Adjusting After Interactions = Lesson Learned!

Parshat Bo 

 by Rabbi Avi Billet 

 Four of the plagues involve living creatures coming to disturb the lives of the Egyptians: Frogs, Lice, Arov (purposely not translating as this one is complicated to identify), and the locusts. During the plagues of frogs and Arov, as well as before and after the locusts come, does Pharaoh admit wrongdoing or offer to let the Israelites go. There is no communication with Moshe and Aharon before, during or immediately after the lice. [He also offers to let them leave during the plagues of hail and darkness, changing his mind after each plague ended.]

 If we pay careful attention to the language in the Torah, we see lessons being learned by Pharaoh, Moshe and Aharon, and even God. How so?

Pharaoh as a Human Being? - Human Consideration of Egypt's Plight

Parshat Shmot 

 by Rabbi Avi Billet 

 After Moshe and Aharon are reunited and they convince the nation of Israel that they were sent by God to redeem them (4:30-31), they come and declare before Pharoah, “Send My nation to celebrate for me in the wilderness!” Pharaoh refuses, denying God’s divinity and existence, causing Moshe and Aharon to say, “The God of the Hebrews has called upon us, so let us go on a three day journey to bring offerings to our God, lest we be smitten by a plague or by the sword.”  (5:1-3)

 The two verses which follow this show Pharaoh’s response, but they are introduced with a subtle difference. And, while similar, have 3 other distinct differences.  

The King of Egypt said to them, “Moshe and Aharon, why are you distracting the people (עם) from their work? Get back to your own business!' (5:4)

 Pharaoh said, “The peasants (עם הארץ) are becoming more numerous, and you want them to take a vacation from their labors!” (5:5)

 First the King of Egypt, then Pharaoh. Each one says something different. It would not be farfetched for the "king of Egypt" to say two different statements. But why does he need to be introduced twice, and each time a different way? There is particularly no need for a reintroduction since Moshe and Aharon do not respond to the things he says in verse 4.

Let us look at three different ways of understanding these noted differences.

 Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch says verse 4 was the king speaking to Moshe and Aharon personally but publicly. You’re using this ‘God-talk’ to just disturb people. The king is having a premonition to the famous line uttered by Wesley at his capture in “The Princess Bride” – “We are men of action, lies do not become us.” Don’t bring some ridiculous unheard of God into any conversation of whom to worship. This is the king talking to those who have taken the role of leaders – this is a political conversation between the top diplomats of each nation.

As Pharaoh, on the other hand, he speaks to them confidentially, using the term “Am Haaretz” (which we defined above as ‘peasants’) to describe his own nation of Egyptians that has multiplied, forcing an economy that can only survive only if each subject works diligently at his occupation. You, Moshe and Aharon, are asking for the Hebrew slaves to get a week off (3 days journey, 1 day of worship, 3 days return journey). Were the slaves to get a week off, you can only imagine what kinds of vacation the Egyptian population would demand. Everyone needs to make their contribution to society! If they walk off the jobs, the economy would collapse!

The Alshikh views these verses similarly, though he reverses the interpretation, suggesting verse 4 describes the Egyptians, while verse 5 describes the Israelites.

 Alshikh describes the scene in very plain terms, that Moshe and Aharon approaching the palace would cause a stir amongst the Egyptian population, many of whom would follow Moshe and Aharon to witness their impertinence in asking the king for favors, thereby abandoning their own tasks and jobs for the day. The king of the Egyptians is therefore blaming Moshe and Aharon for causing Egyptians to take a day off through distracting them.

 As Pharaoh, who has caused the Israelites to be enslaved, he notes the impossibility of letting the Israelites take a day off, as they have increased manifold. Noting their increased numbers, Pharaoh then takes steps, in verses 6-9, to increase their labor, making it more difficult for them to rebel because their responsibilities – getting their own straw for the bricks instead of being supplied with it – make their brick tally so much more difficult to achieve.

 Malbim notes the distinction between “Why are you distracting the people (ha’am) from their ‘work’ (‘ma’asav’ in Hebrew)?” (verse 4) and “you want the ‘am ha’aretz’ to take a vacation from their labors (‘mi’sivlotam’ in Hebrew)?” (verse 5)

 ‘Am’ refers to the tribe of Levi, who were exempt from labor, while ‘Am Ha’aretz’ are the poorest and lowliest of the nation, those whose labors are ‘sivlot.’ The ‘maasim’ of the Tribe of Levi refers to commerce, and work in the house and the field. ‘Sivlot’ is the back-breaking slave labor of the rest of the nation.

