And they embittered their lives

"וַיְמָרְרוּ אֶת חַיֵּיהֶם" - and they embittered their lives... (Shemos 1:14)

Hashem told Avraham that his children would be in Egypt for 400 years, and yet they left after 210! Where are the missing 190 years?

There is an answer suggested that Egypt treated the Jews much worse than they should have, so as we say in ברוך המקום:

ש"הקבה חשב את הקץ - Hashem reckoned the end. What is this talking about? Hashem hastened the גאולה and reckoned off קץ - 190 (from 400)- leaving us with 210!

The problem with the suggestion that the slavery was overly bad (if such a term can be used by slavery!) is that we don't see it anywhere - but the Vilna Gaon deals with this!

The notes on וַיְמָרְרוּ אֶת חַיֵּיהֶם are קדמא ואזלא, the numerical value of which is 190! They were embittered to a value of 190!

R’ Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld points out that the גאולה from Egypt was only completed 7 days after it began, when the Red Sea when Paroh and his army were destroyed, so where is this reflected in events?

He answers that Isaac was only circumcised 7 days after his birth – so only then he became Jewish, and only 400 years from then were the Jews really free.

Addition

The Pasuk says:

וְשִׁלַּם אֹתוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וַחֲמִשִׁתָיו יֹסֵף עָלָיו – ….he shall pay its main, adding its fifths to it… (5:24)

Chazal teach us that all expenses are calculated and apportioned from Rosh Hashanah to Rosh Hashanah, with the the exceptions of monies spent towards: – Shabbos, –Yom Tov, –teaching one’s children Torah, and the Medrash Rabbah adds Rosh Chodesh to the list as well.

The Tzemach Tzvi says that this is alluded to in this Pasuk.  וְשִׁלַּם אֹתוֹ- all his money, whatever he pays and whatever he earns, is earmarked בְּרֹאשׁוֹ  - on Rosh Hashanah - וַחֲמִשִׁתָיו יֹסֵף עָלָיו – and his fifths will be added to him. What are these חֲמִשִׁתָיו of which which we speak? חוץ מהוצאות שבת, תורה, יו”ט, ור”ח - with the exception of expenses for Shabbos, Torah, Yom Tov and Rosh Chodesh. These will be יֹסֵף עָלָיו  - added to him as the year goes on, subject to his actions.

(This is my addition, feel free to disagree)

It is worth pointing out that the וְ of ור”ח is used as part of the initials, rather than the ר of Rosh chodesh, and the end result is that the initials are a perfect reflection of the way (diyuk) the Medrash Rabba explained this concept, that Rosh Chodesh too is part of the list.

(end of my addition)

There is a story told about the Pnei Menachem, who once sent his son to school with an envelope for his Rebbe. The Rebbe refused to accept the envelope, as he did not feel he could take money from the Pnei Menachem. A few nights later, the Pnei Menachem called up his son’s Rebbe, and said that he was obliged to accept it, as זה נהנה וזה לא חסר , (literally, this one gains, and the other does not lose) a mechanism that enables someone to use something that the owner is not using and had no use for, for free. He explained with this Dvar Torah that this money was not normal money and could come into reckoning, as money spent on teaching your son Torah is not included in your “annual salary”. Presumably, the Rebbe accepted the envelope.

Shabbos Kodesh

A fantastic piece from the Meshech Chochma, R' Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (bigraphy here).

The Pasuk says: וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הִוא לָכֶם מְחַלְלֶיהָ מוֹת יוּמָת כִּי כָּל הָעֹשֶׂה בָהּ מְלָאכָה וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִקֶּרֶב עַמֶּיהָ - Keep the Sabbath, for it is a sacred thing for you. Those who desecrate it shall be put to death, for whoever performs work on it, that soul will be cut off from the midst of its people. (31:14)

The concept of being put to death for breaking Shabbos is odd from a logical perspective - one is commanded to break Shabbos to save another Jew's life, and even in a case where there is only a possibility of there being a danger to someone, one is still commanded to break Shabbos. So it is clear that a human life is more precious than Shabbos, but this being the case, how can we put someone to death who breaks it? Isn't this counter-intuitive?

