Interpreting Yosef's Hands Over Yaakov's Eyes

Parshat Vayigash

by Rabbi Avi Billet

One of the more chilling promises we hear given to our forefather Yaakov happens when he is on his way to Egypt, with very mixed emotions over the coming reunion with his beloved Yosef. In the brief stopover in BeerShava, God tells him “I will bring you down to Egypt, and I will also bring you up from Egypt. And Yosef will place his hands over your eyes.” (46:4) 

While neither of these images directly tell Yaakov he will be dying in Egypt, nor do they indicate the immediacy of either prospect (Yaakov’s travels and Yosef’s role with the hand and Yaakov’s eyes), the implication remains rather obvious. YOU will go down. I will have to bring you up… because you will have died. Yosef will put his hand over your eyes – a fitting tribute from the second in command in the land – your final passage in this world will be complete. 

 Perhaps this is why Yaakov has mixed emotions. He has seen his own decline in the wake of Yosef’s disappearance 22 years earlier, and he knows that in a way he is at death’s door. But the news of Yosef being alive has, in a way, given him something to continue to live for. 

And as it turns out, as we learn from the opening of next parsha, he will end up living in Egypt for 17 years. One wonders about those promises. They seemed to be coming true in the relatively near future – and while they are fulfilled in due course, one wonders if we have understood them completely. 

As far as Yaakov going down and God bringing him up, certainly we can point to Yaakov’s burial taking place before the family is trapped in Egypt. 

The idea that Yaakov receives a proper burial at the hands of his sons is nothing short of miraculous. 

Another possibility is that Yaakov feared that his family would remain stuck in Egypt forever, and thus the Exodus was a different kind of fulfillment of this promise: God will bring you (your family at whatever stage it finds itself) up from Egypt. 

 There happen to be many interpretations of the “hands on the eyes” image – let us explore the brilliant suggestion of Rabbi Baruch HaLevi Epstein in his “Tosefes Bracha.” Noting that the word yad (hand) is often a metaphor for strength (note Bereshit 31:29, Devarim 5:17), he posits that Yosef’s hand in this promise would be the employment of Yosef’s power. As far as Yaakov’s eyes go, he brings examples of where einaim (eyes) reference “vision.” (see Tehillim 119:18, or when we say in davening והאר עינינו בתורתך). 

The Talmud (Brachos 58a) tells a story of Rav Sheshes who set his eyes against a Sadducee who died. The Gemara wonders how Rav Sheshes could do that, since he was blind! What is understood is that “his eyes” doesn’t refer to his actual sight, but his intention and his feelings – perhaps even his prayers (that story requires its own analysis, not for this space). 

The Talmud tells us in Shabbos (33b) that when Yaakov would come to a new place, he would institute new systems for the benefit of the inhabitants of the region. His arrival in Shechem is particularly noted as accompanying new currency, markets, bathhouses. Certainly, Rabbi Epstein argues, he intended to do the same when he would arrive in Egypt! However, the reality of the time, in the middle of a famine, dictated what kinds of needs could be properly followed through with, and which were as yet inappropriate under the circumstances. Not to mention that his economic position would pale in comparison to that of his son, at whose table he would now be a dependent. 

 And so, comes God’s promise to him. You want to make a change? You want to have the impact you normally have on a new place? You won’t really be in a position to do that? “Yosef will put his power behind your vision.” 

 This interpretation removes all of the uncertainty of what Yaakov is feeling concerning his demise because it doesn’t even hint at Yaakov’s death. It indicates that Yaakov will be there for some time – for all that Yosef knew, based on Paroh’s dreams, there were to be 5 more years of famine. So at the very least, Yaakov would be reliant on Yosef for those 5 years, and what then? Is he supposed to sit on his hands waiting for an infrastructure to be set up? No! Yosef will put his power behind your vision. It will get done, God tells him. And then what? 

Maybe Yaakov will have the opportunity to return to the Land in his lifetime, maybe he will only return their for burial, but one way or another, God will see to it that he doesn’t remain in Egypt, “I will bring you up.” 

It is a glorious kind of partnership when people bring different strengths to the table, and collaborate and work together to make magic happen. 

 Over the course of the last few parshas of Bereshis, there seems to be a clear shift from the story being about Yaakov to really being about Yaakov’s sons. 

 Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman points out that until the death of each patriarch is actually recorded, all of the narrative is included in the “Toldot” of the still-living Patriarch, even if he doesn’t seem to be the central character. That’s why Vayetze and Vayishlach – while heavily focused on Yaakov – are actually part of Yitzchak’s story, because Yitzchak’s death is recorded at the end of Vayishlach. Yaakov’s “Toldot” are first introduced to us in Vayeshev, when the story shifts to Yosef, but as Yaakov’s death is only recorded in Vayechi, he is still the central figure, even if his sons get much attention in the Torah’s text. 

This reorienting our focus back to Yaakov reminds us that even at an advanced age, Yaakov allowed himself a vision. Maybe he was no longer in the position to bring it to actuality due to various circumstances, but God’s promise to him was that Yosef would see to it that his vision for the future of his children in a strange land would be fulfilled as much as humanly possible. 

May we all be so lucky to see our visions fulfilled, and when necessary, with the help of others skilled in making things happen in a way that may sometimes be beyond our own limitations.

Identifying the Source That a Minyan is Ten Men

 Parshat Miketz 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

We begin with several verses that will be referenced over and over below (with the assigned letter in parentheses), and translated when presented for the first time in the analysis.

 ויקרא פרק כב פסוק לב - וְלֹ֤א תְחַלְּלוּ֙ אֶת־שֵׁ֣ם קָדְשִׁ֔י וְנִ֨קְדַּשְׁתִּ֔י בְּת֖וֹךְ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל אֲנִ֥י יְקֹוָ֖ק מְקַדִּשְׁכֶֽםA

 במדבר טז פסוק כא - הִבָּ֣דְל֔וּ מִתּ֖וֹךְ הָעֵדָ֣ה הַזֹּ֑את וַאֲכַלֶּ֥ה אֹתָ֖ם כְּרָֽגַעB

 במדבר יד פסוק כז - עַד־מָתַ֗י לָעֵדָ֤ה הָֽרָעָה֙ הַזֹּ֔את אֲשֶׁ֛ר הֵ֥מָּה מַלִּינִ֖ים עָלָ֑י אֶת־תְּלֻנּ֞וֹת בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר הֵ֧מָּה מַלִּינִ֛ים עָלַ֖י שָׁמָֽעְתִּי C

בראשית מב פסוק ה - וַיָּבֹ֙אוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לִשְׁבֹּ֖ר בְּת֣וֹךְ הַבָּאִ֑ים כִּֽי־הָיָ֥ה הָרָעָ֖ב בְּאֶ֥רֶץ כְּנָֽעַןD

Several years ago, quite by accident, I came across a comment of Rabbenu Bachaye on Parshas Emor which challenged an assumption I had based on something I had been taught, but hadn’t put much thought to and hadn’t looked into properly. The verse (Vayikra 22:32 - A) tells us “They shall not desecrate My Holy Name, and I shall be sanctified (ונקדשתי) among (בתוך) the children of Israel (בני ישראל), for I am God Who sanctifies you.” This concept of God being sanctified hints to the concept of what we call a דבר שבקדושה, namely something which requires the presence of a Minyan, which in halakha is defined as 10 males over the age of Bar Mitzvah.

Having always been taught that we learn this concept from the story of the spies (which we will get back to momentarily), Rabbenu Bachaye’s comment was enlightening. “The rabbis proved from this verse that any דבר שבקדושה requires 10 (over Bar-Mitzvah males), as the Talmud (Brachos 21b) teaches, based on this verse. And it says over there (in Bamidbar 16:21 - B) ‘Separate from (מתוך) this congregation (עדה).’ Just as there (the verse in Bamidbar 16) refers to 10, so is it 10 over here (in Vayikra 22).” 

Rabbenu Bachaye continues quoting R’ Yaakov who said this language and comparison is imprecise because we should not be learning of the concept of a minyan from the spies! But the comparison is made from the word תוך (technically it is מתוך in Bamidbar 16) to the word תוך (technically בתוך in Vayikra 22). A better comparison through תוך to תוך would be through comparing the Vayikra 22 verse to the verse in Bereshit 42:5 (D) “to get food among (בתוך) those who were coming” (referring to Yosef’s 10 brothers coming to Egypt to get food). Just as they were 10 men, so is the verse (in Vayikra 22) referring to 10 men. And now we are bringing a proof to the idea of a minyan from Yosef’s 10 righteous brothers.

One need not mull too much over this to consider that learning that “a minyan = 10” from Yosef’s brothers is a much better idea than learning the same concept from the spies.

But there is a more troubling problem, because the verse from Bamidbar 16:21 doesn’t reference the spies! It references those who challenged Moshe in the Korach rebellion, to which Moshe responds saying “Should one man sin, and you get upset at an entire עדה?!” Korach’s group were 250! Not 10! And even in the spies story, every time the word עדה is used it references the entire nation (except possibly Bamidbar 14:27(C) “How much longer will this evil congregation who are [causing?] complaining against Me (exist)?” – but that may also be referring to the entire nation). 

The Talmud in Sanhedrin (2a) suggests that the word עדה in that verse (14:27 – (C)) does refer to the 10 spies because Kalev and Yehoshua are not counted. However, upon scrutiny, and considering that the word עדה in the rest of that narrative references the entire nation, it is a hard sell. (ומנין לעדה שהיא עשרה - שנאמר עד מתי לעדה הרעה הזאת, יצאו יהושע וכלב). In either case the word תוך doesn’t make an appearance in the story of the spies, removing that favorable comparison.

The Kesef Mishnah (commentary on Rambam written by Rabbi Yosef Caro) – Laws of Nesias Kapayim 8:5 - references both comparisons of תוך תוך and עדה עדה, but the same problems are not dealt with in that the תוך connection in Bamidbar references Korach and co. and the עדה reference doesn’t conclusively refer specifically to the 10 spies.

In the Midrash compilation of Yalkut Shimoni on Parshas Miketz (148) (living at the same time as Rabbenu Bachaye in 13th Century), the following is recorded. “How do we know that an individual doesn’t say ‘Kadosh’ [i.e. because a Minyan is required to say Kedusha]? Because the verse says ‘And I shall be sanctified among the Bnei Yisrael’ (Vayikra - A) and it says ‘Separate from this Edah’ (Bamidbar – B) – just as this (B) is 10, so is it 10 [in (A)]. Rabbi Yosi Bar Bon argued ‘If you’re learning it from there, we will protest! Rather it says ‘Bnei Yisrael’ (in (A)) and it says (in (D)) ‘And the Bnei Yisrael [referencing Yaakov’s 10 sons] came to get food.’ Just as they (Yaakov’s sons) were 10, so is it 10 in the Vayikra verse (A).”