 Being distracted (verse 4) is also different than taking a vacation (verse 5). A distraction is temporary, which is followed by the distracted person going back to work. But a vacation breaks the rhythm of never-ending labor, a rhythm which, once broken, is very difficult to return to.

 Malbim argues that when Moshe came to speak to the people (in 4:30) to convince them of his being sent by God, there is no way he was able to communicate with the back-broken laborers, because they had no rest or respite from their slavery. He must have been speaking to his fellow tribesmen, Levi, who were not so consistently needed at their tasks, as they did not participate in the slave labor.

 The king saying at the end of verse 4, “Go to your labors (l'sivloteicheim)!” was his way of saying, “You’re looking to get your otherwise excused tribe of Levi (the 'am') involved in slave labor? Watch yourself!” And then Pharaoh (verse 5) checked himself thinking, “If I employ the tribe of Levi and the elders, it will get the rest of the nation ('am ha'aretz'), who are many, to relax from their labors – either in protest, or because they’ll see an expansion of laborers which will cause them to take less responsibility for their own tasks.” In other words, the statement of Pharaoh (verse 5) was checking the hasty statement made by himself in his role as king (verse 4), essentially negating it so the labor will continue.

 These perspectives show that there were political considerations beyond just pure evil ascribed to the king. This does not excuse how Pharaoh viewed his role, nor how Egypt as a whole enslaved the Israelites. But it is interesting to think that the people we read of were real, and were looking at a world that was not just black and white.

 Every situation on a world stage is complicated. Evil can be viewed in black and white terms, but until people on different sides are able to talk to one another, understand the other perspective, and come to a table in which real agreements can be made (with each side needing to bend a bit), negotiations between opposing sides will remain difficult, if not impossibly insurmountable.

Seeing Your Problem For What It Is

Parshat Va'era                

by Rabbi Avi Billet

“For these things I weep; my eye, yea my eye, sheds tears, for the comforter to restore my soul is removed from me; my children are desolate, for the enemy has prevailed.” (Eichah 1:17(

About eight weeks ago we gathered in collective mourning for four Jews who were murdered while praying in a Synagogue, and a Druze police officer who was murdered coming to help them. This week we mourn for four Jews who were in a kosher store in Paris the day before Shabbos, either working or shopping there in preparation for the Holy Day. And we are appreciative to the police who ended the situation with complete neutralization of the terrorist.

            

Maybe France and the world received a wake-up call two days earlier when a satire magazine was attacked by monsters coming from a similar background – anti West, and anti-Semites. I wonder what the media and reaction landscape would be had the order of these attacks been reversed. But perhaps cynicism regarding the world’s attitude to Jewish victim-hood is out of place at this time. So we’ll be straightforward.

            

That almost all the perpetrators must now face their Maker is fitting. That all the loved ones of their victims are left bereaved is worse than tragic.

            

What does it take to defeat such an enemy? Sadly all-out war is not possible. Depending on whose estimates you follow, there are between 50 million to over 500 million people in the world who support the attacks on France, and would participate in such attacks if they only could. But since they’re not coming out armed and ready to fight, they can’t be met on a traditional battlefield.

            

In ancient Egypt, there was a similar problem. Who was the enemy? Who deserved punishment?

            

Was all of Egypt at fault? Or was it Pharaoh and his taskmasters who bore responsibility? Certainly the Egyptians were ordained by God to be the hosts of slavery. But even God recognized that Egypt was taking their job far too seriously, and He brought the Israelites out of Egypt 190 years early. There is a way to make Jews suffer, and then there was the ancient Egypt way, which could not be made up by any civil human being, even if s/he tried.

            

What was the point of the plagues? In truth there were several objectives. First - destroy Egyptian society. If society can’t function, the people turn to their leader and demand a change! Second - to make God’s name known to the Egyptians. This element is reviewed throughout the plagues. Third - to get across to Pharaoh that this is real, and that he ought to take Moshe and Aharon more seriously.

            

Of course, the midrashic approach has several accounts of how the plagues were meant to serve as “Middah k’neged middah” (measure for measure) in response to how the Egyptians had treated the slaves.