R' Meir Simcha explains the answer beautifully. Shabbos is less sacred than a Jew, as without a Jew observing Shabbos, Shabbos essentially isn't there. As such, everything about Shabbos, including the very purpose of Creation, is solely remembered by a Jew who observes it, and this means that Shabbos is "indebted" to the Jew, and we therefore forego it to save a Jew's life.

Not so by someone who desecrates Shabbos. Such a person cuts himself off from the the connection to Hashem and the Torah, and it is better for this person to die and get atonement like that than for him to survive and continue in his ways.

So this is what the Pasuk is telling us: "וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הִוא לָכֶם - Keep the Sabbath, for it is a sacred thing for you", ie it is vitally important for Jews to honour and observe Shabbos, because if they don't, who will? Therefore " מְחַלְלֶיהָ מוֹת יוּמָת - Those who desecrate it shall be put to death", because someone who desecrates it has lowered themselves to below the level of Shabbos, the sign Hashem gave us. "כִּי כָּל הָעֹשֶׂה בָהּ מְלָאכָה וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִקֶּרֶב עַמֶּיהָ - for whoever performs work on it, that soul will be cut off from the midst of its people" - this person has lowered himself beneath Shabbos by desecrating it, and has therefore alienated himself from what made his people special - that their lives were holier than Shabbos, by keeping it. Only a person who cuts himself off by desecrating Shabbos is suitable to be put to death in the name of Shabbos, so we see that it is not counter intuitive at all to put someone to death in the name of Shabbos.

This shows the level of detail in the Pasuk, that the Torah explains the mechanics of why someone is put to death for breaking Shabbos.

Geshmack!

Tribal lands

Twice in our history Hashem has said He wanted to destroy the Jews, and twice Moshe "argued" with Hashem and won: by the Golden Calf and the spies.

The Midrash (Shemos Rabbah 44:9 + Bamidbar Rabba 16:22) have 4 stage conversations with Moshe and Hashem:
1. Hashem says He wants to destroy the Jews
2. Moshe says that Hashem made a promise to the Patriarchs
3. Hashem says that He will let Moshe be the sole survivor, and fulfil the promise through Moshe

Here is where they differ - at the Golden Calf Moshe says that he cannot become a nation, as he only represents one tribe - Levi! Moshe says that all the Tribes have an assurance, at which point Hashem concedes the argument and lets the Jews live.

By the spies, this fourth point is different - Moshe says that letting the nation continue through him would be a Chillul Hashem - a desecration of G-d's Name - that people would speculate that Hashem could not sustain them in the desert, and so they died. Hashem replies that these people will have heard of His miracles in Egypt, so this would have no basis! Moshe counters by saying that perhaps people will say that the kings of Canaan were too great for the G-d of the Jews, at which point G-d concedes the argument and lets the Jews live.

R' Yehoshua Hartman points out that it is clear that the Golden Calf argument was better - life continued as normal. The spies arguments clearly wasn't so great - all the Jews of that generation died out and they wandered in the desert for an additional 39 years as a result! Why didn't Moshe use the tried and tested winning argument, that the Tribes also had an assurance?

In our Parsha, Ki Sisa, Moshe says: זְכֹר לְאַבְרָהָם לְיִצְחָק וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבָדֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ לָהֶם בָּךְ וַתְּדַבֵּר אֲלֵהֶם אַרְבֶּה אֶת זַרְעֲכֶם כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמָיִם וְכָל הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת אֲשֶׁר אָמַרְתִּי אֶתֵּן לְזַרְעֲכֶם וְנָחֲלוּ לְעֹלָם - "Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your very Self, and to whom You said: 'I will multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens, and all this land which I said that I would give to your seed, they shall keep it as their possession forever'" (32:13)

Where is the assurance about the Tribes? And why mention the promise about the land, out of all the promises He had made to the Patriarchs?

The Gemara (Bava Basra 122a) discusses how the land was divided up, and concludes that it was divided up amongst the tribes. The Brisker Rov points out that mentioning the land is therefore a mention of the tribes, which answers a point that may be bothering the more astute reader - what assurance to the tribes were we referring to?)