Yalkut Shimoni continues referencing the aforementioned תוך תוך and עדה עדה comparisons, while concluding that the בני ישראל בני ישראל comparison (of Yaakov’s 10 sons (D) to the verse in Vayikra (A)) is the most compelling.

The Mishnah in Brachos (7:3) makes reference to the concept of a Minyan being 10 people, in the context of introducing God’s name at a Zimun (נברך א-לקינו שאכלנו משלו), and the Yerushalmi on that Mishnah references all the points we saw recorded by Yalkut Shimoni, seeming to conclude that the strongest argument is from בני ישראל (the 10 sons of Yaakov in (D)) to בני ישראל (in (A) the Vayikra verse) as the source that a minyan should be 10. [The Talmud (Megillah 23b) records both the תוך תוך argument and the עדה עדה argument, without mentioning Yosef’s brothers at all!] 

In a Responsa on the question of a synagogue that can’t typically get 10 men, but often gets 9, asking whether a boy under bar Mitzvah can join to help make a Minyan, Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef (Yabia Omer O”C 4:9) gave an extremely thorough analysis of our topic. Among other sources, he quotes Rabbenu Bachaye’s comment we saw above, and emphasizes that the brothers of Yosef verse (D) includes the word תוך allowing a תוך תוך comparison to be made, and he also notes the tradition that we learn of the concept of a minyan from the מרגלים. 

Ironically, as much as we refer to the spies as מרגלים, the fact is that the only group of people in the Torah who are referred to as מרגלים are Yosef’s brothers, when they are “accused” of being spies by Yosef himself! (Every word מרגלים in them Torah appears only in Bereshit chapter 42) The Spies of Bamibdar 13-14 are always called אנשים – “Men” - not spies!

Is it the case that something got lost in translation over time, that the concept of a Minyan is indeed learned from the מרגלים, just not Moshe’s spies, but the ones Yosef is accusing of spying – his brothers? It is certainly a possibility.

There are ways we can look at everything – through rose colored glasses, or just through a lens that seeks out the positive. In terms of this basic question –where does a minyan come from? – there is certainly what to be said about learning it from negative stories, whether Korach or the Spies, as how even “they” constituted a body of significance.

On the other hand, if we view the tribes themselves, the sons of Yaakov, as righteous people, and especially as part of their motivation in coming to Egypt was to find out Yosef’s fate and perhaps bring him home, then learning of their Teshuvah, and their efforts to be reunited with a brother as the source for the number of men required to experience a דבר שבקדושה is certainly worth considering as a parallel answer, if not a greater answer than the one with which we may have been more familiar. 

May we seek out positivity, and may the positivity we seek and find have an influence on our own outlook in life. Positivity is infectious: it helps raise our spirits and it helps us be more content with the challenges life brings our way.

A Tale of Two Women

Much to my chagrine, I only began to appreciate Rabbi Jonathan Sacks Z"L after his passing. Thank God he left a treasure trove for us to benefit from, even in his absence. Subsequent to writing this and thinking I had come up with a clever title, I came across his essay and video shiur on this subject, with the same title.

Parshat Vayeshev

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

Chapters 38 and 39 present to us two women who are a little forward in their approaches to Yehuda and Yosef, respectively. 

 After being married to Yehuda’s sons, Er and then Onan, respectively, Tamar, upon realizing that Yehuda's third son, Shelah, will not be her husband, takes matters into her own hands to have a child (which turn out to be twins) with Yehuda himself, through an act which can be called deceptive, while seemingly appealing to Yehuda’s loneliness (he had been widowed), which can easily be pinpointed as one element of Yehuda’s weakness in falling “prey” to her “trap.” 

At the same time, when the hour comes for her to reveal the secret of her dalliance or have herself suffer the consequences of her actions, she chooses the latter, prompting the Talmud to learn from her the preference to submit to a fiery furnace rather than embarrass someone publicly, thereby cementing her place in the annals of our history as the mother of the Kingdom of Yehuda.  

The other woman, whose name is not revealed to us, though she is quite identifiably the wife of Yosef’s master Potiphar, quite unabashedly throws herself at Yosef time and again only to suffer rejection due to his unwillingness to sin with his master’s wife. When the opportunity comes for her to have the coveted dalliance, Yosef not only does not succumb, but he escapes from her clutches, leaving his garment in her hand, making his exit – an exit which is recorded in the text 4 times! 

While she, too, is the protagonist of the tale, albeit unsuccessful in her efforts, unlike Tamar, she lies about the circumstances, covering up her own crime, while casting full blame on Yosef, and causing him to languish in prison for likely more than a decade for a crime he did not commit, and for which she was completely guilty.

What a contrast!

Ibn Ezra notes the proximity of these two tales, suggesting that they are placed in the Torah in this way by design to compare Yehuda to Yosef (the first verse in each chapter references a “fall” of Yehuda and of Yosef). 

The Gemara in Sotah (10b) compares Yehuda and Yosef, noting that Yosef sanctified God’s name in private, and thus had a ה added to his name (יהוסף – see Tehillim 81), while Yehuda sanctified God’s name in public through admitting his own “guilt” with Tamar and preventing her punishment, he is known by his name that contains God’s name (you see it when the ד is removed from יהודה) and he merited to have 3 other descendants saved from a fire on account of saving the lives of Tamar and her twins (Chananya, Misha’el and Azarya). 

And while the comparison made between Yehuda and Yosef is meant to highlight certain things about each of them, it is the comparison of the women, Tamar and Mrs. Potiphar, which I find far more compelling. Rashi (see also Radak and others) suggests Tamar did what she did because she desired to produce a child for this family – whether it be from Shelah, or Yehuda, she did not care. 

 Noting that the family, at this juncture, were Noahides, Bchor Shor writes that prior to the giving of the Torah, any relative could have performed yibum (levirate marriage), even the father of the deceased. (Therefore, Tamar’s choosing shearing time (which is what Yehuda had gone to do) based on the Biblical precedent of it being a time of joy (see Avshalom, Naval) when one is a little more loose on account of one’s yetzer, was a. deliberate, and b. wise. In the end, she got what she wanted, and in a justified manner. [There is a debate – both sides are recorded by Rashi – as to what the Yehuda/Tamar relationship looked like after this incident, one approach suggesting they were never together again, and the other indicating that they remained husband and wife thereafter.] Rabbi Chaim Paltiel has a most generous reading of this text, indicating that Tamar only had intent for yibum and that this story is a lot more kosher than most simple readings suggest. (see the comments - in Hebrew)

Regarding the second tale, the Midrash is replete with analysis suggesting that certain aspects of Yosef’s character brought a test upon himself, and that her advances were actually a punishment to Yosef for being vain or for being too proud of himself. 

 Radak shares a powerful message from the temptation that after Yosef’s rise in position, “it was all for Yosef’s good, and to benefit his father and brothers. Even though it was very difficult at the beginning, all worked out. Even the sin of the wine-pourer and the dream of Pharaoh all came from God to put Yosef in a position of greatness/power. This story is recorded to see how the setup came about. Thus if something happens to someone, he should put his trust in God. This tale also comes to show us Yosef’s righteousness, and that a person should learn from Yosef how to overpower his inclination and to keep the faith. To the one who trusts will be the One Who is there, and He will not deal falsely.” 

 There is an approach suggested in the Midrash that Potiphar’s wife saw through astrology that greatness was to come from a union between her and Yosef, but she misunderstood, not realizing that the union in question would be between Yosef and Osnat bat Potiphera (this approach assumes that Potiphar and Potiphera are the same person – a debatable point – and that she was Osnat’s mother, another point which is highly contested in conflicting Midrashim).

No matter whether Potiphar’s wife was a messenger of God, sent to test Yosef, or whether she was indeed smitten by his good looks and his powerful position (one approach to understanding his line “There is no one greater than me in this household” includes even his master’s wife!) and wanted to be with him, or was disgusted by her husband and his personal preferences (see Alshikh 39:8), the text puts her as the one doing the advancing. And her intentions, no matter how we look at them, do not hold a candle to Tamar’s intentions with Yehuda. 

 Perhaps we can even note the strange irony of Sarah being taken to Pharaoh’s palace on account of her looks, and Yosef being put in this position on account of his looks. As much as Egypt may have rules against consorting with Semites, people in positions of authority don’t seem to care about the “rules for thee and not for me.” 

By contrasting these two tales, the Torah is showing us, through its clear preference for Tamar, that there are different ways people may go about seeking human companionship and even intimacy. While neither of these stories is “pretty” in the romantic sense, or even in the sense that we would think proper (I would never recommend for any woman to do what either Tamar or Potiphar’s wife did, justifying such behavior due to the Torah presenting it to us), the study in contrast plays out like this. 

Potiphar’s wife lives on in infamy. She may have played a side role in getting Yosef to prison, per how the Radak put it, which set up the good and the bad of the Israelites eventual descent to Egypt, but everything about her demonstrates the most undesirable character a person can present. Egotistical, thinking only of herself, caring not for the consequences of her actions, especially insofar as how they will reflect on another’s person’s life, casting blame where it doesn’t belong, denying the truth, lying, sending an innocent man to prison, using a different person’s race as a suggestion that “all people of that race are like that…” In short, she is a horrible human being. 

 Tamar’s modesty under the circumstances, Yehuda’s being the best candidate for Yibum, Yehuda not following through with the promise of Shelah as the next husband to Tamar, and Tamar’s desire to “establish the name of the dead” all point to her being a heroine of the narrative, and a heroine in the story of the Jewish people, the ancestress of King David.

במרמה – With Trickery? Or Wisdom?

Parshat Vayishlach 

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

 The word במרמה appears in two contexts in the Torah – Yitzchak’s assessment of Yaakov’s charade to take the Brachos, and the way in which the brothers speak to Shechem and Hamor, their sister’s rapist and his father.

While it is not disputed that the word would typically be translated “with trickery” many of the commentaries note that the implication of the word is בחכמה, that both Yaakov visavis the blessings and Yaakov's sons visavis Shechem and Hamor were “wise” in their course of action. 

