Yosef's Strategy: Family, Not Dreams

Parshat Miketz

by Rabbi Avi Billet

There are many ways to analyze Yosef's strategy with his brothers – what was his intent, his plan, and his goal in having them go through all the "tzurres" he gave them over their younger brother and their father. The superlatives run from "cruel" to "brilliant" and from "vindictive" to "well thought out."

            

Ramban justifies all the suffering Yosef causes his father saying Binyamin needed to come without Yaakov for the first dream to be fulfilled.

But I don't understand the need for it at all. Yosef had two dreams – the first that "We were working in a field" when their bundles bowed to Yosef's bundle. He did not specify how many bundles bowed. The second dream was that the sun, moon and eleven stars bowed to Yosef.

            

As soon as his ten brothers come in, they bow. Yosef sees them and recognizes them. (42:6-7) It seems to me that the first dream has been fulfilled! There was never any indication that Binyamin's bowing is a necessity for the fulfillment of the dream! Furthermore, if the dream was like a prophesy, why would Yosef need to do anything to align things to happen the way he saw in his dream? God will take care of it!

            

If he wants to find out if his father and brother are alive – fine! Then he should ask that, reveal himself, and tell them to bring the family down because there will be a few more years of famine. But he doesn't even do that! He accuses them of being spies! Their response is that they are the sons of one man – therefore, not spies.

            

He repeats an accusation that "You've come to find where the land is exposed!" Rabbi Chaim Paltiel explains Yosef's comment, adding "If you were brothers you might have left someone home! Since you all came, it indicates you plan to attack us!" And their response is that "We are 12 brothers, the youngest is with our father today, and the other one is missing." And Yosef confirms, "This is what I was saying – You are spies!"

            

He never asked about Binyamin – they offered the information to prove their innocence.

            

If dream number one is fulfilled, all that’s needed is for the family to know that Yosef is alive and well, and that he is ruling in Egypt, and that he will take care of them as long as there is a famine – as long as they come down to Egypt. This takes place in 45:26-28.

When they all come down, "the sun, moon and eleven stars" will bow, and Yosef's second dream will be fulfilled. Three chapters in the Torah don't need to happen.

There is a possibility that Yosef wanted to see how his brothers care for Binyamin. But does it really matter? By the time it's all over, Yosef says to his brothers "You did not send me here. God did…" (45:8) This indicates that Yosef is at peace with what happened, because it was meant to happen – it was the only way his dreams could be fulfilled – and he bears no ill will to his brothers. And if they have any problems with Binyamin, who has survived until now (to allow fulfillment of his second dream), they'll have no way to harm him because Yosef will protect him.

I think that all of Yosef's actions have nothing to do with the dreams. Sure, he remembers them, but they are from a bygone era, when he had a different life, when he was a young punk, with no experience, who had dreams of grandeur because of how he was favored by his father.

But those days are long gone. Ramban points out that Yosef never wrote a letter to his father, though he surely could have. Rav Yoel Bin Nun and Rav Yaakov Medan have debated in the pages of Megadim (periodicals of Herzog College in Israel) why Yosef chose the "non-communication" route. The question boils down to what was going through his head.

Once Yosef was in a position to communicate with his family on account of their unknowingly coming to him, all Yosef wanted was Binyamin: innocent Binyamin, his only full brother, the only one he felt he could trust. That was his end goal. When he says in the last verse of the parsha that Binyamin would stay while the rest could "go in peace to your father," he meant every word. How could he know what was coming next – Yehuda's appeal (the longest in the Torah) that made the entire ordeal about Yaakov's health?

When the brothers told Yosef, "We are twelve: one is home and one is missing" they used the word "Ei-neh-nu" (איננו) to describe Yosef's status. The word could mean missing, gone, or dead (see 5:24). Yosef understood it to mean "missing," which indicates no one cared about him in all the years he was gone. But the term, as used (see 37:30, 42:13,32,36, and then in 44:30-34) indicates a deep caring for one who is missing. What changes for Yosef is 44:28, when he hears for the first time that his father thinks he is dead - that Yosef misunderstood the word's meaning when it referred to how his father viewed him.

Was he vindictive? Was he justified? Everyone in the story learns a very profound lesson. The only way to treat family members is through living life with no regrets (42:21-22). Only when the family unit is 100% supportive of one another, and no individual or group ever makes rash decisions or gangs up on another does a family have a chance to survive, thrive, and move mountains.

May we be blessed to have extensive, unified families who do everything to build one another up, with respect and most importantly, with the right emotional support. 