            

Certainly not every Egyptian was cruel and deserving of direct punishment. But Egyptians did not do enough to express to their leadership that certain treatment of slaves is beyond the pale of acceptable behavior. They denied God’s role in the destiny of the Jewish people. And Pharaoh’continued denial of reality made it much harder for him to face the hard truth that his country was falling to pieces right before his eyes.  And, as a collective result, they all suffered through the plagues and were punished with the death of the Firstborn, when their leader refused, after repeated warnings, to let the Israelites leave.

            

Not every German was a Nazi, yet how many people do not point at all Germans of the ‘40s as aiders and abetters?

            

Certainly not all French are ant-Semitic. But a culture which ignores what happens to its Jews at the hands of terrorists (think Toulouse, and other horrible attacks in the last few years) until the same terrorists attack a satirical magazine, is asking to be swept up in the same generalization as ancient Egyptians and World War II-era Germans. It’s not nice to say, but if you don’t see how the continued anti-Semitism aimed toward French Jews (mostly by recent Muslim immigrants) is a problem, and if you can’t face the hard truth that your culture is being usurped from underneath your nose, your country is doomed to fall apart.

            

It was very sympathetic of the French Prime Minister to declare “If 100,000 Jews leave, France will no longer be France. The French Republic will be judged a failure.” But the reality is that they’ve done next to nothing to create a secure environment for Jews against this latest repeated threat, and have therefore seen this year the largest wave of Jewish emigration out of France in over 65 years. There was certainly no solidarity march after the Toulouse murders of 3 children and a rabbi, nor after the anti-Semitic targeting of Ilan Halimi, HY"D. Nor did any notable security increase.

            

In ancient Egypt, there was never an all-out battle against a common enemy. It simply was not possible. But in those days, God played a very significant role in destroying the Egyptian society through plagues.

            

We pray that God will help those who have the power to protect the Jews and citizens of France, and to rid the evil from their midst

Yosef's Pharaoh: Old or Young?

Parshat Miketz

By Rabbi Avi Billet

We are well aware of the ages of Yosef and Yaakov in their journeys  through Egypt. Yosef was 17 when he was sold, 30 when he stood before Pharaoh, and 39 when his brothers came to Egypt looking for food.

                

Yaakov was 108 when Yosef was sent to Egypt, and he tells Pharaoh in Vayigash that he is 130, after Pharaoh asks him “How old are you?”

                

The question is, how old was this Pharaoh? Not knowing which of the Egyptian Pharaohs he was, nor exactly when Yosef was elevated to viceroy, we can not say with any certainty.

                

But in reading the narrative, the possibility lends itself that Pharaoh was much younger, in line with the reality that some of the Pharaohs were boys when they assumed the leadership of ancient Egypt.

                

Does it really matter how old he was? Probably not. But his age, especially if he was much younger, does explain many of the questions we may have in trying to understand how Pharaoh took such a liking to Yosef so quickly.

                

His impetuousness caused him to throw his Chief Cupbearer and Chief Baker into prison. And even such a youthful obstinance could call for the death of his Chief Baker. Especially if he relies heavily on the advice of others. 

                

He celebrates a birthday. He doesn’t trust any of his advisors when it comes to interpreting his dream. He meets Yosef, a young, handsome, seemingly trustworthy man. He develops an instant accord with him, and takes his advice to such an extent that he gives Yosef the keys to the kingdom putting him in charge of all the food for the years of Plenty.

                

Was Pharaoh incapable of using someone in-house? Was he unable to supervise the efforts himself?

                

If we view him as a youth, relatively inexperienced, we can understand why Pharaoh feels the way he does towards Yosef. Everyone else who speaks to him patronizes him. Everyone else thinks they are working in his best interest. And he doesn’t like it. He doesn’t like being babied, being pampered, and being treated as if any idea which he thinks of won’t work because he is merely a youth.

                

Yosef comes along, and treats the king in the manner the king wants to be treated. As a human being. As an equal. As a king. As a ruler. Especially one who is capable of making his own decisions.

