Sin Is Not Recognizing True Diversity

Parshat Vaychi

by Rabbi Avi Billet

 After the brothers return from Yaakov’s funeral, they relate to Yosef that their father had instructed that Yosef should “look aside at their פשע (a form of sin which will be defined in a moment) and their חטא (same) which dealt badly with you, and [therefore] now [the brother’s personally request] look aside towards the פשע of the servants of your father’s God…” 

Leaving aside whether Yaakov actually said this, or whether, as some commentaries note, they made this up, Rabbi Moshe Shternbuch asks how they could refer to what they did as a פשע. After all, a חטא is a sin committed by accident, an עון is a sin committed deliberately, and a פשע is a sin committed in a state of rebellion. We never find that the brother’s felt any kind of remorse over “rebelling.” They may have felt that they were not sympathetic enough to Yosef’s plight, or they may have regretted selling him as part of an actual thought process, but rebelling – as their flaw – never seems to be on their radar. 

Rabbi Shternbuch concludes that while they did not regret their having him judged him as a danger to the family, the fact that they felt no sensitivity to their judging their own brother to death (their original intent before Reuven interceded on Yosef’s behalf), they may have felt that these thoughts, or lack of sensitivity, was a form of rebellion to their father. They felt now, as a result, that God would judge them in this manner, because God judges the righteous even for thoughts. 

 Yosef’s response to them is that there is no need for them to worry about being judged for thoughts, as he rejects the notion of a פשע and instead tells them, once again, that everything that happened was a result of God’s plan. 

 In thinking about this “plan,” one must assume that EVERYTHING that transpired as a result of the sale of Yosef was part of God’s plan. One aspect of God’s plan is that Yaakov’s “choice” to make Menashe and Ephraim into tribes, “just like Reuven and Shimon” was actually a part of God’s master plan. 

 Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch notes that Yaakov recounts (in 48:4) how he was given the promise to become a קהל עמים – a community of nations. The way it was told to him in 35:11 was “multiply, for a גוי וקהל גוים will come from you.” Noting that of the tribes, Binyamin alone was not yet born, the word גוי must refer to Binyamin. By extension, the words קהל גוים must refer to Ephraim and Menashe, thereby suggesting that way before they were born, they were slated to be counted as Yaakov’s children, as two distinct tribes. 

 Rav Hirsch goes on to say that the phrase קהל גוים/קהל עמים “assigns the people of Yaakov its distinctive mission. This people is to consist of diverse tribes of differing traits, while maintaining complete unity through one common task. This people should represent the agricultural nation, the merchant nation, the warrior nation, the nation of scholars, and so forth. As a model nation, it should demonstrate for all to see that the one great mission – common to all men and all nations and as revealed in God’s Torah – does not depend on a particular vocation or trait. Rather, all of mankind, with its rich diversity, can equally find its calling in the one common mission.” 

“The division of the nation into diverse tribes, and the resulting division of the Land into different provinces for the different tribes, whose distinctiveness is thus to be retained – that is what is indicated here. Only thus is there any importance to Ephraim and Menashe becoming two distinct tribes. Without the division into diverse tribes, all distinctiveness would be absorbed in the consolidate mass of the nation as a whole…” 

In a way, we can say that the brothers’ “original sin” was in not accepting Yosef as being different from them. They wanted him to toe the line, to not cause disruption, to not shake or overturn the apple cart. But Yosef couldn’t be put into a box of their design, because Yosef was unique, and distinct, with different drives and passions, and different life goals. He was going places they couldn’t foresee, because they were stuck in their relatively provincial existence. 

 But were they so provincial? A number of them exercised unique qualities – Shimon and Levi certainly went out on their own in Shechem. Reuven had a strange interest in Yaakov’s marital space (as a real youngster with the dudaim and later on with whatever he did with respect to Bilhah). The Torah emphasizes that when Yaakov blessed his sons, he emphasized “each getting his own blessing” (49:28), clearly in response to individual characteristics they all carried, some of which Rav Hirsch articulated above. 

In a contemporary sense, we can’t all be doctors, or all be accountants, or all be plumbers, or all be academics/scholars/rabbis/Kollel-leit, or all be bankers, or all be business-people. We are all wired differently, we think differently, we live differently. We look different. 