 While the analysis regarding Yaakov’s efforts to receive the blessings is more appropriate for Parshas Toldos (and it is worthy to note that Ibn Ezra claims the מרמה is “that Yaakov did not speak truth”), Haktav V’Hakabbalah has a lengthy analysis in which he suggests that מרמה in that context comes from the root רם which means to elevate and exalt, indicating that Yaakov did what he was supposed to with regard to the blessings. He even takes Ibn Ezra to task for besmirching both Yitzchak and Yaakov in his interpretation of that word in the negative. Especially since Yaakov and Eisav did agree on a deal that granted Yaakov firstborn status. 

While it is interesting that Baal HaTurim connects these two instances suggesting that Yaakov was punished measure for measure with his sons speaking במרמה in his presence (in Shechem) on account of what he did to his father (at the blessings), the reality is that the Torah doesn’t describe Yaakov’s behavior in that way: Yitzchak does. And what Yitzchak’s intention was in saying Yaakov acted במרמה is subject to debate, leaving open the possibility that Yaakov’s sons were in the right in the way they dealt with Shechem and Hamor if they spoke במרמה and that word can be understood as "rightly." (Pesikta also makes the connection but doesn’t view it as measure for measure) 

To summarize what happened, Shechem kidnapped and raped Dinah, then spoke softly to her, as if to fix in her mind that what had taken place wasn’t wrong, but was an act of mutual love and affection. Keeping her trapped in his home, he came with his father to Yaakov in order to legally and properly get permission to keep Dinah as his muse (or wife?). Yaakov is shattered by the revelation of what has happened, and he leaves his sons to deal with the rapist/lover and his enabling father, at which point they engage in this מרמה, suggesting that the entire male population of the city of Shechem be circumcised for there to be a chance of the two populations mixing in marital unions. 

 There are 3 most significant points of view as to what this could mean.

1. The מרמה was in asking for ALL the males to circumcise, as they assumed the general population would not agree, rendering any agreement null. (Chizkuni, Ramban) Alternatively, the מרמה was in suggesting that circumcision alone would make the two peoples united into one people (Hadar Zekenim). 

2. The מרמה was really חכמה (Rashi). The wisdom was in not buying the story that Shechem was portraying. Shechem was presenting himself as wanting Dinah for honorable reasons, but was not telling the full story that he had already raped her and locked her up. His story was that Dinah was in his home because she didn’t want to leave! (B’chor Shor) Malbim suggests the מרמה was in their focusing on circumcision, so he wouldn’t think that they harbored a grudge over the kidnapping and rape. In focusing their ire to him over his not being circumcised, he let his guard down over the real issue, which is how he had treated Dinah. Malbim even suggests that the implication of their focus on circumcision is that had Shechem been circumcised in the first place, OF COURSE they’d let him keep Dinah because everything would have been fine. 

3. Finally, מרמה was the accusation levied by the brothers against Shechem and Hamor. When the brothers called out the story as במרמה (essentially, “You are lying!”) Shechem and Hamor admitted to what had truly taken place (Yosef David Sinzheim – the head of Napoleon’s “Sanhedrin”). Haktav V’Hakabbalah says the brothers actually said “במרמה!” as their accusation against Shechem’s story. 

Haktav V’Hakaballah continues noting the psychological state of the brothers, suggesting that when they uttered the word במרמה they unloaded all the tension they were feeling through that one word, and didn’t say the rest of what they were thinking, because their emotions implied everything they wished to say.

Ramban has a lengthy comment in which he disagrees with Rambam over the justification Yaakov’s sons had for killing the inhabitants of Shechem. It is a dispute over their not having set up a proper justice system, or the whole city simply being complicit in kidnapping and rape. Suffice it to say, while Yaakov was upset with Shimon and Levi for having killed the males of the city, most commentaries are of the view that Shimon and Levi were in the right. One need look no further than Hamor’s claims that “when we circumcise we will own of their belongings!” to see that he wasn’t on the up-and-up. 

We refer to Yaakov as the man of Truth* – תתן אמת ליעקב – and yet Yaakov (and in this case his sons) seems to be involved in deceit more often than we like to imagine. How could this be so? 

Many Midrashim (Rashi quotes them) on 29:12 have Yaakov telling Rachel that if her father will cheat him, he will cheat Lavan right back. 

In other words, there isn’t deception when dealing with a deceiver. The rules of warfare don’t apply when the enemy isn’t following the rules of warfare. 

It is not our way to recommend dishonesty as the Torah enjoins us to distance ourselves from falsehoods. However, there is very little benefit to being taken advantage of by someone who does not play fairly. 

What we learn from Yaakov and sons is that when the other side is deceitful, playing the same game is justified. In modern Israeli slang, there are few things worse than being labled a “Freier.” Apparently Yaakov and sons felt the same way, and by and large the commentaries support such an approach when dealing with dishonest characters.

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

* An interpretation is that Yaakov's "truth" is an esoteric concept, bearing little connection to the concept of deception that plays out, which is necessary as noted here when dealing with unsavory characters

Bilhah and Zilpah: Wives of Yaakov (, Mothers of Bnei Yisrael?)

Parshat Vayetze

by Rabbi Avi Billet

In the last encounter we see between Yaakov and Lavan, Lavan says, “If you’re going to mistreat my daughters, or take new wives in addition to my daughters…” concluding the statement with a veiled threat. 

 Rashi (31:9) asks, why two times “My daughters”? He answers “Because Bilhah and Ziplah were his daughters from a concubine.” Seemingly, beyond referencing Rachel and Leah in the plural, he was including two more daughters. 

The Midrash Sechel Tov says that when Yaakov asked for permission to leave in 30:26, asking for his “wives, children, that I worked for,” that he is specifying: my wives = Bilhah and Zilpah, my children = ALL of the children, that I worked for = Rachel and Leah. 

All this supposes that Bilhah and Zilpah were full wives in the eyes of all beholders. 

Regarding their parentage, there is a different opinion (recorded in Bereshit Rabati 119) that Bilhah and Zilpah were the daughters of the brother of Devorah, Rivkah’s nurse, whose name was “Achoti.” Before he got married he was imprisoned, and Lavan had redeemed him and given to Achoti his [Lavan’s] maid as a wife. Achoti had a daughter name Zilpah, named after the city where he’d been held captive, and another daughter named Bilhah – who as a baby had a tough time latching and learning to be nursed. “What kind of Behulah – trouble – you have?" When Yaakov arrived, Achoti died. Lavan took the girls as maids, and gave them to Leah and Rachel respectively. 

This view doesn’t take away from their wives-status. 

The Torah sometimes refers to Bilhah and Zilpah as wives, as maids, and in one case as a concubine. It should be noted that both the Midrash Rabati and the Yalkut Shimoni claim that daughters of concubines were called Shifchah, which is the word we typically translate as “maid,” which suggests that their being Shifchah says nothing of their status as wives. It’s part of their identity, but not something that defines their “wife status.” 

 In the Torah, they are depicted as 

Wives: See Bereshit 30:26 (quoted above), 31:17 when he is moving with his children and wives, 37:2 when we hear of how Yosef spends time with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. 

Maids: See Bereshit 32:23 when Yaakov takes his “two wives and two maids” along with his children to cross the Yabok river. 

Concubine: See 35:22 when an controversial-to-understand incident with Bilhah and Reuven is recorded. Of course in that context the term “concubine” might refer to how Reuven views here, and may have no bearing on how Yaakov views her. In fact, the Pesikta Zutrasa, on 30:9 notes that when Leah decided to give Zilpah to Yaakov as a wife (as the Torah depicts it) it means “לאשה ולא לפילגש, אלא שחררה אותה ודרך אישות לקחה” As a wife and not as a concubine. She freed her and he took her in a manner of regular marriage.

What would really put the icing on the cake of this is the answer to the following question. If Bilhah and Zilpah are the mothers of 4 of the tribes of Israel, why do we only refer to there being 4 mothers, namely Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel and Leah? Shouldn’t there be 6 mothers? 

There are a few sources that reference 6 mothers, such as Targum Yonatan (Shmos 14:21) in describing some of the images engraved on the staff of Moshe which he used to split the sea. 

There appear a number of lists of six items in whose merit a number 6 was utilized somewhere, such as the number of calves brought in Parshat Naso, and the number of steps in the throne room of Achashveirosh, and in both lists, the credit is given to 6 mothers (among other sixes). [See Bamidbar Rabba 12 (ד"ה ויביאו את קרבנם), Yalkut Shimoni Naso 713, Shir Hashirim Rabba 6:2 ד"ה יפה, and Esther Rabba 12 (ד"ה על כסא)] 

There is a possibility that they aren’t usually referenced as the “Imahot” because all of the Imahot are described in the Torah as “akarot” – infertile without God’s intervention, and Bilhah and Zilpah seemed to have no reproductive barriers. 

Perhaps being one of the Mothers of the Jewish people is a special title earned only through the suffering and pain of being an akarah, of knowing what it feels like to not bear children. Sarah was married at least 25 years before Yitzchak was born. Rivkah was married 20 years before her twins were born. Leah’s and Rachel’s wombs only opened when God wanted them to (29:31, 30:22) The Talmud tells us (Yevamos 64a) that the forefathers and foremothers were barren because God desires the prayers of the righteous. 

 Rachel is the symbol in Yirmiyahu 31:14 of the ultimate and most passionate prayer for her children on their way to exile, because she understands more than anyone how difficult it can be to have a child, and how a mother will give her life for the chance to give birth. Sarah may have been barren 25 years, Rivkah 20 years, and Rachel only six years. But imagine how she feels when three wives, married to the same man, are all giving birth, and she remains alone with no children! Sarah and Rivkah surely felt pain – but Rachel most of all. The only reason Leah did not seem to experience infertility is because she suffered a different pain, the pain of being the “hated” and certainly “unloved” wife, prompting God to more quickly “open her womb.” (29:31) 

Bilhah and Zilpah don’t make the cut because their marriage to Yaakov was functionary, and their function was fulfilled right away through the immediate births of their sons, borne seemingly without struggle and without prayer.

When Identical Twins Are Different - A Study in Contrasts

Parshat Toldot

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Rabbi Shimshon’s Raphael Hirsch’s commentary on the Torah’s introduction to Eisav and Yaakov is singularly refreshing. 

From the words והנה תומם, Rav Hirsch derives several indications. First, the word הנה (behold) often introduces something unexpected. For Rivkah, who knew there were two boys in her, the appearance of twins was not a surprise. In fact, due to their seeming differences in nature, and thus their rumblings within her, they were presumed to be quite different. The surprise, therefore, was that they were identical! The difference was “in their constitution, one was more physically developed, stronger and healthier than the other.” Second, a source, from the double חסר, the fact that the word תאומים (twins) is missing two letters as it is spelled תומם, hints to their being identical. 