                

In a sense, we can suggest that Pharaoh is looking to make Yosef as the father-figure he is lacking in his life. Yosef even states, when he reveals himself to his brothers, “God has made me a father to Pharaoh, and a master over all of Egypt.” (45:8) And this is why, when Yosef makes his suggestion to Pharaoh, that Pharaoh should appoint a man over the food undertaking (41:33), putting in Pharaoh’s hands alone the decision of whom to choose – not making it dependent on the insights of his advisors – Pharaoh is enamored and enraptured and feels Yosef will be the best person to fill the role. He’ll be a personal confidant to Pharaoh, an outsider who understands the king, who has been through a different kind of school of hard knocks (though for Yosef it was prison, while for Pharaoh it was taking control of Egypt at such a young age).

                

I can’t prove this theory. The only evidence I’ve found referring to Pharaoh’s age actually has him as a much much older man (see Torah Shleimah on 47:8) – but there is no evidence in ancient Egypt (that I am aware of) to support an over 100-year old Pharaoh.

                

The lesson to take from this is either that young people need mentors, or that they need to be given a chance. If Pharaoh was younger, and was looking to Yosef to be his mentor, the relationship worked splendidly.

                

And if, in fact, Yosef was younger, then he was given the chance he needed to exercise his talents in a field where he could shine. The opportunity afforded to him by Pharaoh may have come from an attitude that says, “I’ll give this kid a chance. And if he messes up, he’s expendable. But if he proves himself, and the first impression he has given is correct, then we will all benefit from his success.”

                

Based on how the tale of Egypt’s, and the world’s survival at that time follows in the Torah, it seems everyone did benefit from Yosef’s success.

                

If only the world can still acknowledge what Yosef (or those who identify with his nationality) contributes to the world, the Jewish people and the State of Israel would be appreciated by all of humanity.

Of Butler(s) and Baker(s)

Parshat Vayeshev

by Rabbi Avi Billet

After discovering questions that never bothered me before, and using certain learning skills acquired in classes taught by the late Rabbi Mordechai Breuer, a new approach to the tale of the dreams Yosef interprets at the end of our parsha became apparent. Wonderfully, some of these ideas are also shared by Abravanel and Alshikh (and others) – both of whose interpretations of chapter 40 are essential.

                

When the Torah describes for us the circumstances surrounding Pharaoh’s sending his servants into prison, the verses become inexplicably repetitive.

1.       The king of Egypt’s butler and the baker sin to their master, the king of Egypt.

2.       Pharaoh gets angry at his two officers: the officer of the butlers, and the officer of the bakers.

3.       He placed them in the holding cell (mishmar) of the officer of butchers, to the prison (beit hasohar) where Yosef is imprisoned.

4.       The officer of butchers appointed Yosef [to be] with them, and he served them, while they spent days [yamim] in the holding cell [mishmar]

5.       The two of them dreamed a dream, each his own dream, and each his interpretation, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who are imprisoned in the prison (beit hasohar).

6.       Yosef came to them in the morning and saw they were perturbed.

7.       And he asked the officers of Pharaoh, that were with him in the holding cell (mishmar) of the house of his master saying, “Why are your faces so upset today?”

The most notable changes in the text from verse to verse are a. the difference between referring to the singular baker and butler (verses 1,5) and the “officers over many” (verses 2,7), b. the sin (verse 1) vs. Pharaoh’s anger (verse 2), c. the location of imprisonment – a beit hasohar (2^nd half of 3, 5) vs. a mishmar (1^st half of 3, 4, 7), d. the nature of the prison location – beit hasohar is where Yosef was at the end of chapter 39, while the mishmar seems to be a private prison in the house of the officer of butchers – Yosef’s former master, e. those who work for the king of Egypt (verses 1,5) vs. those who have a relationship with Pharaoh (verses 2,7).

                

I am unfamiliar with Rabbi Breuer’s teachings on this chapter. But I would imagine his either saying there are two aspects (shtei bechinot) to what is going on here or two different strings of action. If two aspects – one is on the micro level in terms of what happened to two specific workers, while the macro is the significance for the future of the nation of Israel, when Yosef, who is destined to be king, approaches people who are light years ahead of him politically, but who will be serving him (if they survive) within a short time.