At the Forefront of the Mind

Parshot MATOT-Masei 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Reading through Bamidar Chapter 32, one gets mixed feelings. The Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven (tribes of Gad and Reuven) look at the land the Israelites have recently conquered, East of the Jordan, and they realize they have a match made in heaven. The land is fertile, perfect for farm animals, and wouldn't you know it! – they have many farm animals. (32:4)

Would it be possible, they ask, for these two tribes to settle there, without entering the land of Canaan? 

Formalities need to be worked out. How could they sit back while the rest of the nation is fighting the inhabitants of Canaan?

Moshe instructs them to build homes for their families and animals, and then they are to lead the battles. And then he tells Yehoshua and Elazar that these tribes must lead the battles until all the land is conquered. Only when their mission is complete may they return home. And if they do not complete their mission, they may not settle East of the Jordan – they will have to be divided in the land amongst the other tribes. 

Gad and Reuven agree, and their completion of their mission is confirmed in the book of Yehoshua 22. 

There are different approaches to understanding their request and the subsequent way in which they are viewed. Is it proper for them to specifically want to live outside of the land which will become Israel? Why would their "punishment" (were they to not fulfill their condition) be to live in the land? Surely that is a good thing! How many times does the agreement need to be repeated and reworded and reemphasized? [At least three times!] 

In halakha, the proper form of making a two-sided condition is modeled in 32:29-30 (Talmud Kiddushin 61a). This would be a positive outcome of the exchange. The guarantee that these troops, often considered the best in the nation, would lead is also a positive outcome. 

But many point out that the tribes of Gad and Reuven requested, first and foremost, to be able to build housing for their animals (32:16). Moshe only agreed if they put their number one priority on building homes for their families (32:24). In the following verses (25-26) they agree to Moshe's condition, putting their families before their animals. 

The main question I suppose running through everyone's head at the time was, "Is this good for the Jews?" 

Moshe was certainly not impressed. He felt that the desire to live outside the land echoed the mistake made by the spies and the people in the tale of woe that condemned the nation to their 40 years of wandering. And yet, their promise to lead the battles seems to suggest that it is not that they don't appreciate the land. They just recognize a good thing when they see it, and the land East of the Jordan is good for their financial needs. In this respect, while they do not feel that they specifically need to live in the land of Israel, they do recognize, and clearly plan to militarily support those who will be living in the land. This is certainly good for the Jews. 


The presumed financial loss they will assume were they to break their promise is the reason why their "punishment" will be to live in the land if they do not fulfill their obligations. The punishment is not suggesting the land is no good. But it is aimed at hitting them in their pocketbooks. It is human nature to want to do whatever one can in order to avoid losing the financial windfall that will bring long-term economic security. 

The agreement is repeated over and over because it is important that everyone understand what is expected and what the outcome is. While this did not pre-date the concept of written documents, certainly the public nature of this Gentlemen's Agreement would help assure that there would be no backsliding or reneging in the particulars. 

The halakhic outcome of how to make a conditional agreement – "If you fulfill your responsibilities, the outcome will be X, whereas if you do not fulfill your responsibilities, the outcome will be Y" – serves as a model for all time how to make clear agreements without loopholes, so both sides can avoid being cheated, and can agree in a manner that everyone is clear as to what are the expectations. 

Which leaves us with their lost sense of priorities: how could they think of their animals before thinking of their children? 

I think that they viewed their financial stability as the means to be able to take care of their children. "If I can assure my income is set and stable, I know I'll be able to provide for my children." 

Moshe set the record straight for them, that as much as finances are important, the homes for the children need to be built before the homes for the animals. They "got it" right away, and proceeded accordingly. 

All in all, I think the Gad and Reuven episode was "good for the Jews" on account of the lessons it contains.  

Not every Jew needs to live in Israel, but every Jew should support its army. When a financial windfall passes your way, take it. Make sure you take every precaution in business dealings to give something in order to get something – make all stipulations clear, follow through with your end of the bargain, and make sure that in the end the other side of the agreement is fulfilled. Lastly, we must recognize that our priorities are our families and children. Every deal, agreement, undertaking, venture must be considered for its repercussions in advance, especially as it pertains to reputations and family, so we see that in whatever way possible, our children are taken care of, provided for, and always remain the foremost priority of our day-to-day existence.