I wonder, once we’re noting the spelling of תומם, whether it could also hint to the idea that they both had the potential to be תמים – a word we’ll define momentarily, as it ends up being a depiction of Yaakov alone.

Continuing with Hirsch, “The external resemblance, had they compared it with the revelation about the divergent future paths, should have drawn the attention of the boys’ educators. It was their duty to recognize that the root of the future dissimilarity lay deep below the surface, hidden in the depths of personality.” 

Hirsch defines אדמוני as being “ruddy,” a sign of radiant health. He argues that hair on a newborn is a sign of surplus energy and life force, and that in Eisav’s case there was such a surplus of this energy that “the whole body was covered with soft hair.” His name, עשו, comes from the word עשה, which means “fully made and fully developed” as he brought “life and protective strength in full measure” along with him into the world. 

In calling the second son יעקב, Yitzchak was the only one who noticed the contrast at birth. Eisav was distinct on account of his personality. Yaakov was distinct on account of his actions. By holding onto Eisav’s heel, he indicated he will follow on the heels of his brother and aim to overtake him. 

The Midrash notes the mistakes in their upbringing, emphasizing the need for education and the raising of children to follow the principle of חנוך לנער על פי דרכו, to educate each child according to his particular proclivities. (Mishlei 22:6) Essentially, while they were little, no one bothered paying attention to the differences between them that were apparent at birth – and they were raised the same way.

In comparison, and to his credit, when Yaakov blessed his children near the end of his own life, he didn’t just see in them the teachers of Torah and the Kohanim. He saw the tribe of merchants and of kings and of warriors and of farmers. He saw the whole nation, with the manifold characters and diverse ways of development, as he blessed ALL of them, each according to his qualities (49:28). 

 For Yaakov’s personality, his way of learning comes from books and pursuit of knowledge. Eisav can’t wait to get out of the classroom so he could move on with his life in the manner he will design for himself. 

 Hirsch laments that had Yitzchak and Rivkah only seen this, Eisav had the potential to be much more than a גיבור ציד, a mighty hunter, but a גיבור לפני ה', a warrior before God. “The sword of Eisav could have entered into a covenant with the spirit of Yaakov, and who knows what turn world history would have taken!” 

But it did not happen. The young men grew up, and only then was it noticed how different they were. Like many other commentaries, Hirsch notes that the depictions of them contain their vocations and a character trait. For Eisav who is יודע ציד איש שדה, the knowledge of trapping is his character while being a man of the field (a farmer?) is his work. Yaakov is an איש תם יושב אהלים, and being a תם (simple or complete person) is his character, while dwelling in tents references his profession (a shepherd? as compared to Bereshis 4:20). [Hirsch doesn’t refer to either as a farmer or shepherd, but leaves it simply as “man of field” and “dweller of tent” per the language of the verse – other commentaries go the route of farmer and shepherd, which begs a strong comparison to Kayin and Hevel!] 

The ציד (tzayad) appears to be innocent, but in his heart he harbors the intent to kill. His art is the exercise of trickery… in a different sphere this is called diplomacy. As an expert hunter, Eisav “knew the art of self-control: set a trap and then wait patiently for the opportune moment. His upbringing… forced him to develop patience, the ability to wait for the opportune moment.” Being forced into one way of study caused him to reject everything and become completely and only a “man of the field.” 

As an איש תם, Yaakov “knows only one direction and devotes himself entirely to it, a man single-minded in his whole essence. He was single-minded in seeking to fulfill the mission entrusted to him as Yitzchak’s son and Avraham’s grandson, and therefore became a dweller of tents, a person whose sphere of activity is in human society, in whose midst he leads a life of study and practice.” 

The ways in which the Torah depicts the parents’ love for their children is also indicative of a problem – Yitzchak “loves Eisav because he was a hunter with his mouth” and Rivkah “loved Yaakov.” There should never be a “because” attached to a parent’s love for a child. And there should not be a seeming preference between which parent loves one child seemingly more or seemingly less or seemingly differently. 

Knowing we are Monday morning quarterbacks on the raising of Yaakov and Eisav, Rav Hirsch is most grateful to the Torah for its honesty regarding the natures of Yaakov and Eisav and how their personalities were ignored in their upbringing, in their being given the same upbringing despite their natural differences, and in how that came to create opposites and enemies rather than two different cogs on the same wheel. We often think of a Yissachar/Zevulun relationship as being one of a scholar partnering with a merchant to achieve a particular goal in the service of God, where each focuses on his strength and lovingly, willingly, and at great sacrifice contributes to the partnership. 

Knowing that people are different and that each person has strengths and weaknesses helps remind us that while goals and values are meant to unite us, there are different approaches to how to achieve those which can be reached through methods that utilize those different strengths that people bring to the table. 

Could Eisav have been a תם? Does such a humble trait fit in with his surplus energy and his boisterous personality? Can we see such a possibility from his being depicted as one of two תומם? Could his strengths have been channeled through a pipeline more dedicated to the service of God so he could emerge as a hero of our people instead of a villain most noted for his descendants negative role against our people? It is hard to know or say for sure. 

This is the tapestry of humanity, that people with different natures and energies can be part of a greater whole. When the strengths in questions are utilized properly, we can only elevate the service of God, as well as feelings of brotherhood we can have for one another.

Avraham's Concubines and Their Children

Parshat Chayei Sarah

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The beginning of Chapter 25, which follows the marriage of Yitzchak and Rivkah, informs us that Avraham took a wife named Keturah. There is a debate as to whether Keturah is a new woman never before introduced to us or whether she is Hagar in a new name. 

The verse tells us she had 6 children, and the implication is that Avraham is the father of these children. It is certainly worthy of further discussion as to why a big deal is not made of this when Avraham made a big deal of his being 100 at the time of Yitzchak’s birth. 

Seforno is of the opinion, based on Divrai HaYamim I 1:28 that Avraham only had two sons, Yishmael and Yitzchak, that the 6 children of Keturah (ibid 1:32) were hers from a previous union. Seforno describes Avraham as “raising her children” as he compares the situation to Michal bat Shaul being credited with giving birth to 5 children to Adriel (her sister’s husband) (Shmuel II 21:8), while a different verse tells us Michal never had children (Shmuel II 6:23)! Therefore the assumption is that Michal raised her sister’s kids, even though the text says she “birthed” them. The same applies here with Avraham and Keturah’s children. 

In verse 6 we are told that “And to the sons of the concubines that Avraham had he gave presents, and he sent them from upon Yitzchak to the east.” Most commentaries indicates that the “concubines Avraham had” were Hagar and Keturah. Of course, for those who believe that Hagar and Keturah were the same person, it would be odd that the text would refer to Avraham’s concubines in the plural! 

Radak (Rabbi David Kimchi) notes that the concubines in question were not “his” personal concubines, but were rather part of his serval staff – the concubines that were in his household. Any children they may have had were not biological to him, but they were ילידי ביתו, born in his household, and therefore subject to circumcision and to follow in the ways in which he guides his household. 

 It was to those servants that he gave gifts of silver, gold, animals, etc., and - as Radak notes - he certainly gave similarly to Yishmael and Bnei Keturah, even though they are not mentioned, because they were his sons. (Obviously Radak does not agree with Seforno and assumes Keturah’s children were fathered by Avraham, but he clearly does not include Hagar/Keturah as the “concubines of Avraham.”) 

 They were all sent to the east so they would not be a burden or hindrance to Yitzchak’s claims to Avraham’s property or to the land itself. Radak even says that the “eastern lands” refer to Charan and Ur Kasdim, the places of Avraham’s origins, where the greater family would embrace the kin of Avraham and take them under their wings. 

 Interestingly, there is a tale which appears in the Midrash (Pesikta, Sechel Tov) concerning Ishmaelites who came to Alexander Macedon claiming that as the verse in the Torah indicates clearly that Yishmael was the older son of Avraham, and not only that but there is a verse in the Torah that one may not favor the younger son over the older son (Devarim 21:17) when there are two wives, and two first borns, but the younger of the first borns is the son of the more loved wife. The Ishmaelites argued to the potentate to resolve the issue and give them their due of a double portion! 

His response to them was essentially that a person can give away whatever he wants in his lifetime, and that “yerusha” is only an argument after death! 

Since the verse, from the same Torah!, indicates that Avraham gave away ALL of his possessions to Yitzchak (25:5), and gave the sons of the concubines gifts (25:6), the descendants of concubines can’t come along and claim that Avraham meant to give them something that he clearly did not give them! 

It doesn’t take much to take this to the next obvious conclusion. Those who want to twist the Torah or the Bible to fit their claims are certainly entitled to make that effort. But once they open that door, they can’t only take the verses that seem to work in their favor, especially when taken out of context, while ignoring the parts that don’t work in their favor. 

 For example, while it can be debated as to whether Yaakov stole blessings from Eisav in Parshat Toldot, it is clear that the blessing that may have been intended for Eisav was a blessing of prosperity that had nothing to do with the gifting of the land (27:28-29). The same blessing that Avraham receives from God of inheriting the land is the same blessing Yitzchak received, and is the same blessing Yitzchak subsequently gave over to Yaakov before sending Yaakov to find a wife from the daughters of Lavan (28:4). 

 Every year, this Shabbos includes a large gathering in Hebron, where hundreds or even thousands of Jews descend upon the ancient city to declare and affirm our ancestral connection to the space Avraham purchased at an exorbitant price.

Whether a deed spoken of in the Torah is binding thousands of years later is certainly debatable. But to deny, based on anything in the Torah, our historical connection to that space is unconscionable. 

May it be a wonderful Shabbos for those celebrating there, and may we see the day when all peoples appreciate the blessing given to Avraham, fulfilled though the reemergence of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, as we have been blessed to see over the last 140 years.

Yishmael's Actions and Yishmael's Future

Parshat Vayera 

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

After the birth of Yitzchak, we are told that Avraham made a big party ביום הגמל את יצחק. As far as Yitzchak’s age for this party, the various interpretations suggest he was either 8 days old (his Bris), 2 or 3 years old (being weaned, though see Chasam Sofer, who suggests the party for his bris took place when he was 2, even though he was circumcised at 8-days), or at the age of 13. (see here). 