                

If there are two different strings of action, there is a single butler and a single baker, each from a full team of butlers and bakers, who sinned in some manner against the king. They are thrown into a prison for political prisoners, one from which there is theoretically no escape. Their overseers, officers, are also punished (after all, they bear responsibility for the flaws of their underlings), but are sent to a minimum security place called a mishmar. Because the mishmar is in Yosef’s master’s home, and because the officers were high ranking, the officer of butchers wants them to be pampered while in prison, so he takes Yosef out of the inescapable jail (beit hasohar) in order to be in the minimum security place (mishmar) from which cases are heard and people are given a chance at being reinstated to their former positions.

                

There are certainly commentators who will suggest this whole exercise is a waste of time because the butler and the baker are the same persons as the Officer of the Butlers and the Officer of the Bakers.

                

And yet a careful study of the verses does leave one wondering why there is so much repetition. Was Yosef wrong, and therefore punished by God, on account of asking the Officer of Butlers to remember him to Pharaoh? Or was his request reasonable, and the Officer of Butlers forgot (as people often do) in the heat of the moment? Was the timing perhaps not right for Yosef to get out of prison? Had he gone out then, what options would have been before him? To work for Potiphar (not great, on numerous levels), to work for someone else (also not great), to go home (??? – what makes him think Pharaoh would ever send him home?). All options would have played against his getting a direct audience with Pharaoh and being subsequently appointed as viceroy. And remember that the main reason he gets that audience is because the officer of Butlers remembers him to Pharaoh.

                

Whether there are two aspects to the tale, or two strings of action, the consideration that Yosef did everything correctly and that he was not a victim of circumstance any more than he was a tool in God’s Divine Plan needs revisiting. We don’t necessarily know why Yosef is thrown in a pit by his brothers and later into a prison-pit. But all of his adventures were meant to harden him and train him to be capable of rising to the position of viceroy when he was ready.

This is the story of our people. Sometimes we look at events in our lives, and they don’t make sense. Or on our own micro level, they are difficult to comprehend. But if we can recall that we are all pieces of a much more macro image of the story of the Jewish people, perhaps we can sense that our lives matter, and that all the pitfalls and trials we undergo are cogs in the great wheel that will ultimately make our people ready to embrace the Final Redemption.

Relooking, Relearning: Nachash v. Tannin

Parshat Va'era            

by Rabbi Avi Billet

It is time to set the record straight. 

The undertaking of this weekly dvar torah is often driven by a desire to find new approaches to oft-repeated ideas in our understanding of the Torah.

            

By "new" I mean "not the way you've been learning it since second grade."

Rashbam (Rashi's grandson who disagreed with him on a number of interpretations) writes at the beginning of Parshat Vayeshev (37:2) (shortly before he explains how Yosef's brothers did not sell him!), that he was talking with his grandfather Rashi who told him that if he only had the time "haya tzarich" - he would "have needed" - to rewrite his commentary on account of the novel ideas which come to him on a daily basis.

            

So if Rashi would argue with Rashi, we must get out of the box that says there is only way to learn. "Shivim Panim La'Torah" (there are 70 faces to the Torah) is how we are to learn – it is not meant to be a buzzword or phrase.

            

To bring some examples in narrative: Identifying ages of people – Avraham when (if) he was thrown into a fire, and when he discovered God; Yitzchak at the Akedah; Rivkah at her marriage; Shimon and Levi (and Dinah!) in Shechem; Moshe when he kills the Egyptian; the age of every Pharaoh we meet.

            

Some narrative tales: Og and the Ark, Noach being attacked by a lion, that Yishmael tried to kill baby Yitzchak, Yitzchak becoming blind because of the angel's tears at the Akedah, every image of "malachim"/messengers of God our minds have concocted, that Eliezer's camels flew across the desert, that Rachel gave Leah signs (maybe Lavan got Yaakov drunk), that Yosef knew a language Pharaoh didn't know, that the brothers sold Yosef, that Eisav was killed at Yaakov's funeral, that Moshe had a speech impediment (because he put coal on his mouth as a baby in Pharaoh's palace!), that Moshe did not strike the water to turn it into blood, and our identification of plagues involving animals (tzfardea, kinim, arov, arbeh).  

           

Much of our knowledge is embedded in us because school teachers love to teach Midrash stories. But the "Drash" part is meant to teach lessons. A story without a lesson is a fluffing of the Torah. Raise your hand if you have been extremely disappointed when you discovered as an adult that some of the things you had been taught as gospel truth are not even in the Torah. I thought so. Time to move past it, my friend. You are no longer in 2nd grade.