Looking Out For Father

Parshat Vayigash
by Rabbi Avi Billet

When Tzafnat Pane'ach reveals his true identity to his brothers, he says "I am Yosef. Is my father still alive?" (45:3)

Speechless, the brothers say nothing, forcing Yosef to say, "I am Yosef your brother whom you sold to Egypt." He recognizes that all was part of God's master plan, and makes clear he will not take revenge against them in any way.

Why is Yosef's first question "Is my father still alive?" From all the talk that has transpired between Yosef and the brothers, it seems to be beyond question that Yaakov is still alive.

While some (Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch and others) suggest Yosef revealed himself at this moment to determine if the brothers were lying – had they been using their father as a tool for a sympathy vote? –

Father in law and son in law: Yitro and Moshe

Click here to see this in the Jewish Star


Parshat Yitro

A previous column discussed the father-in-law-son-in-law relationship using Lavan and Yaakov as the model protagonists. This week we will explore the same relationship through the eyes of Yitro and Moshe.

Yitro arrives at the Israelites camp bringing his daughter and “her two sons.” This verse leads to a number of questions: why are they with Yitro? Didn’t Tziporah accompany Moshe to Egypt in chapter 4? Why are they referred to as her sons? Aren’t they also “Moshe’s sons?”

After all the efforts to get Moshe to greet his family, we find that the only person Moshe seems able to relate to is his father-in-law, Yitro. Beginning in 18:7 when Moshe leaves the camp to meet them, the Torah says, “Moshe want out to greet his father-in-law” — only to Yitro, not to his wife or sons.

These points are debatable, of course, as the Torah often leaves out details. There is room to suggest — much of this is in the Midrash — that Moshe divorced his wife, saw no need for her to be in Egypt, viewed his sons as his connection to a Midianite life he no longer lived, and, as G-d’s devoted shepherd, did not feel a connection to his immediate family.

But Yitro was different. He was a political ally as the “Kohen of Midian.” And his history with Moshe had been one of more than total support.

After Moshe saved Yitro’s daughters from shepherds, it was Yitro who said, “Where is he? Why did you leave him? Invite him here to eat with us.” It was Yitro who gave Moshe a wife, a job, and total trust. He even gave Moshe his blessing when Moshe said, “I need to branch out and return to Egypt.” (2:20-21, 3:1, 4:18)

Moshe had a sense of appreciation for this man that went beyond the claim of, “This is my father in law.” Yitro comes in to observe Moshe’s practice of sitting all day to judge the people and, frankly, he is not impressed. As the parsha states: “18. You cannot do it all alone. 19. You must… bring [their] concerns to G-d. 20. Show them the path they must take… 21. But you must [also] seek out from among all the people capable, G-d-fearing men — men of truth, who hate injustice. You must then appoint them over [the people] as leaders of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens.” In essence, the key word is “delegate.”

Verse 24 is ambiguous when it says, “Moshe listened to his father-in-law. He did all he had said.” That Moshe listened is clear. But who did all who had said? Rabbi Elazar Hamodai in the Mechilta suggests that after listening to Yitro, Moshe did all that G-d had said.

When we examine what Moshe did, we see he did not do exactly as Yitro said. “25. He chose capable men from all Israel,” also known as “anshei chayil” but he left out Yitro’s other criteria — “G-d fearing men of truth who hate injustice.” Either he could not find such men, or he felt the other criteria were too high a standard for judges. Yitro had suggested that “big cases” (hadavar hagadol) be brought to Moshe, while Moshe instructed that “difficult cases” (hadavar hakasheh) be brought to him.

In other words, Moshe takes the advice for what it is, knows it is good and comes out of love, and appreciates it. But he must do it his own way — in a way that works for him.

Finally, when the air is getting too stuffy, “27 Moshe sent his father-in-law on his way, and he went away to his homeland.”

Apparently, even for Moshe there is such a thing as an overextended visit.

May all fathers-in-law and sons-in-law have a courteous and respectful relationship. May all fathers-in-laws respect their sons-in-law’s choices in life and be as emotionally supportive as possible, with blessings when possible.

And may all sons-in-law see that the advice given by those who care for you (when warranted and in a setting that is appreciated) comes out of love, and that someone with a little more experience may have a perspective you do not share.

Then do it your way, and either fail or fly.

Reuven and Bilhah

Between husband and wife, and father and son 

 Parshat Vayishlach 

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

 Our tradition maintains that one merit Yaakov had over his father and grandfather is that all of his sons were righteous – no Eisav or Yishmael in the lot – allowing him to be the one after whom the Jewish nation is named – B’nei Yisrael, the children of Israel. 