 Yes, we have a Torah which preaches a kind of uniformity in terms of Mitzvos and a degree of service of God. But we all recognize that there are different paths even just culturally – Ashkenazim, Sefardim, Edot Mizrach, Temani, as well as sub culturally, from right to left religiously, from right to left in political thinking and leaning, how men and women interpret tzniyut, how men and women style or show their head hair (everyone) and (for men) their facial hair (including beards and peyot), to how much emphasis people place on minhagim (customs), to which Halakhic code books we follow completely versus where there is a debate or where things are open for interpretation, how much are things not explicitly stated in the Torah viewed as “Torah level” (such as if declared such in the Talmud or in poskim – or when it is debated), what is considered a Halakha L’Moshe MiSinai versus what doesn’t really fit in that category.

 While I was unable to find it, I recall a video put out by Chofetz Chaim Foundation during the covid shutdowns, in which they emphasized the need for the Jewish people to not get at each other’s throats over issues of disagreement. It was close to the 2020 election as well, and society was really torn apart (I don’t think much has changed for the good, unfortunately, except that we are not yet heavily involved in a presidential election – we’ll surely see things heat up this coming summer). They put images on the screen pointing to polar opposites, noting that we can’t let these viewpoints divide us (some of these I recall clearly from the video, after the political one are ones I’m adding): stay closed v stay open; social distance v return to normalcy; mask or not mask; vaccinate or not to vaccinate; republican or democrat; to use the Internet for communication or only to use phones for communication; to allow mixed seating at non-Tefillah related functions or separate seating all the time; to follow a strict order of societal norms or to be more open to different views. Their point was that none of these differences (there are surely many more) – and in some cases they are very strong differences – should get in the way of Jews seeing we are all one family. And in a family, everyone is welcome at the table, even if we bring strong differences to that table. 

Yaakov certainly learned one important lesson which he applied twice in the parsha, from very personal experience with his own father and brother: when you bless your children, call them in together, and bless them each according to their traits. Raise them up for their own qualities, and don’t compare them to one another for ways in which you wish for them to be the same. Yaakov first did this with Yosef’s sons, and later did this with his own sons. He celebrated their diversity, while emphasizing that they are all one family. 

We get reminders of this every day. In the IDF, while we don’t get the same kinds of reports of those injured, we see how the cross section of those who have fallen in battle, range from all types of Jews on the religious spectrum – from not at all, to yeshiva students, to rabbis (in miluim). This is Am Yisrael, and it’s time for us to remove barriers – celebrate our diversity instead of trying to crank out everyone to be exactly the same. Unquestionably, making everyone be the same was never what God intended, and it was never what Am Yisrael was meant to be. Am Yisrael is a tapestry: many diverse threads of different colors and shades bound together to make a beautiful picture. 

May we merit to see this, appreciate this, and live this as our reality.

Binyamin Favored? Orchestrating What Is Right (Always with God’s Help)

 Parshat Vayigash

Rabbi Avi Billet 

Take a careful look at Chapter 45, verse 22. After Yosef has revealed his identity to his brothers, he’s sending them back to Canaan with wagons to bring their father and the greater family down to Egypt. 

 (כב) לְכֻלָּ֥ם נָתַ֛ן לָאִ֖ישׁ חֲלִפ֣וֹת שְׂמָלֹ֑ת וּלְבִנְיָמִ֤ן נָתַן֙ שְׁלֹ֣שׁ מֵא֣וֹת כֶּ֔סֶף וְחָמֵ֖שׁ חֲלִפֹ֥ת שְׂמָלֹֽת: “To each of them he gave a set of new garments, and to Binyamin he gave 300 silver coins and also 5 sets of new garments.” 

A number of commentaries ask a few obvious questions. Why did he give one set of garments to each brother? And why five to Binyamin? Why did he give Binyamin 300 silver coins? 

The Torah Temimah quotes a Gemara in Megillah (16b) which suggests that he was hinting to Binyamin that in the future he’d have a descendant (Mordechai, who was a Benjaminite) who would go out from before the king wearing 5 garments of royalty

 מרדכי יצא מלפני המלך בלבוש מלכות

1. תכלת
2. וחור
3. ועטרת זהב גדולה
4. ותכריך בוץ
5. וארגמן 

Then he addresses the questions with which we began, noting the importance of paying attention to the pesukim, and how the words are written. 

 The Vilna Gaon asked the question of how he could foment more jealousy? How would the brothers know that Yosef was making a symbolic gesture regarding an event in the future? 