            

So let us dispel a rumor here and now.

            

I dutifully accept that the "signs and wonders" that are described in the Torah happened. I marvel that in a number of instances the Egyptian necromancers "did it as well" (7:11-12; 7:22; 8:3) until 8:14 (the plague of kinim/lice) when they were unable to mirror the act, and declared the plague to be coming from the Finger of God (8:15). If they were able to do it as well (even if they were using trickery and not "real" magic) that is some incredible feat! If I were Pharaoh, I wouldn't believe Moshe and Aharon either when they morph a staff, and bring forth blood and frogs.

            

But the one thing that is unexplainable to me is how the words "Nachash" and "Tannin" became interchangeable. At the burning bush, Moshe was given a sign to convince the Israelites he was sent by God, through his staff turning into a Nachash – which we understand as a snake. He performed this for the people in 4:30, and they believed him.

            

In our parsha, the instruction is given to Aharon to throw his own staff, so that it may turn into a "Tannin" before Pharaoh. Rashi immediately explains Tannin with one word: "Nachash." (snake/serpent) Why does he do that? Or, a better question, how could he do that?

            

The first time the word Tannin appears in the Torah is in Bereshit 1:21. There, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan translates what God created on the fifth day (Hataninim hagdolim) to mean, 

"Sea Monsters or 'whales,' or 'dragons.' Taninim in Hebrew; see Exodus 7:9. The Midrash states that it alludes to a pair of particularly great sea creatures, the Leviathan and its mate. See Isaiah 27:1, Psalms 74:14, 104:26, Job 3:8, 40:25."

It is not claimed to be a large snake - neither an anaconda or a python.

On 7:9, after translating "Tanin" as a viper, Rabbi Kaplan explains the term, 

"Tanin in Hebrew. Some say that this is the same snake (nachash) that it became at the Burning Bush (Exodus 4:3), see Exodus 7:15 (Rashi; Lekach Tov; Radak, Sherashim, s.v. tanan). Others say that by the Burning Bush, God gave Moses a sign for the Israelites, but before Pharaoh, the staff turned into a crocodile (Ibn Ezra; K'li Yekar), and that this was Aaron's staff and not Moses' (K'li Yekar, Zohar)."

The Shmot 7:15 reference is not a good proof, because Moshe is clearly being told to strike the water with his own staff there, the one which had turned to a snake (nachash).

            

Who really cares if it was a snake or a crocodile? Does it matter? Isn't it miraculous either way? Yes. But the Torah records two different animals because there were two different animals. And because each animal, in its own way, was important and significant.

            

The snake may have been to teach Moshe not to speak Lashon Hara about the Israelites over their not believing him. But the Midrash says it was also a symbol for Israel, against Pharaoh - who is compared to a snake, either as a deity, or as one who "bites" Israel - that Pharaoh, the snake, will be defeated by the staff, and he will ultimately become wood. Just as the stick does not bite, Pharaoh will no longer be able to bite. This is also symbolized in the grabbing of its tail – something no snake handler would do – you completely "own" it.

            

As for the Tannin, that was a message for Pharaoh alone. The Midrash Rabba (9:4) quoted by Chizkuni, Baal Haturim and others points to the fact that Pharaoh referred to himself as a Tannin (based on Yechezkel 29:3 – where Rabbi Kaplan translated it, "I against you Pharaoh, the great crocodile, who lurks within his rivers"), and the message was, "Just as this Matteh (staff) turns into a crocodile, consumes the other mattot (staffs), and will return to be wood again, you consume the 12 mattot (tribes) now, but you too will turn to dry wood and die."

            

So, in essence, there was a deeper message to be sent through the staff turning to a crocodile before Pharaoh, than that this is just a cool magic trick. We ought not to take the easy party line that "nachash = tannin, the staff always turns to a snake."

            

There are different staffs and different messages being sent to those who see God's wonders, each group according to their needs and their specific relationship with God. Moshe heard one message, the Israelites heard a different message, and there was one message assigned special for Pharaoh.

            

This lesson is not limited to our understanding of Torah narrative, but reflects the reality of our existence. Every event that unfolds is meant to teach something unique those who experience it, each person or group according to their needs in their lives under God's watchful eye.