 Each of these interpretations suggests a different age for Yishmael at the time of the tale which immediately follows, since Yishmael and Yitzchak were 14 years apart. Yishmael was either 14, 16-17, or 27 at the time when Avraham, under Sarah’s instruction, sent him and Hagar out of Avraham’s home. 

Which begs the question – what was Yishmael doing that elicited such a harsh response? 

 Here are a number of possibilities of what took place, as told over by the commentaries: He kissed Yitzchak (Midrash Aggadah), shot arrows at him (Rashi, quoting Midrash); Immorality (based on a comparison made by Rabbi Akiva to Potiphar’s wife); Idolatry (based on a comparison to Golden Calf made by Rabbi Yishmael, picked up by Targum Yonatan); Smiled (Onkelos); mocked Yitzchak’s size and old parents (Ibn Ezra, Radak); planned to inherit (Ramban, Rashbam); mocked the celebration over Yitzchak since he (Yishmael) was the older son (while noting the rumors of Avimelekh being Yitzchak’s father) (Seforno); mocking everyone who assumed Yitzchak would inherit (Tosefta). 

While it is hard to understand some of these, especially if coming from a young teenager, even if the celebration over Yitzchak took place when Yitzchak was 13, Yishmael’s being 27 begs us to wonder what his problem is – mocking his younger half-brother, or other circumstances of his life? Engaging in illicit behavior – seriously…?for someone who grew up in Avraham’s house? 

Damesek Eliezer suggests an interesting possibility (albeit homiletic) based on the verse in which Avraham, after Sarah’s suggestion to banish Yishmael is approved by God, demonstrates his remorse (21:11) – “It greatly distressed Avraham, regarding his son.” What may have truly bothered Avraham is of what would become of Yishmael’s son. Granted, Yishmael did not yet have a wife, but if he is 27 he is likely much closer to marriage than if he is 14. And if he is 27, and clearly at a loss for a certain element of proper behavior, if he is removed from Avraham’s household, and Avraham has less say about who he marries, and if he will not be raising his children in a space within Avraham’s influence, what would become of them? 

 Rabbi Scheinbaum (19th series of Peninim Al HaTorah) opens this possibility of a message from the Torah as a reminder to parents to never rest on their laurels, thinking that if we have provided everything to our children, given them what we felt was the right education and upbringing, that we can be confident that the future of our children/grandchildren is secure and guaranteed. 

 It is far more necessary to cultivate the strengths and the direction to which each child is personally headed (a far more grueling task than we may be prepared for), so that each child, al pi darko or darkah (based on their own proclivities) will be best prepared to navigate a life of Torah and mitzvos, as personally defined as possible based on one’s natural tastes and inclinations. 

 If Yishmael was 27, this would surely help us understand the urgency of Avraham’s concerns, rather than were we contemplating the other extreme behaviors as having been attributed to a teenager. 

 But there is another interpretation that ought to be considered as well, and that is the concern raised by Rabbi Avraham ben HaRambam. Sarah’s concern for Yishmael’s behavior was that he was indeed fooling around, but what he was actually doing was far less a concern than the simple fact that he was wasting time. 

 There are so many things we can do wrong, but with Teshuvah or other rectifications, there is a chance to undo whatever harm came from negative behaviors. But wasting time, purposely being either idle or simply not using time in a productive fashion, can never be undone. We can’t get back the time that was wasted. 

So now we must ask whether any of these possibilities is deserving of banishment? 

Perhaps this is a difference between a mother and father, or perhaps it was simply the difference between Sarah and Avraham. 

Sarah said “Banish this maid and her son, for the child of this maid will not be inheriting with my son, with Yitzchak.” This might indicate that Hagar was similarly involved in having some kind of negative influence on Yitzchak, and Sarah wanted NONE OF IT to be around Yitzchak. If, for example, the whole point of Yishmael’s existence was because Sarah could not produce a child, now that Yitzchak had been born, the need for Yishmael to remain in her house was non-existent in her eyes. And if he was only preventing Yitzchak from reaching his full potential, how much moreso was his presence not only unnecessary but harmful. And since Hagar, who already had a negative track record with Sarah, was doing nothing to stop Yishmael, in Sarah’s eyes both of them needed to go. 

As the saying goes, “Let the boy follow his mother.” Who Yishmael’s father was, at this point in time, was arguably irrelevant to Sarah on account of her top concerns, which were Yitzchak’s physical and spiritual wellbeing. 

Avraham, on the other hand, couldn’t conceive of letting go of his son. Up until the birth of Yitzchak, for 14 years, everything Avraham had he put into cultivating Yishmael as his heir. When he was told about Yitzchak’s pending birth, Avraham’s response was essentially, “I don’t need a son, I have a son. Yishmael is sufficient!” (see 17:18) 

This is not to say that Avraham didn’t want Yitzchak or love Yitzchak, or that he didn’t view Yitzchak as his “main” son. It is simply that Avraham was not prepared to give up on Yishmael so quickly and so easily. 

This is likely why Chazal tell us that every time Avraham has a נער (lad) helping him, it is Yishmael, because he never lost the connection. And of course, Yishmael will ultimately be at Avraham’s funeral, and will be described as dying with גויעה, the form of death that Rashi says is reserved for the righteous. 

 Who was right – Sarah or Avraham? It’s an unfair question. Sarah was right for what was best for Yitzchak. Avraham was right in not being ready to give up on his son. No matter how far he may have strayed. 

 What we learn from these perspectives is that some (many) decisions in life are complicated! It is hoped that we can be granted siyata dishmaya – help from Heaven – in making the right decisions. And always remember that if decisions we face are indeed complicated, to seek advice from people who may have more wisdom than we have, or who might simply be able to offer a perspective we have not considered, should certainly be to our benefit. 

 When dealing with decisions that impact the next generation or generations, we truly need siyata dishmaya, accompanied by much Tefillah that the future of our people is secure and headed in the right direction.

Sarai’s Hope As a Lesson For Our Own Struggles

Parshat Lekh Lekha 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Sarai tells her husband Avram, “God has stopped me from giving birth. Come now to my maid, perhaps I will build from her.” 

How did she know God had stopped her from giving birth? As Alshikh puts it – wasn’t she barren? What did she mean when she said “perhaps I will build from her?” Was she suggesting the maid’s child would be “as-if” her own child? Or was she suggesting something else? 

As any questions of these sorts, the opinions of the commentaries vary, and offer a lens upon a subject that is all too familiar to too many people even in our world today. 

 As Rashi is the go-to for many readers, his comments on this verse say the following. 

 From the words “I will build” Rashi surmises that someone who has no children (though he is likely referring to the married individual who is trying to have children) is considered “broken” (an idea raised in many Midrashim), hence the need for building. Building “from her” suggests that in the merit of bringing another woman into her marriage, she will be blessed to have a child herself as well. (see Gur Aryeh) As for her knowing God had stopped her from having a child, Rashi references her “Ruach HaKodesh” – the divine spirit within her. Some take this last idea a step further suggesting Sarai was Yiskah, daughter of Haran, and that יסכה refers to her holy spirit (Pesikta) or even her abilities as a prophet (see, for example, Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi who references that Sarah was one of the seven prophetesses).

Midrash Sechel Tov suggests that her building off Hagar means “השפחה יולדת, והגבירה מגדלת” – the maid gives birth and the mistress raises the child, that the child is considered hers, and not that of the maid. Radak notes “if the maid has a son, I will consider him like my own, and he will be to me like my son.” (Ramban offers both options, of raising the child as her own, or of meriting to have her own child…) Malbim has a slightly different twist on this, suggesting that the advantage of her giving her maid as the second wife, rather than Avraham finding one for himself, allows any child born from the maid to be Sarai’s עבד/slave, and in effect her own child. He agrees with R Chaim Paltiel’s possibility that her raising Hagar’s child will cause her body to respond in a manner that will help her produce her own child. (Seforno says something similar). 

Netziv rejects the possibility of Sarai raising Hagar’s child, as he focuses on the merit she would get from facilitating for her maid to have a child. 

 Her saying she wanted to build (אבנה) seems to be the source of the word בן to mean “son.” (Ibn Ezra, Radak) The son is the building that grows from the foundation which are the parents. 

 Haktav V’hakabbalah offers a different perspective on “building from her” as he reminds us that all the Imahot were barren, and they felt there was a practical explanation for the problem, stemming from the passageways through which zera passed being blocked by שומן (some kind of body fat). They brought their maids into the relationship with a hope that the extra woman would help clear up the problem. Bringing the maid into the relationship with her husband would further serve in the following capacity: “When they would see the maid inheriting the space of her mistress, laying in the embrace of her husband, they would have admiration as well as distress, the combination of which would remove the fat from the said passageways,” allowing their own barrenness to be remedied. 

 He rejects this thought process, however, assuming that the Imahot were more inclined to use prayer to achieve their objectives, and that bringing a second wife into the relationship was meant to be an impetus to further that agenda, one which would bring a merit for having a child. 

 According to a 2017-2019 survey infertility affects 1 in 8 men and women. That it affected all of the Imahot is astonishing on a statistical level, but not on the deeper level of God wanting that for reasons that focus on trust in God, emunah and bitachon, and the lessons which come from seeing that the MOTHERS of the Jewish people were all, at one point, barren. And that even those who were blessed to only have one child are the mothers of us all – an important reminder to those who are blessed with a child, that the outcomes of that one child are unpredictable, as the future which lies ahead is as yet unwritten. 

 It is not being suggested that a woman who struggles with infertility should give her husband a second wife in hopes that things will work out. That is obviously not our way – thank God there are resources that try to help couples in these circumstances, and sometimes they are successful, albeit sometimes it takes a long time. 

 In these parshas which contain the narratives of our Forefathers and Foremothers, we find many relatable tales of family and personal struggle – financial difficulties, family relationships and fallouts, concern for the investment in the future, teenage misbehavior and rebelliousness, getting along with neighbors, recovering from loss, having a bris, concerns over the proper upbringing of one’s child. The list goes on. 

Hopefully we can relate to the portions which are relatable, but also draw inspiration from the faith of Avraham and Sarah and the other fathers and mothers, as we struggle through our own challenges, always falling back on our relationship with God as that which carries us.

Proverbial Noach – How We Are to Live Our LIves

Parshat Noach 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

לפְּֽרִי־צַ֖דִּיק עֵ֣ץ חַיִּ֑ים וְלֹקֵ֖חַ נְפָשׁ֣וֹת חָכָֽם

The fruit of a righteous man is the tree of life, and the wise man acquires souls. – Mishlei 11:30 

 In Medrash Tanchuma, the second entry on Parshas Noach has Rabbi Tanchuma expounding the following in the Beis Medrash. 