The Vilna Gaon answers that the five garments given to Binyamin were of far lesser quality than the garments given to the other brothers, and in totum was equivalent in value to the garment each of them got. Thus they understood that the five garments were symbolic, but they were all getting the same value. 

Rabbi Epstein (author of the Torah Temimah) suggests that this is hinted to in the text. Look back at the verse in Hebrew at the beginning of this article and you’ll find that the word חלפות is spelled with the letter Vov (“ו”) when referencing the garments of the brothers, and the word חלפת is spelled without that letter Vov when referencing the garments given to Binyamin. That additional letter for the brothers hints to their higher value, while Binyamin’s garments are missing the ו thus missing value as well. 

 The commentaries on the Talmud ask how Yosef was unconcerned for jealousy over the money Yosef gave to Binyamin. Admitting his dissatisfaction with their answers (though without recording their answers) Rabbi Epstein proceeds to give the following analysis, quoting Rabbenu Bachaye. 

The sum of 300 silver pieces was determined based on the proper penalty the brothers owed based on the sale of Yosef. A slave is typically deemed to be valued at 30 silver coins, and the penalty for stealing one is ten times that – 300, based on a teaching in Gittin 45b that selling a slave to idolators is punishable by up to ten times the value of the slave.

What does this have to do with Binyamin? Nothing directly. 

 But according to this law, each brother was responsible to pay Yosef 300 silver pieces as a penalty for being involved in his sale. Binyamin was not involved in his sale, so he would not have such a penalty. Since Yosef forgave each brother for the money each owed to him, it was as if he gave each of them 300 silver pieces. So of course he needed to give Binyamin 300 pieces to thus be treating everyone equally. 

 In this way, there was no jealousy. Everyone got credit for what they owed, and Binyamin received a cash payout.

The takeaway from this analysis is straightforward. Things all work out in the end. 

 We don’t have a handle on how God runs the world, but we believe that in the end, each person was given what he or she deserved or had coming. 

 Sometimes things don’t seem fair. Some people seem to have more natural gifts, greater wealth, better skills in many areas of life, while others have greater challenges. 

 But in the end, there is a balance, a restored equilibrium. 

Some people are blessed with good health, what may even seem to be far beyond their fair share. Some people have great relationships with their children and grandchildren, far beyond their fair share. Some people have nachas, in far greater amounts than they ever felt they’d deserve. Some people have wisdom that helps them be admired, and if they’re blessed to counter that wisdom with humility, they are even further admired. 

 Some people have friends whose value in their life far exceeds any material wealth. 

The most important thing is to be שמח בחלקינו, to be content with our portion. When we remember that life is not a competition for wealth and happiness, and that each of us has our own equation and direction that is best for us, we’ll have a much easier time living a joyful and joyous life because the thought behind it all is “God is orchestrating for me based on what I need and on what I deserve. He is looking out for me, He is in my life, and He is giving me the things I should have in my life.” 

With such an attitude, one could never feel alone. Particularly for those who struggle with difficult things in life, knowing we are not alone can be an incredible source of comfort and strength.

The Power of Elokim, Who Runs the World

 Every now and then, after writing my weekly Dvar Torah, I come across an article written by Rabbi Sacks Z"L, in which he addressed similar motifs. To give a different example than the link below from this week, last year I came up with this clever title, only to discover later that Rabbi Sacks beat me to it by over 13 years. I did not see his piece before I wrote mine. Thus is the world. :)

This week, I came across this article by Rabbi Sacks after writing what you'll find below:

Parshat Miketz

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

In Chapter 41, Yosef is taken out of prison and brought before Pharaoh. One message he conveys, loud and clear, is that he does not interpret dreams, but God does. Yosef mentions “God” five times over the course of his sharing the meaning of Pharaoh’s dreams, thus eliciting Pharoah’s own acknowledgment of God’s hand in Yosef’s interpretations – once in each of verses 38 and 39. 

It is always interesting to note which name of God is invoked in any conversation, especially with “non-Jews.” (In Lavan’s case, for example, when he meets Eliezer, and in the first 14 years of Yaakov’s time in his home (24:31,50,51; 30:27), it is the 4-letter name of God י-ה-ו-ה, and here in chapter 41 it is א-ל-ה-י-ם) 

In modern Hebrew, the “Elokim” name of God is often used as a generic word referencing God, while “Adonay” is presumed to be God’s name (even though it is not pronounced how it is spelled). This may have reverberations in the Yosef story. 