 With this in mind, Bereishit 35:22 leaves us scratching our heads. “While Yaakov was dwelling [undisturbed] in the land, Reuven went and lay “et” Bilhah, his father’s concubine, and Israel heard about it… and Yaakov’s sons were twelve [in number].” 

 What happened with Reuven and Bilhah? Did he or didn’t he? Two factors need to be considered: 1. What is the meaning of the word “et”? 2. How well do we understand the words in the Talmud when explaining a seeming passage of narrative in the Torah? 

 Rabbi David Fohrman shares an important discussion of the meaning of the word “et” in his book, “The Beast that Crouches at the Door” (Devora Publishing, 2007, p. 117-124). Sometimes it means “with,” but sometimes it is a grammatical tool used to connect a verb to a direct object. Certainly the verse is not as simple as it seems. 

 The Talmud (Megillah 25a) goes so far as to say the verse should be read and not translated, due to the difficult nature of understanding the almost clear facts of the case. But the Talmud says elsewhere (Shabbat 55b), that anyone who claims Reuven sinned is mistaken, because the verse concludes saying Yaakov had twelve sons – meaning none of them were rejected. Instead, we are to understand that Reuven mixed up beds, and the Torah only “makes it seem as if” he had relations with his father’s wife/concubine, even though he did not. 

However, the Talmud also says (Shabbat 56a) that anyone who claims King David sinned is mistaken. But King David himself admitted that he sinned (Samuel II 12:13 and 24:10). 

If we assume, as the Talmud implies, that King David was correct in his actions with Batsheva and the census, according to King David we are mistaken. So let us assume for a moment that Reuven’s actions here are a faux pas. Having said that, what happened? 

 Ramban suggests Reuven was fearful of Yaakov fulfilling God’s command of 35:11 to have more children, because he thought he would lose out more of his inheritance. His “older” mother was no longer fertile, Rachel was dead, as was Zilpah. So he switched the beds around, which worked because Yaakov did not subsequently have more children.

Without apologetics, Bchor Shor and Ibn Ezra claim Reuven did what the Torah says he did. Chizkuni, Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch and others suggest, most likely on the coattails of the Tanchuma, that Reuven lay in the room, which discouraged Yaakov from going there. (Ro”sh says he slept on her bed many nights to discourage his father from coming back, even though he did not sin in the way we’d generally suspect.) Once that happened, Yaakov chose to remain celibate for the rest of his days. 

 The Sha’kh defends Reuven saying Yaakov understood Reuven’s sincere intentions, to keep the family unit intact, and to maintain the requisite number of children required to begin a new nation. Nachor, Yishmael, and Eisav combined with Seir each had twelve sons. Now that Binyamin was born, Yaakov had twelve sons. Perhaps Reuven thought, “If he has more children, some of his original 12 will be rejected. Perhaps he’ll start by rejecting some of Leah’s children.” So he took matters into his own hands to avoid the creation of more siblings. 

 Maskil L’David has the most innovative interpretation. Following the line of Reuven mixing the beds, causing his father to spend his evenings with Leah, he says the Torah is indicating the switch through the specific words it chooses. Mix around the letters of “Vayishkav” (וישכב) and you have “Vayachabosh” (ויכבש) (and he cornered). Mix around “Pilegesh” (פילגש) (concubine – an odd choice because Bilhah is elsewhere called a “wife”) and you have “She’pileg” (שפילג) (that he caused a rift). In other words, he cornered Bilhah, and caused a rift between her and his father, causing Yaakov to seek companionship elsewhere. In this vein, Reuven was punished “measure for measure.” Since he switched around beds, the letters in the Torah were “switched around” to make him look worse. 

 No matter how we look at Reuven’s deed, what he did was not nice. Whether Bilhah was now prohibited to Yaakov is one question, but that Yaakov chose celibacy as a course of reaction was his own free will – not Reuven’s fault. 

 Why did Yaakov get angry, as evidenced from the way he spoke to Reuven in Bereishit 49:3-4, “for having moved the beds,” particularly if his intentions may have been noble? Because no one has the right to cause a rift between a husband and wife. The relationship between spouses is holy and sacred. 

Not only should they view it that way, but everyone who meets them needs to understand boundaries in relating to a couple. Particularly when it comes to relating to a married person of the opposite gender, it is important to bear in mind the holiness of the person’s “kiddushin” and to respect space, privacy, and the individual’s personal commitment to the holy bond of matrimony.