“The verse says (Mishlei 11:30) that the fruit of the Tzaddik (righteous individual) is the tree of life. Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi bar Shalom would say that when a righteous person departs from this world without having had children, he is pained and he cries. God says to him ‘Why are you pained and why do you cry? Because you didn’t have ‘fruits’ which are children? In this world there are ‘fruits’ much nicer than children!’ And the person says ‘Master of the World, what fruits are these?’ And the Holy One Blessed is He says ‘It is the Torah in which you involved yourself, as the verse says ‘It is a Tree of Life for those who cling to it (Mishlei 3:18)’!’ And how do we know this refers to Noach? Our sages taught us that Noach didn’t die until after he had seen the world repopulated, until he saw the Kotenes of Zippori, and until he saw 70 nations which descended from him. And yet how, in retrospect, does the Torah refer to him? אלה תולדות נח – these are the generations, or the legacy of Noach… נח איש צדיק – Noach was a righteous man.” 

 It is a beautiful sentiment that should apply to every person, regardless of whether one has children. We all know of the notion that “you can’t take it with you,” that the only thing which one takes to the grave is the good deeds one accomplished in life, and in the case of our People, a reputation that was founded in Torah principles, the memory of a life guided by the Torah’s teachings. 

 Do people who have children have someone to carry on their name? Often enough. If it’s about a family name, then those who only have daughters are more than likely not to have a family name carry on. And even if people know who are the descendants of any couple or individual, what does it mean anyway? 

Some children grow up and never marry, some marry and never have children, some people have children who do not reach adulthood (לא עלינו), and some people within a generation or two are telling their secular or not-Jewish grandchildren “My parents were very Orthodox” [I have personally met many people in this latter category, especially in Florida.] 

This is not to downgrade the beauty of building a family, but it is to simply note that there are very few guarantees in life, and that the only thing that is most within a person’s control in terms of outcome is one’s own behavior, and therefore one’s own reputation. We all know people who “did everything right” in raising their children, only to have their children go in a different direction in adulthood, and we also all know people who followed a different path through childhood and, later in life, found a path that is most gratifying, fulfilling, and meaningful. And no one could have predicted how far such individuals ‘traveled’ in their personal life journeys. 

 To Noach’s credit, if we follow a simply mathematical series of hints, we will discover that at the time of the commandment to build the Ark, Noach, at age 480, had ZERO children. When God approached him to build the Ark, it wasn’t because Noach was in a great position to rebuild the world. It was because God said to him “Because I see YOU as a righteous person before Me.” Not his children, not any one else, but Noach alone. 

The Midrash Tanchuma continues noting that the second half of the Mishlei verse also refers to Noach, because he took care of souls. He provided for them and fed them. There is a debate recorded as to whether humans and animals all ate the same thing on the Ark (R Akiva says he fed everyone dried figs, Rabbis think each species had its own food). 

Noach took responsibility for the souls of all the animals either simply through feeding them, or as the final interpretation in Midrash Tanchuma puts it, through being on top of feeding times for every animals, at every hour and at every needed feeding – so much so that the sages also say that Noach did not sleep for all of the 12 months on the Ark. 

[That last sentiment puts a very different light on the story of Noach getting drunk and falling asleep after getting off the Ark!] 

There is a popular debate over whether Noach was a righteous man for all time, or simply in comparison to those of his generation.

Attributing the verse from Mishlei to Noach indicates that Noach’s legacy is enshrined in his deeds, the legacy he left of fulfilling God’s word and giving of himself to help humanity in the way he could. 

Was Noach at fault for not doing more to save the people of his time? The jury is out on that one – some say he could have done more, while others argue that it was a fait accompli and Noach had to fulfill his mission so the world could experience what was to become its destiny. 

 Our lesson from Noach is that no matter what hand life has given to us, our job is to be a living legacy for those who see us. May we be blessed to be forever known for our accomplishments in Chesed, kindness, Mitzvah-fulfillment, and looking out for our fellow Man.

Man’s Purpose – Eden Ideal and Beyond Eden

Parshat Bereshit 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

When Man was first put into the garden of Eden, we are told his task was לעבדה ולשמרה (2:15). The typical explanation of this dedicated life is to work the garden and to guard it. 

Work it? For whom? [It didn’t need tending!] Guard it? From whom? 

Netziv (Rabbi Naphtali Zvi Yehuda Berlin) explains that these words, עבודה and שמירה, refer to Serving God and observing mitzvos, and that the purpose of the garden was one of spiritual pursuit. The human in the garden was to be an earthly equivalent of an angel, doing God’s will in a non-heavenly setting. Mankind didn’t even have a need to eat or engage in any worldy activities – similar to the existence Moshe Rabbenu had when he was on the top of Mt. Sinai for 40 days. 

This suggestion argues for the Garden to be much more than a place for Mankind to “hang out.” While the clarity of man’s purpose is not made clear to us in the text in a very detailed way, beyond Woman being referred to as an Ezer (Chapter Two’s outlined purpose for Man is noted above, Chapter One’s purpose suggests Mankind’s role in the world is to dominate the animal kingdom), we simply don’t know if it may have been made more clear to humanity eventually because the timeline of the narrative we are given of Eden doesn’t account for much activity or passage of time. Whatever might have happened in Eden was cut short due to a few bites of Forbidden Fruit. 

A life purpose for humanity becomes more clear at the expulsion from the Garden when Woman is told of her relationships to the snake (the Evil Inclination), her husband, her children (e.g. birthing labor), and Man is told of his relationship to the ground, to manual labor, and to mortality. However, the purposes as outlined in 3:15-19 is much more a function of their no longer being in the garden, than what would have been their initial purpose. 

Just to bring one example, there are sources which discuss the process and length of human gestation, birth, and speed of growth to maturity. What would that have looked like had they been in the garden? 

Perhaps we can argue against Netziv’s supposition, suggesting that Adam did need to protect the forbidden fruit from the snake, or protect his “Ezer” from falling under the serpent’s spell. Had he done a better job of “Shmirah” (guarding) through his “Avodah” (labors), perhaps the sin which caused the expulsion might have been avoided! 

And yet, God knew He was creating humans who had free choice. He knew that in creating Woman, God was creating a being that was different from Adam, with her own thoughts, and with her own ability to choose – or perhaps be swayed – differently from Adam. 

Perhaps God knew that Eden was an experiment, and the only real question of Eden would be “how long would they last?” 

Chasam (Rabbi Moshe) Sofer suggests that God was going to allow them to eat from the tree - on Shabbos! This plan was voided by the intrusion of the snake a little too early. The reason it was forbidden on Friday but was to be permitted on Shabbos was because during the week, the human who is made from dust is very similar to an animal. Eating from a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil has him process the information gleaned from the Tree’s fruit from more animal-like eyes. This makes his future choices more animal-like as they are informed by that aspect of his existence. 

But a person who is created in God’s image is supposed to be much more than an animal, and on Shabbos, when a person is given an extra soul – a Neshama Yesay’rah – the person eating from the Tree of Knowledge would have processed the information gotten from the tree in order to become more spiritual and closer to God. 

In this light, the task as outlined by Netziv can really inform what our ideal kind of task is, and specifically how Shabbos can enhance that ideal exponentially. 

While everyone understands certain aspects of our human experience, such as the need for relationships, the need to be active – whether in work or in other forms of activity, the desire to be healthy, it remains true that the strength we get from one another in the human-relationships realm, the ability to be self-reliant when in good health, and from aiming to better ourselves emotionally, spiritually, physically, intellectually, philosophically, etc. at all times are what makes us human, separate from and superior to animals, able to reflect and resolve to make the purpose of our existence meaningful to each of us – different for each person, but still giving us a sense of what gets us up each day to face each day for the new opportunities it gives to us. 

May we be so blessed, at this new beginning our restarting of the Torah gives us, to challenge ourselves to learn more, and to make every day more meaningful than the previous one, so our own efforts of לעבדה ולשמרה prove to be what gives us the greatest connection with the Almighty we have achieved to date, always looking forward to the next opportunity we will have to reach ever higher.

We Can and Should Purge Our Demons

Parshat Ha'azinu

by Rabbi Avi Billet

In the verse that describes offerings made to שדים (demons) that were non-gods, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch comments, “One certainty alone – the certainly that there is one sole God, Who maintains a covenant of intimate closeness with those who do Him homage – sustains man and uplifts him above all the other forces between heaven and earth.” 

It is not so much that Haazinu was designed to be read between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. Haazinu is simply Moshe’s final message to the people, beyond the blessing we will read over and over on Simchas Torah. This crafted poem is meant to span all ages of Mankind throughout history. 

“This conviction alone frees him from all fear and from all degrading trembling which undermines morality; it alone removes from his heart the fear of real or imaginary forces that threaten man’s prosperity.” One might say, we talk a good talk if we say we believe in God. But if we fear external forces, one might further say one’s trust in God is not as complete as it could be. 

 Hirsch continues: “But once he leaves the service of the one and only God, man loses all stay and support; he imagines that he is free, and yet he is anxious about and afraid of all the forces of nature and fate – which are truly more powerful than a man who relies only on himself – just as he fears the nonsense invented by people claiming to have insight into the mysteries of nature and the universe.” 

This opens the door to a fascinating question. Who is most free? A person who can do whatever one wants, with no limitations, with no stops, and nothing guiding choices beyond what feels good and how far will I stretch limits of safety for the exhilarating thrills, OR the person who chooses to live under rules that may be limiting but may also be extremely gratifying?

Once again, here is Hirsch: “On the light of truth emanating from the one and only God, man sees the whole world illuminated in the clear light of wisdom and goodness. In this world, all creatures have a good end; and even if, on their way, they pass through darkness and death, pain and ruin, ultimately they are led to a higher state of existence and life, strength and joy, immortality and eternity. In this world, man is a child of his Heavenly Father and is given the task of living in His presence a life of duty.”

Hirsch is emphasizing the importance of this message penetrating our minds and our hearts. Sometimes we hear complaints, or perhaps we ourselves complain, of the difficulties of a committed life. If we only we could eat anywhere, if only we could take anything off the shelf, if only things weren’t so expensive, if only we could use our free time however we want without guilt, if only we could go shopping or to some other entertainment on Saturday, if only we didn’t have to explain to anyone that we’re taking another holiday off, if only morality weren’t dictated to us by a book and an unseen god, if only we weren’t hated by people for simply existing …

Hirsch: “Hence, man is close to his Creator even in his lifetime. Clinging to the hand of the one God, he can pass, even through darkness and death, in untroubled serenity toward light and life.” 