As to how the names of God are referenced in the Torah, there is much discussion. Easily most famous is that Elokim references God’s attribute of Judgment, while Adonay references God’s attribute of Mercy. 

Netziv points out (41:25) that when it comes to dreams, the dreamer himself knows when the interpretation is correct, because he hears it in his subconscious when he dreams, and an actual human interpretation triggers a reminder that the understanding is correct. Pharaoh’s necromancers understood interpretations through the method of demons (שדים). Yosef understood that what Pharaoh had received was a prophesy, similar in style to communication which came to Avimelekh (20:3,6), Lavan (31:24) and Bilaam (Bamidbar 22:9,12,20,22 etc) - all of which were heard from Elokim. 

 Netziv concludes that because Elokim appeared, only someone who has a רוח א-לקים (the spirit of Elokim in him) could understand and interpret the dreams. This puts Yosef on a much higher footing than necromancers who deal in the realm of שדים. 

 This suggests that the way that God appears to the Torah’s gentiles, in the realm of prophesy, is through using the name א-לקים.

 The fact that the name י-ה-ו-ה makes an appearance with each of these gentiles also shows that there is an element of disconnect in how they relate to God and in how God relates to them. It is Elokim throughout chapter 20 (Avimelekh) until the last verse, when י-ה-ו-ה makes an appearance to reopen the wombs of the women in Gerar. 

In Lavan’s case, he brings up י-ה-ו-ה again (for the first time in a long time) after he’s already decided to make peace with Yaakov (31:49). Aside from that, it’s been Elokim since he declared to Yaakov that “God (י-ה-ו-ה) has blessed me on your account,” which was right at the conclusion of Yaakov's 14 years of labor for his wives, just as Lavan was convincing him to stay to build his own fortune. (30:27)

 In Bilaam’s case, as he speaks to Balak’s emissaries, he keeps referring to the relationship he has with י-ה-ו-ה, while every time God appears to him in a dream (as noted above) it is with the name Elokim. And yet, the angel that appears to him is a מלאך י-ה-ו-ה, and it is י-ה-ו-ה who opens the mouth of the donkey to speak to him. Bilaam, after angering א-לקים because he accompanied Balak’s emissaries, has contrition and comes to the clear understanding that even though he came for the wrong reasons, he will only get to say what God puts in his mouth to say. Once he understands and accepts that, all that is to follow is in י-ה-ו-ה’s hands (the Merciful side of God). Bilaam “embarrasses” himself over and over through blessing the Israelites, and through disappointing Balak, who had hired him for a different purpose. 

And so it boils down to a message God is conveying to the gentiles in question. "You are worthy of receiving a message through the name of God that is א-לקים because you have a choice that lies before you insofar as what you will do with this message." When they accept what is before them and make the choice to treat Avraham, Yaakov, or the Bnei Yisrael (respectively) nicely, things turn around for them for the better.

Avimelekh’s family is cured of their ailment. Lavan returns home in peace, without having harmed anyone and without being harmed. Bilaam goes on his way and returns home (that he later dies in the war with Midian speaks of Bilaam returning to evil ways, but it is not attached to the story with Balak). 

 The question we are left with, is this something that was known at that time? If we assume that the way things are “reported” in the Torah, as either handed to Moshe Rabbenu by God or recorded by him at God’s instruction, is accurate, then the name of God that Yosef invoked was deliberate, and presumably a choice that was made based on his upbringing, and the way he felt would be most impactful in the conditions in which he found himself. 

 Rabbenu Bachaye focuses on the usage of the name Elokim, noting that “All comes from the power of א-לקים, and He is the Master of all powers. He will help you through the difficulties of the dream and processing its interpretation.”

Yosef understood from the dream, which took place at the יאר (River) that Egypt would eventually be stricken in the River (referring to the plague of Blood). This stems from a virtue that had been assigned to Pharaoh, in a famous statement recorded in Yechezkel 29:3 in Pharaoh’s name: “The River is mine and I created it.” This sentiment was not of just one Pharaoh, but of every Pharaoh. Yosef saw that the eventual downfall of Pharaoh in Egypt would begin with the River because eventually Pharaoh would say “Who is God (י-ה-ו-ה) that I should heed his voice?” - “מי ה' אשר אשמע בקולו” (Shmos 5:2) rejecting י-ה-ו-ה. Here Yosef made the attempt to align Pharaoh in a good direction through focusing on א-לקים. Elokim is the one Who has the power and the ability to not only interpret your dream, but to have given you that dream in the first place. והוא יענה את שלום פרעה – Elokim will answer Pharaoh’s dilemma. (See Iyov 5:8) 

Knowing that Pharaohs in general viewed themselves as higher than י-ה-ו-ה, Yosef used the name א-לקים which is the name of God universally utilized in the creation of the world in Chapter 1 of Bereshis, reminding Pharaoh that א-לקים has the power and Elokim is the true Creator. 