At First Sight

Parshat Miketz

by Rabbi Avi Billet


There are a number of mitzvoth which appear in the Torah multiple times: Shabbat, holidays, kosher animals, Shmittah (Sabbatical year), Eved Ivri (Hebrew servant), not to "cook a kid in its mother's milk." Even bris milah, tzitzis and tefillin each appear at least twice. Sometimes there are differences in the repetition, and the repetition usually serves a purpose.

When it comes to narrative, however, the Torah rarely repeats a story. Last week we read the story of Yosef and Potiphar's wife, and when she told her husband the tale, we are told "She said, 'This is what he did to me,'" (39:19) and as the text does not elaborate, we can assume she embellished the details. We need not know what she said, as all we need to know is that Yosef ended up in prision.

After Moshe is given the signs of the snake, the whitened hand, and to pour water from the river to turn it to blood before the people, he does so – the Torah does not repeat the details (Shmot 4:30)

But the two most blatant examples of repeated narrative are the story of Eliezer finding Rivkah (Chapter 24) and Pharaoh's dream here in Chapter 41.

In Eliezer's retelling of his own story, he changes some details to make the story and the setup more palatable to Rivkah's family. He achieves his goal: he convinces them of the divine hand in his trip, they agree to let Rivkah go with him, and Rivkah the wife for Yitzchak whom Eliezer was appointed to find.

But in our narrative, Pharaoh's dream is told to us, and then he repeats it to Yosef for interpretation with a few changes as well.

In his dream Pharaoh was standing "on the river," the first cows were "y'fot mareh," the second cows are "raot mareh v'dakot basar" and they stand next to the first cows. The cows who were "raot mareh v'dakot basar" ate the cows that were "y'fot hamareh."

In his retell Pharaoh stands "on the edge of the river," the first cows are "y'fot toar," the second cows are "dalot, v'raot toar m'od, v'rakot basar," and Pharaoh adds "I have never seen such bad looking cows in Egypt". The cows who were "rakot and raot" ate the first cows. The cows were completely swallowed, but it was not detectable because they looked as they had before [this last sentence is entirely new and was unapparent from the dream itself.]

In the second dream, the stalks are "briyot v'tovot" (healthy and good). The second stalks are described as thin and scorched by the east wind. They consumed the "healthy and full" stalks.

In the retell they are "m'layot v'tovot" (full and good). The second stalks are described as thin and scorched by the east wind, but are also "tz'numot" (shriveled). They consumed the "good" stalks.

Why the differences? Unlike Eliezer, Pharaoh isn't trying to convince Yosef of anything.

Or is he?

The Midrash Sechel Tov suggests Pharaoh dreamt the interpretation to the dream along with the dream, but forgot it. How else could he know that Yosef's interpretation was the correct one? Surely others tried interpreting it for him. Once he heard Yosef's interpretations, however, it triggered the memory, and he knew it was correct.

This line of thinking makes a lot of sense when we consider that Yosef's interpretation should have ended with verse 41:32 when he said "The reason that Pharaoh had the same dream twice is because the process has already been set in motion by God, and God is rushing to do it." But Yosef continued and said, "Now Pharaoh must seek out a man with insight and wisdom, and place him in charge of Egypt."

How did he get away with this bold statement?

Because when Pharaoh first laid eyes on Yosef, a memory was triggered that told him "This is the man who will interpret, this is the man I must keep close to me."

In other words, Pharaoh wanted Yosef to interpret correctly and to suggest a man be appointed, and Pharaoh presented the dreams with his own commentary in order to help Yosef produce the interpretation Pharaoh could not pull out of his subconscious mind.

First impressions are very powerful. Sometimes you meet someone for the first time and feel kinship, or feel this person is a person you'd like to get to know better. And sometimes there's a feeling you can't put your finger on that tells you this person will be a lifelong friend. There are many married couples who will tell you "they knew" when they first met, even if they did not hear bells and whistles or experience what Hollywood calls "love at first sight" (a concept I don't believe in).

Because Pharaoh wanted this encounter to work out (as he immediately set in motion in 41:38-35), he took the steps he needed to in order to give Yosef the chance to "earn" being close to him, the reward he carried for the rest of their days.

A Non Trivial Pursuit

This can be read in the Jewish Star

Parshat Vayetze

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Chapter 31 is a little long to reproduce here, but it is worth reading before proceeding. It is a quick read, as the plot moves along like a well-written suspense novel.