 This is the opportunity we have – seek, and ye shall find! ובקשתם משם את ה' א-לקיך is the line we hear and read in Parshas Va’Eschanan. You will find Him כי תדרשנו בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך, when you seek Him with all your heart and all your soul. 

“But if man closes his eyes to this light and this life, his world descends into a dark night filled with demons, real and imaginary. In that case he has only the miners’ lamp of human experience to guide him through the darkness in which he must wrestle with hostile demons for his life and happiness. Then every delight and joy ends for him in disgust and disappointment. He enters life crying, to depart from it in sorrow and affliction. In such a life, man is the unhappiest of all creatures because he has the awareness that he is unhappiest. He feels that he has an inalienable right to happiness and to life – but as long as he does not lead a life devoted to duty, he will never enjoy this right. From the bliss of a world full of God’s glory to the pessimism of a world full of demons – that has always been the dismal road along which defection from God must lead, and that is also the road taken by Israel’s defection as described in these verses (Devarim 32:15-17)” 

Those born into this life sometimes need strength and encouragement too. And sometimes the best people to ask are those who found this to be the truth they needed – whether those who converted to Judaism or who took a different Jewish life-route – and have discovered great satisfaction and fulfillment in a life of Torah, Mitzvos, and observance of God’s word. 

May we all be blessed to experience and find the fullest degrees of meaning and beauty in the life we are blessed to live.

Vayelekh

 In preparing for the High Holidays (sermons which are a little too long to share here), I did not have the time to write a new thought for Vayelekh.

Last year's is relevant though as there is a debate as to when Hakhel would be observed.

https://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-book-of-devarim-hakhel-and-teshuva.html

Being Bound to an Eternal Covenant

Parshat Nitzavim

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Nitzavim begins with what is in effect a “swearing in” of the Israelites for all time. “It’s not with you alone that I am making this covenant… For it is with those who are with us today, and those who are not with us today.” (29:13-14) Most interpret “those who are not with us today” as referring to future generations. A question posed in Abravanel’s generation asked simply, what gave them the right to take an oath for all future generations not yet born? 

He presents an example to which we can probably relate. Imagine a person who takes a loan, whose heirs are responsible for the loan after the person passes away. They inherit his assets, but they also have to pay his debts. 

Being taken out of Egypt assumed a debt to God in body, and through giving the Torah at Sinai, God had a claim on the souls of Bnei Yisrael as well. Finally, the gift of the land was associated with many conditions, as well as an understanding that the land was not granted to Israel on account of their strength, but more as a pledge and loan contingent on observance of the laws of the Torah in the land. 

Later generations are included, therefore, because their existence in the land is contingent on the continuation of their part of the oath taken at this point in time. If they want out of the oath, then the land is no longer available to them. 

 Malbim makes three points that are worthy of consideration: 

1. The undertaking of this oath was made for the souls of the future generations. Even though an oath was taken by those in body, since all the souls of the Jewish people were present at Sinai, the oath was taken by all. The ancestors have the potential of their descendants in them, much as the seed of a tree which has all of its potential in it. 

 2. Ancestors can not take an obligation upon their descendants, but they can take a positive step towards benefiting their descendants. Taking the oath of mitzvos can be viewed as a merit which would benefit future generations. 

 3. God does not need the agreement of His creations in order to obligate them. God wants them to have the merit that comes from voluntarily taking the obligations of the covenant. 

 Presumably, in this third point, the oath is a minder that a person ought to consider the greater picture of what constitutes our history, and what drives the fate and destiny of our people. 

 It is a daunting challenge to consider where we are in the scheme of history – I refer not as much to world history but to Jewish history – and how all the ups and downs, trials and travails, successes and failures, commonwealths and genocides, Temples and destructions all brought us to where we are today. And where are we? 

We live in a time of rampant assimilation. While tolerance is the State policy in many nations, anti-Semitism is on the rise around the world. We enjoy a fair amount of success, but there are many religious Jews who cannot afford a religious life, and who often live in debt just to figure out school tuition, how to put food on the table, the latter being especially true in parts of Israel where reaching just above the poverty line is a pipe dream for too many people. We are a giving people, but is it possible to give to everybody? 

 hile violence is far less pervasive in our religious Jewish communities, our values are often shaped by the culture around us. Our divorce rates, dropouts from religious life rates, and submission to secular values rates are not very different from other religious communities, and in some ways reflect the general secular society who don’t include God in any aspect of their lives. 

 Many of us read far more newspapers and magazines than Torah articles, watch far more television than listen to or watch Torah lectures, and are more consistently not attending daily services, though many do make a special effort for Shabbos and for Yom Tov. 

The covenant was given to us as a binding oath, should we want it, and if we accepted it, then it is our task to fulfill it as best as possible. 

 Do we take upon ourselves the debts of our ancestors? Within a reasonable timeframe, we ought to. As far as the oath or debt of Torah goes, it is the defining factor which distinguishes us from our fellow man, for time immemorial. If that distinction is worth anything, then we need not ask “Why were we included?” Instead we ought to be grateful that God chose us and wanted us to be part of an eternal covenant that we believe is still carrying us to this day.

No - You Can't Lead the Davening

Or - Having a Yarzeit Doesn't Give You Rights

Or - You Really Need to Be Merutzeh La'Kahal

Or - You Might Think You're Pavaratti But the Rest of Us Are In Pain

Or - When It's Time To Hang Up the Boxing Gloves

In discussing with other Rabbinic colleagues, I have found that a relatively common problem in many shuls is how to tell someone he can no longer serve as Shaliach Tzibbur on Shabbos or holidays?

No Dilemma

There are circumstances in which everyone understands. If the individual in question is a blatant sinner such as he cheats on his wife, he has been convicted of a crime (after he has served his time is a different question, particularly if he has done Teshuvah and is no longer engaging in that activity), or if he has a nasty personality that no one wants to serve as their representative, there is not much explaining necessary.

Defining the Problem

More often, the objection that comes up is that the person, while a fine person with good middos, can't carry a tune, or doesn't know the proper nusach, or makes many mistakes in ivrah (pronunciation of Hebrew, including making basic mistakes when decoding vowels and consonants). And yet the person wants to lead the davening - sometimes just any given day, and sometimes for a yarzeit (anniversary of death). And even for the yarzeit, some people have come to a conclusion that they have an obligation to lead the davening. Never mind that no such "obligation" exists - though proper yarzeit observances will be addressed later! And certainly there is no requirement of the tzibbur to grant such a request, and no obligation to succumb to such a demand, simply because someone is observing a yarzeit. 

Yarzeit is not "An Exception"

And just to be clear, in either case, halakha does not grant any credence to anyone's yarzeit observance "synagogue obligations" except when observing a yarzeit for a parent. Not for a brother or sister, not for a deceased wife, not even for the observance of the yarzeit of a son or daughter. A shul may give an aliyah, and may offer the person to lead the davening, if there is no one else who a. has a higher level of "chiyuv" and b. the person is otherwise me'rutzeh la'kahal. Everyone (at least in most Ashkenazic shuls) is welcome to say Kaddish! But that is personal, and does not put any burden on the congregation. (We'll see at the end that all yarzeit observances are personal and are not obligated upon the tzibbur to suffer through if the person observing the yarzeit is not desired by the congregation) 

Nothing Personal! Accepting Reality...

In other words, denying someone the "right" to lead the davening is not personal. But it is a very serious k'vod HaTzibbur issue in that the Tefillah experience in the hands of someone with negative skills (as defined above in "Defining the Problem," but also addressed below in "Halakha's Criteria" and "Other Factors?"), as a result, ranges from being unpleasant to painful to unbearable to the congregation. And the only person who doesn't realize it is this person who, for whatever reasons, really really wants to lead the davening. Perhaps the person's motivation is slightly ego-driven. Or perhaps the person is completely unaware. And to be fair, there are some people who may have once-upon-a-time led the davening nicely, but as the years go on, the person's hearing is different, the person's range changes, and the person's abilities of yesteryear are simply not what they were. Not only are they not what they were, but they are no longer even in the category of "pareve" or "nothing special" but they are a turn-off to the congregation.

Where Halakha Comes Into the Discussion

There are a few halakhic terms which come into play at this point.

1. Is the person me'rutzeh la'kahal? [Desired by and acceptable to the congregation]  [Once again I note that this is not personal. The person may be a very fine person - it is the so-called skills of the individual which are not desired!]

2. Does the person's performance fulfill the concept of kavod ha'tzibbur? [Does it bring honor to the congregation and the Tefillah experience of all present?]

3. Does the prayer experience become a tircha d'tzibbura? [Is it an unfair experience to subject the congregation to have to hear and sit through, especially when painfully drawn out?]

And perhaps most importantly....

4. Is giving this person the opportunity to lead the davening a violation of lifnei iver lo si-ten mikhshol (Vayikra 19:14), not to put a stumbling block before the blind, putting the congregation in a position of inevitably speaking Lashon Hora about the shaliach tzibbur?

THIS (#4) IS THE BIGGEST ISSUE AT PLAY HERE, THAT A PERSON IN DENIAL IS COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF - YOU ARE SETTING EVERYONE UP FOR FAILURE.

In Halakha there are (at least) two discussions surrounding criteria of who can lead the davening. One is for during the week (and in general) and one is specific for the High Holidays. This information can be found in the Shulchan Arukh OC 53, and OC 581:1 (Rama's comments + commentary there). We will confine our remarks here to the former source and commentaries.

Weekdays Are Usually Not a Problem

Most issues I have heard raised are about Shabbos and Yom Tov. The weekday "tune" varies, and it is hard to be "off-key," especially when simply reading or chanting. Also, no one is looking to stretch out the davening or give an unwanted "concert" during the week, so most shuls will have far less of a problem - if any - with someone leading the davening during the week, who might be the subject of this discussion for Shabbos or Yom Tov (unless it is a day when we recite Hallel or Mussaf - such as Rosh Chodesh, Chanukah, or Chol HaMoed).

Halakha's Criteria

Some of the criteria are impossible to insist upon, such as that the person be one who hardly sins, or who never had a negative reputation even in his youth. But in 53:4, he should:

1. be humble

2. be desired by the congregation

3. have a pleasantness about him

4. have a pleasant voice 

5. be a person who reads from Tana"kh regularly (in other words, skilled at reading Hebrew fluently)

6. If it is impossible to find someone with the above qualifications, the person who is wisest and has the best reputation of doing good-deeds is preferred.