 It is a message that the gentile world needs to heed. Contrary to any mistaken belief that Jews control the world, we will be the first to say that God controls the world. A few days ago, a Turkish MP named Hasan Bitmez delivered a powerful and impassioned 20-minute speech against Israel, aimed specifically at Turkish relations with Israel, but also against Israel’s actions in the current war, concluding that “Even if you escape the torment of history, you will not be able to escape the wrath of God.” He finished the speech, and immediately collapsed on account of a heart attack, and he died two days later. 

 Was this a sign from God? Was God showing Who runs the world? 

Yosef’s message to Pharaoh, loud and clear, was that God runs the world. He used Elokim’s name for different reasons, partially to help Pharaoh, and partially to make God’s role acceptable to the Egyptians, perhaps in a more generic fashion than using God’s name of י-ה-ו-ה. 

May we, who use the different names of God in different contexts, always be blessed to make clear that from our vantage point, God runs the world. We aim to do His will and have the best relationship with Him that we can. And hopefully, as for Yosef, we will be granted His good graces, He will shine His light upon us and our people, and we will be blessed with the ultimate blessing – ה' יברך את עמו בשלום, the blessing of Peace.

Honest Hatred and a Roadmap for Peace

Parshat Vayeshev 

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

 וַיִּרְא֣וּ אֶחָ֗יו כִּֽי־אֹת֞וֹ אָהַ֤ב אֲבִיהֶם֙ מִכָּל־אֶחָ֔יו וַֽיִּשְׂנְא֖וּ אֹת֑וֹ וְלֹ֥א יָכְל֖וּ דַּבְּר֥וֹ לְשָׁלֹֽם 

“And [Joseph]’s brothers saw that he was loved by their father [more] than all his brothers, and thus they hated him, and they were unable to speak peaceably with him.” (37:4) 

After he has been shown extra favor and been given a special overcoat, the above verse immediately follows, setting the stage for the animus which will eventually lead to a brother being sold into slavery. At this point, without getting into the possible meanings of the word וישנאו (translated above as ‘they hated’), it is clear that there is disfavor from the brothers towards Yosef, such that they can’t even talk to him in a normal way. 

 Is this a good thing or a bad thing? 

Certainly, the inability to talk to someone can be viewed as a bad thing. Do we not see the humanity of the other person? Does the person have no merits whatsoever? Has the person done such horrible things that there is no common ground between us and nothing to talk about? Obviously, relationships can deteriorate in such a way. More reasonably, mortal enemies may feel this way, that there’s no one to talk to and no amount of meeting, talking, reasoning will get the two sides to see eye to eye on anything. Was that Yosef and his brothers, though? Were they mortal enemies? It is hard to imagine that this is how they viewed him, and even more so how he may have viewed them. So it would seem that being unable to talk to him is a bad thing. 

On the other hand, it may also mean that they are principled. Because they are thoroughly convinced that Yosef is a danger to the family dynamic, they want nothing to do with him. 

There is a passage in Bereshis Rabba in which Rabbi Achoah b’r Zeira says “From the disgrace of the Shvatim we learn of their praise. Elsewhere (Shmuel II 13:22) we are told that ‘Avshalom did not speak with Amnon – neither good or bad’ because he left what was in his heart inside his heart. However, here, they could not speak peaceably with Yosef because what was in their heart they said with their mouths.” 

 [The Avshalom/Amnon reference is to a tale involving the children of King David, who were half-siblings through their father, though had different mothers. Amnon had an infatuation over Tamar and raped her. Avshalom (who may have shared a mother with Tamar) took her assault very personally and plotted to kill Amnon for a long time, eventually succeeding. In the interim, he did not speak to Amnon at all, and he bided his time as his hatred for Amnon continued to grow.] 