Yaakov senses that the warm and fuzzy feelings are long gone and that it is time to return home. G-d seconds the notion in one sentence, so Yaakov approaches his wives, sisters Rachel and Leah, and appeals to them using three essential points. Your father’s view of me has changed dramatically, G-d has watched over me and given me your father’s wealth (which I anticipated through a vision of an angel), and now G-d has told me to return home. (31:5-13)

Their response is to all three points: Our father treats us like strangers as well, his wealth belongs to us and our children (thanks to G-d), and whatever G-d has told you to do should be done. (31:14-16)

The family flees from Laban’s home, and we begin to see a series of interesting parallels to a different time and place when this family (albeit a much larger group) flees from their current abode where they have been working for a different kind of boss.

Vayigash - Back Where We Started?

Parshat Vayigash: First history lesson

By Rabbi Avi Billet

As soon as Paroh learns of the arrival of Yosef’s family, he invites them to return to Canaan merely to bring their father and families, in order to settle more permanently in Egypt.

“Do not even concern yourselves with your vessels/belongings, for the good of the land of Egypt will be available to you.” (45:20)

One can assume Paroh was referring to the availability of Egyptian products, Egyptian agriculture (which dried up during the famine), Egyptian culture, Egyptian technology and innovation. Was Paroh indicating this promise would remain in effect for the duration of the famine? For the remainder of Yosef’s life? For the remainder of Paroh’s life? Until such time as the family would want to leave? Indefinitely?

Netziv points out that sometimes, Biblical characters say things with a certain intention, while their words end up having a different meaning. For example, in 37:20, the brothers said, “Let’s kill him, and then we’ll see what become of his dreams.” While they were being cynical, their words “We will see what become of his dreams,” became prophetic.

Here too, says Netziv, Paroh was unaware that his words “the good of the land of Egypt will be available to you,” was a pre-ordained prophesy: Avraham had been promised that his children would be strangers in a strange land, and G-d meant for “all of the good of Egypt to be available to them” so their stay — even while enslaved — would never lack the amenities of Egypt.

Nonetheless, it is quite clear that the family does not take Paroh up on his offer. As they leave Canaan, G-d tells Yaakov (46:2-4), “Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt, for you will become a great nation there. I will take you down, and I will also bring you back up from there.” The next two verses tell us that in addition to their entire families, they bring all their cattle and property. This is confirmed again at the end of the chapter (46:32) — “they brought with them their sheep, cattle and all they had.”

When leaving home, they have no idea how long they will stay in Egypt. As was the case in every exile, for better or for worse, the Jews got comfortable in their new environment. They enjoyed everything Egypt had to offer them — the open space, the endless supply of food and water, the culture. While different rabbinic sources indicate they were ultimately redeemed from Egypt because they maintained their names, language and secrets, and guarded themselves from speaking lashon hara and protected their wives from sins of a sexual nature, it would seem, they were otherwise completely assimilated into Egyptian society — idolaters and all!

In essence, the descent to Egypt was the ultimate paradox. On the one hand, since you don’t trust the host nation’s promise to completely provide for you, you bring your own possessions and supplies. On the other hand, because you so appreciate the hospitality, you assimilate almost completely into the culture, only maintaining a minimal smidgen of your old identity — enough to indicate you’re “different” within your own circles and in the general culture, but other nationalities would not be able to distinguish between you and your host nation.

We live in the greatest nation the world has ever seen. The principles of freedom upon which this country was founded — most notably separation of church and state — gave us the chance to thrive in a way that throughout history has ultimately led to persecution or expulsion from other lands.

In a world of parable, however, the Jewish people are experiencing Egypt all over again. Not in a sense of slavery, but in the sense that even those things that helped us maintain our identity in Egypt — names, language, clothing, and separation from lashon hara and immorality — are being blurred.

In many hearts and minds, intermarriage is no longer “rebellion”; it is a fact of life. Lack of Hebrew literacy and Jewish knowledge is no longer “because it’s not for me”; it is not even on the radar screen. With the exception of small communities, we all dress the same. One can argue it is not even worth opening a lament about lashon hara and immorality, because it will never end.

History has a lot to teach us, and as is often the case, history does indeed repeat itself.

When it is time for the ultimate redemption, will G-d recognize us at all?