 Presumably then, her having many children was a way to hide her beauty in case she’d ever encounter Eisav, who might otherwise be upset that Yaakov had taken his intended bride because who thinks of a busy mother in that way? Rabbi Paltiel even says that Rachel’s being depicted as beautiful by no means indicates she was more beautiful than Leah. 

Of course, there is a passage in Midrash Tanchuma which has Yaakov, in the morning, accusing Leah of being a liar and a cheat like her father, to which she responds, perhaps heartlessly, perhaps coldly, “It takes one to know one. Weren’t you the one who said to his father, ‘I am Eisav your first born!’” This, the Tanchuma suggests, is when Yaakov began to hate her. 

Leah is described as the Gedolah, in comparison to Rachel being the Ketanah, which can simply be a measure of older versus younger, but can also refer to a measure of greatness. The Midrash Aggadah suggests Leah was greater because she would eventually be the mother of Kehunah and Malchus (see also Rabbi Eliezer in Baba Batra 123a), while Rachel only had Shaul and Mordechai to boast about. The Pesikta adds Yosef to Rachel’s list, but notes that like Shaul, Yosef had no dynasty as he was just a one-time king and left no heir to his throne. 

Our goal through Torah study is to consider different possibilities, different interpretations, learn from each one as to how to relate to people and how not to relate to people. 

Ultimately, Leah and Rachel are each vindicated in one form or another. Leah is the mother of most of the tribes and is buried next to Yaakov. Rachel is the mother of Yosef, who saved the family through bringing them to Egypt, and is the mother we always imagine petitioning the Almighty on our behalf through millennia of exile. 

Both beautiful. Both extraordinarily beloved. As it should be.