In his commentary on this in the Torah Shleimah, Rav Kasher writes: 

“Avshalom didn’t speak to Amnon at all, and left what was in his heart hidden feeling it was better to leave a secret a secret. Regarding the brothers of Yosef, however, while they did not speak with him peaceably (בשלום), they did argue with him and fight with him. What was in their hearts they shared openly! The verse does not say they were unable to speak with him (עמו) – it just says דברו לשלום, that they couldn’t speak peaceably to him… What this indicates is that in their righteousness they demonstrated the quality of having תוכן כברן – their inside reflects their outside… In their own way they fulfilled the verse that says ‘You shall not hate your brother in your heart.’ Because they hated him so much, they could not pretend and speak with him in a manner that looks peaceable when in their hearts they feel the opposite. [They let it out in the open!] 

“The Torah is warning us that one should not keep the hatred in the heart [or put it out there in the open]. The better way is to follow the model of Aharon HaKohen, to love peace and to pursue peace.” In other words, we must work on our own middos to find a way past the animus we feel. 

 So we go back to our question: Was the way they spoke to him (or didn’t speak to him) a good thing or a bad thing? 

 Rav Kasher’s teaching from the Midrash is that there is great merit to being תוכו כברו, for a person to be honest with oneself in how one feels, and to reflect outwardly what is going on inside. 

 However, there is even greater merit to working on oneself on the inside, so that what comes across on the outside is genuine, and a true reflection of one’s inner character. 

 A similar example of the degree of their hatred can be found later on when they bring the blood-covered coat to their father and say “Recognize it. It’s the coat of your son, isn’t it?” In the book “Maayana Shel Torah,” the editor writes in the name of “one of the gedolim” that this is a basic sign of clear hatred, when a person can’t even say the name of the other person. When the brothers could not even say Yosef’s name, Yaakov said טרף טרף יוסף, that the name Yosef has been torn apart in that even his own brothers couldn’t utter it. 

 There is peace and there is peace. There is a cold peace of simple existence, where you let me live and I let you live and we leave each other alone. There is a nice peace of coexistence, where we live together amicably, and we find a way to move past differences towards a greater common goal of making life better for all. And there is peace which is non-peace, which is when there isn’t an outer aggression all the time, but the aggression bubbles below the surface. When that animus exists, it is just waiting to rush out and commit unspeakable crimes.

 In the brothers’ case, it is unfortunate that Yaakov did not heed the warning signs, sending Yosef off to Shechem, to an encounter that was predictable because the animus was out in the open. 

Avshalom’s action upon Amnon was less predictable because it looked like peace but was a non-peace. And even if it had been predictable it is likely that no amount of talking to Avshalom would have gotten him to give up his aims on killing his sister’s rapist. 

 This is the challenge the Jewish people face in Israel with Gazan neighbors. Just about every Jew wants to leave alone and be left alone and to live in peace. Even if it’s a cold peace, it’s still peace. But when there is an enemy that just wants you dead, it is hard to have a conversation peaceably with that individual or entity. We have come to learn that some people who were viewed as trusted had betrayed (in some cases) over 20 years of trust, because they were of the Avshalom type. They acted normally, but hated in their hearts so deeply, that they betrayed every piece of information they could share about people they’d worked for and worked with for so long. 

 Perhaps there is merit to those who outwardly say they want to kill Jews, in that at least they are honest! The Torah teaches us that those who hate so deeply have to work on themselves to eradicate that hatred and to prefer to focus on good things in life and to be an inspiration to others in overcoming discord towards an equitable resolution that is peaceful. BUT it takes two sides to tango. 

When one side says “we want to live in peace,” and the other says “there will be peace when all of you are dead,” then there aren’t really two sides. There is, in a sense, no one to talk to. When this is the “partner,” there is no partner, and we are left with the human tragedy that we call “war” which can only really end when the side that seeks death for all is defeated once-and-for-all. 

May we merit to see the day when “we can talk to each other peaceably” – a day which will only come when the designs on killing our People are over, and the region is filled with an ideology that says “Look where we can find ourselves if we can work together towards the common goal of bettering our own lives and the lives of our children and grandchildren.” It begins by seeing the humanity in the other, and being able to say the other person’s name.

The Pain of the People of Shechem

Parshat Vayishlach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Seen on a Jewish satire webpage: 

Q: Why weren’t Shimon and Levi afraid of the consequences / repercussions from the surrounding nations, for killing out the people of Shchem? 