In 53:10 it says:

The emissary who lengthens his tefillah so the people can hear what a lovely voice he has... if he's doing this because he has joy in his heart and is giving thanks to God with pleasantness, he should be blessed, as long as he leads the prayers with humilty, and stands before the Almighty with awe and trepidation. BUT if he is doing it to show off, and he rejoices in his own voice, this is viewed as being negative behavior, undesirable, especially when his lengthening the davening causes tircha d'tzibura (a burden on the congregation)

The Mishneh Berurah notes that while a "blemished" person who is known to the congregation is not  considered blemished, a fine quality is someone who is לב נשבר ונדכה - in other words, someone who is humble and emotionally a good fit for the congregation. This might not be easily findable nowadays since, unfortunately, many people are jaded and don't demonstrate such emotion, but the other criteria of having a pleasantness PLUS a pleasant voice is often enough readily found.

Someone who is a ba'al machlokes (someone who has a very disagreeable character) is not worthy to represent the Tzibbur. This is not to say that people can never have disputes - but they need to be resolved so a person can represent ALL members of the congregation. 

Mishneh Berurah 53:38 quotes Teshuvas R'i B'rona that someone whose voice has become ruined and sounds "off" is pasul - disqualified from leading the davening. 

Other Factors?

The person should not be arrogant, nor pushy about leading the davening. Anyone who pushes to lead is actually NOT supposed to lead. The only person who is to go up to lead davening without being asked is a hired/employed Chazzan. Otherwise there is to be an appointment regimen in every shul. And this applies to any aspect of leading davening, or reading the Torah or the Haftorah. And really, the key criteria that should be employed is “will those in the Tzibbur have a pleasant experience, or will they talk badly about the person who led the davening?”

To give a simple example of discernible criteria: There are some people who do not have the nicest voice, but they can carry a tune, can pick pleasant melodies that engage the tzibbur, and can sing on-key. This is FAR MORE DESIRABLE than someone who believes he has a nice voice (but doesn't!), believes he can carry a tune (but he is tone deaf!) and believes he is on-key (when he is way off-key!).

Knowing Our Abilities and Knowing Our Present Reality

Some people know very well that they are a decent "go-to guy" for weekday davening. Or their skill for Shabbos or Yom Tov is limited to leading for Pesukei D'Zimrah. And they are more than content with that. And they are even content with never leading the davening at all.

That is also a mark of humility - having the attitude that "I am available if you ever need me, but I am perfectly fine with never being asked, and with never being the Shaliach Tzibbur." Such an attitude puts no pressure on the gabbai or the tzibbur, and lets everyone know where you stand, if you truly are OK with that.

We have to know our abilities and we have to present well, because if we are opting to be a Shaliach Tzibbur we can’t afford to be an embarrassment to the Tzibbur, or to ourselves. As noted above, there are some people who may have once-upon-a-time been worthy candidates for leading davening based on their abilities years or decades ago, but now those skills have deteriorated.

A Great Measure of Self Awareness

I heard a great line in the name of Cantor Moshe Shulhof: “When you open your mouth and a nice sound comes out, don’t ever think it’s you. God gave you a voice and one day God will take it back.” The Blessing is KNOWING WHEN GOD HAS TAKEN IT BACK, and therefore when to retire those boxing gloves, and just taking a seat on the sideline as a member of the Tzibbur.

The Haftorah - Also Requires Abilities

Some people believe that they honor their deceased parent through reading the Haftorah. Maybe... Maybe, if you read without errors, if you know the trop (cantillation), if you don't stretch what could be a 4-minute reading into a painful 10-minute reading. But if you misread words, skip a number of the cantillations, or don't know the trop all that well, there is no honor given to anyone: not to a parent, not to the tzibbur, and not to you, the person reading. 

Wrong Attitude v Right Attitude

I’ve heard it argued, “I have to honor my deceased parent through davening for the Amud.”

I've also heard, “It is more kavodik to my father to not fight than to insist on davening, make a big deal, or to carry a grudge.” 

Obviously the latter attitude is more humble. And particularly if the former attitude is accompanied by a davening that is not respectful to the tzibbur because the person either doesn't have the right skills or has waned-skills which are no longer adequate for the congregation, then the former attitude is entirely wrong. 

Why Yarzeit is Not an Exception - A Mini-Essay to Conclude

In Halakha, a yarzeit is considered to be a day of difficulty for the Neshama – which is why the person observing the yarzeit needs to do whatever the person can do to bring a merit to the Neshama, to the soul of the deceased. Our tradition lists a number of practices, some are infrequently observed. All of them are very personal, as they are meant to impact the life of the person observing the yarzeit, and no one else.  The Chelkas Yaakov, Rabbi Mordechai Yaakov Breisch of Switzerland, listed a number of these in his teshuva in YD 233

1.      Fasting

2.      Doing Teshuvah

3.      Making a siyum on a Masechet

4.      Learning Mishnayos

5.      Saying Kaddish

Most of the halakhic sources that discuss this speak of getting an Aliyah, of reading the maftir – which presumably includes the Haftorah (though this is not necessarily clear - the Maftir is usually 3-5 Pesukim versus the Haftorah which is typically 21 or more!), and of leading the davening for Maariv on Saturday night, because it is a segulah for the neshama, because on Saturday night, souls who are unworthy, who don’t have people building merits for them, return to Gehinnom at that time. Shabbos is a day when the soul rests from whatever negative experiences it may be undergoing. So Saturday night is a good opportunity to build merits for the soul. 

 Everything else – and this can be seen in a lengthy comment of the Rama on YD siman 376:4 – focuses on the recitation of Kaddish. Who says which kaddish? Who has the merit to be מתפלל ומקדש ברבים – brings a merit to the soul. This discussion has largely become a moot point in Ashkenazic shuls because all those saying Kaddish, mourners and those observing yarzeit alike, all say it together. [This was different once-upon-a-time, and is still practiced in some Yekkishe communities. One can only imagine the kinds of fights which took place in shuls when people were clamoring to be the sole person saying the kaddish.] 

 There are others practices as well. Lighting a candle is a kabbalistic practice based on the verse of נר ה' נשמת אדם, though there are other explanations for the practice. 

 As it turns out, the idea of leading the davening on the yarzeit in general is weighed down by a different concern in halakha. It turns out that it isn’t an automatic that someone who has a yarzeit gets to daven. Even in mentioning the practice, the Rama calls it a minhag (custom), while he uses the language of מצוה להתענות ביום שמת אב או אם. It is a "mitzvah" to fast on the yarzeit for a parent. So which is more important? A minhag, or a “mitzvah?” 

 It has been noted above that halakha really drives home the need for the Shaliach Tzibbur to be מרוצה לקהל. Note, firstly, that he is called the Shaliach - appointed emissary - of the congregation. So he has no rights unless he is asked. Secondly, the congregation must want him to lead, no matter how much he wants to lead. It is a category too often ignored in shuls, but I think it is very important, not just for the congregation, but for the person with the yarzeit. And it is a category which takes priority regardless of anyone's feelings. The Tzibbur's desires are far more important than the individual's desires. 

 Let us examine this through a story of a Chazzan that no longer had a voice, but was very Merutzeh La'Kahal - a clear exception to everything written above. 

 One of the tunes Shlomo Carlebach made famous in a recording was the niggun of the Blind Chazzan. Who was the blind chazzan? We only know this story because he told it from a personal experience. 

 Shlomo Carlebach was in a shul in Europe one Shabbos, when much to his dismay he found that the chazzan had no voice. NO voice. And he couldn’t read the Hebrew! And his melodies were terrible. SC assumed it was some rich guy who gave a lot of money so he could daven. And he decided, in anger, to daven B’y’chidus - alone, not participating with the congregation and this unworthy "chazzan". Better that than have a turned-off tefillah experience because of this unworthy person. 

 But when they took out the Torah, he didn’t want to disrespect the Torah. So he went over, only to see there were two people holding the Chazzan as he held the Torah. 

 "Why are they holding him?" 

 "Don't you know who that is? That's the blind Chazzan… He was the most famous tenor! People came from miles around to hear him. But he was tortured by the Nazis…   He didn’t want to daven. We told him, 'No, we remember how you davened in Lemberg!'" 

 Carlebach was ashamed – and instead of kissing the Torah, he kissed the Chazzan's hands. The Chazzan asked "Who kissed my hands?" They told him it was Shlomo Carlebach. The Chazzan smiled and told him, "Shlomo, I like your niggunim." 

 While this story is an exception, because a person with no voice who could no longer say the words was wanted by the congregation, that circumstance is obviously different than anything we encounter. This was a Chazzan who lost everything because he was beaten by the Nazis, and he didn't want to lead the davening. For that congregation to have him lead was a great honor for them. 

 In our congregations though, someone who leads like that is a disgrace to the congregation, because people who lead like that now do not have the excuse that they were Holocaust survivors tortured by the Nazis. And so we will be judgmental, because we are human. 

 Carlebach admitted he was wrong. But how often do we encounter the Blind Chazzan from Lemberg? We don't. So that exception is null. 

 So yes, even someone observing a yarzeit for a parent must have an honest personal, and if need be, direct from an objective party, assessment.

 You want an Aliyah? No problem. Lead the prayers for most weekday davenings? – usually not a problem. Pesukei D’zimrah on Shabbos morning – usually not a problem. But to be the Baal Tefillah Friday night, or for Shacharis or Mussaf, the person needs to be aware! And the same is true for every Yom Tov, any Tefillah with Hallel, and certainly for the Yamim Noraim! 

 Mourning practices and yarzeit observances are meant to be private and personal. The yarzeit observer should take a personal reckoning. "Am I fasting? Am I reading Tehillim? Am I learning mishnayos? [Mishneh and Neshama have the same letters, which is a source for their connection.] Am I making a siyum? Am I being sure to say the kaddish? Did I light my candle? None of these impact anyone else. If I can get an Aliyah to the Torah, great. And if can’t? That needs to be fine with me too.

"But once I’m reading the Haftorah – I better know how to read it. Once I’m hoping to lead the davening, I must fit into the category of being מרוצה לקהל because I can sing on key, carry a tune, and be overall pleasing to the congregation."

And if the answer is "I don't belong up there because I don't fit the criteria, I don't have the skills, or I will cause people to speak badly about me" then the best place to be during tefillah is at your seat, honoring the deceased parent through being a part of the Tzibbur, not imposing yourself on the Tzibbur, and saying Kaddish to honor the parent's memory.