A: That’s exactly why they converted them first. Since they only killed Jews no one cared! 

Maybe you find it funny, maybe you don’t. 

The truth is that I saw a teaching along these lines many years ago (from the Haktav V’Hakbbalah) that suggests that Yaakov’s sons caused the Shechemites to have no allies because through the act of circumcision their former neighbors saw them as rejecting the old ways, and joining with the Jacob clan. 

Once looking at things through this lens, it becomes apparent that some of the verses we are familiar with need to be read in a different light.

In 34:15, the brothers make it clear to Shechem (the young man) that “you must be like us, all males circumcised.” In the next verse when they outline that the males of each family will marry the females of each family, they conclude saying “And we will be one nation.” 

The Torah goes on to describe that Shechem circumcised himself right away, and he and his father went to convince (or inveigle) the townspeople to go along with circumcising themselves. 

 The Torah then says that on the third day, when they were in pain, Shimon and Levi came in and executed everyone. There are many justifications given for this action, even though Yaakov was very upset by the actions of his sons. Some point to the whole town supporting Shechem’s rape of Dinah. Some say they all took a turn! Some say they did not establish courts to hold everyone accountable. There are very many analyses of this question – including a nice one by Nechama Leibowitz, as well as many individual commentaries.

A few commentaries note, however that the word “pain” – in the Torah כאבים, has a different meaning. It means turning to idolatry. 

 In other words, the Shechemites were cajoled into thinking that the bombastic and selfish prince was looking out for their best interests in telling them of the benefits of joining Yaakov’s clan and circumcising themselves. In short, they had buyer’s remorse and regret. 

 Within 3 days, they were back to their old ways. They had no intention of sticking with monotheism, and had no interest in making the effort to marry into Yaakov’s family. Someone who has joined the Jewish people and then returned to idolatrous ways may be subject to the worst kind of outcome. 

There is no question that the Shechem story is a human tragedy in every direction. The only people who seem to feel OK with their role in the story are Shimon and Levi who judged the people of the city and found them guilty of a capital crime. Or, perhaps as some commentaries put it, they went in to attack Shechem and his enabler-father, and the people of their city came to their defense and were all killed in the heat of some kind of battle. 

 At the very least, what that third day looked like is vague. We have a tradition that Avraham did a lot of running (to greet guests) on the third day after his own circumcision, which lends itself to suggest that in that time circumcision wasn’t all that debilitating. 

 The Jewish people are at a crossroad in our relationship with our non-Jewish neighbors worldwide. While I don’t believe there are as many anti-Semites as there seem to be, the loudest ones are typically the most brash and the most violent, and the ones that seem to get the most media attention.

Which leads us to ask ourselves, are we of the Yaakov mentality or the Shimon and Levi mentality? 

No, I am not suggesting that we circumcise everyone or kill anyone. 

 The question is more of do we focus on passivity, which seems to be Yaakov’s approach to confrontation with the family of Chamor and the people of Shechem. Yaakov’s route of choice is silence in the aftermath of what was done to Dinah. [It is an interesting study in how Yaakov reacts to Shechem versus how he has taken charge in confronting Lavan and Eisav respectively.] 

Or do we take the path of the brothers, saying “An abomination was done against our sister. We will stand for her honor and we will stand for our honor. Even if it makes us unpopular in the eyes of our father, and perhaps other neighbors. This is a risk we are willing to take, to show that Jewish blood is not cheap.” ? 

Those who follow the Yaakov approach may be surprised by how much Jewish blood has been spilled in the past, the argument having always been, “don’t rile them up. You’ll just make it worse.” As if being murdered, tortured and raped on a small scale is acceptable as long as it is not on a big scale. 

 The brothers’ approach of strength is the kind we need more than ever. Again, this is not a call for the murder of anti-Semites. But it is a call for us to remind ourselves that it is through strength that we are respected, and it is through weakness that we are further diminished. 

 May Jewish leaders today stand by this lesson. And may those who have the ability to fight back to show Jewish blood is not cheap demonstrate to the world and to our enemies that we know what we stand for – for goodness, for peace, for God, for the Torah. Those who respect our values we accept as neighbors. And those who want to destroy our values and who live for death and destruction – we are ready to fight such a notion because nothing is more pure and holy than knowing that the goodness you stand for is just, right and good, and that if necessary it is worth fighting for to defeat evil, and a culture bent on terror and devastation.