Armed as we are with this knowledge, the Ramban (14:17) answers why Moshe could not winning argument that had worked so well by the Golden Calf again when he argued with GHashem about the spies - he could not mention the land - as the spies had explicitly stated that they did not want it!

R' Yehoshua Hartman points out the difference between the question and answer stage. When we asked why Moshe could not use the winning argument, we thought that the assurance was independent of anything, at the answer stage we realised that the assurance is tied and intrinsic to the land.

What is money for?

In the part of the Parsha that discusses the way one should treat others, the monetary law mentioned explains that one must take care of the needy. The pasuk (22:24) says אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה אֶת עַמִּי אֶת הֶעָנִי עִמָּךְ...... - When you lend money to My people, to the poor person with you....

There is a slight difficulty in interpreting the word עִמָּךְ - with you - in the context. There are explanations by the Alshich, Vilna Gaon, and Kli Yakar, among others, regarding the way money and charity are perceived.

The Alshich (biography here) explains that money is not ours, it is merely deposited with us by G-d. We are given the privilege of having money in order to share it with people who are less fortunate. He explains that the pasuk is telling us that אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה אֶת עַמִּי - when we lend money - אֶת הֶעָנִי עִמָּךְ - it belongs to the poor, it just happens to be with you. This is a lesson we can certainly take aboard, that nothing is really "ours", and we should therefore take great responsibility and care for it.

The Vilna Gaon (biography here) explains that the pasuk is alluding to a standard monetary law: loans are done before witnesses to prevent unscrupulous activity, whereas charity is done in solitude, and no-one needs to know. אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה - When you lend money - אֶת עַמִּי - do so before My people - אֶת הֶעָנִי - the poor however - עִמָּךְ - do it alone. This is certainly the correct way to give charity, in secret.

The Kli Yakar (biography here) explains that when a person gives charity or a charitable loan, all good deeds and benefits resultant from it are credited to the person who financed the good deeds and actions. אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה אֶת עַמִּי אֶת הֶעָנִי - If you lend/give money to my people or the needy - עִמָּךְ (all the merits that result) are with you too!

We can certainly incorporate all these ideas when we give charity, that the money is not ours to begin with, that we should do it in secret, and that the merit of charity does not stop once you've given it, you still receive all resultant merits performed as a result of your kindness.

Cross posted on The Living Torah Weekly

Night-night!

וַיָּקָם פַּרְעֹה לַיְלָה, הוּא וְכָל-עֲבָדָיו וְכָל-מִצְרַיִם, וַתְּהִי צְעָקָה גְדֹלָה, בְּמִצְרָיִם: כִּי-אֵין בַּיִת, אֲשֶׁר אֵין-שָׁם מֵת. - 30 - And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.

וַיִּקְרָא לְמֹשֶׁה וּלְאַהֲרֹן לַיְלָה, וַיֹּאמֶר קוּמוּ צְּאוּ מִתּוֹךְ עַמִּי--גַּם-אַתֶּם, גַּם-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וּלְכוּ עִבְדוּ אֶת-ה', כְּדַבֶּרְכֶם - And he called for Moses and Aaron by night and said: 'Rise up, get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go, serve the Lord, as ye have said.
(12:30-31)

As made abundantly clear by the bold letters, there is a repetition of the time the sequence of events that took place in light of the imminent arrival of the 10th plague. If Paroh only wanted to tell them to "rise up and go forth from among my people", then there was no need to repeat that this occurred at night, as obviously it is established from the previous Pasuk that this is the case. So why the repetition?

An intriguing answer by the Griz, R' Yitzchak Ze'ev Soloveitchik (biography here) and the Ohr Hachayim, R' Chaim ibn Attar (biography here) that shows how the various Psukim link.

The previous time that Paroh had met Moshe and Ahron, their meeting did not go well. It (10:28) concluded וַיֹּאמֶר-לוֹ פַרְעֹה, לֵךְ מֵעָלָי; הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ, אַל-תֹּסֶף רְאוֹת פָּנַי--כִּי בְּיוֹם רְאֹתְךָ פָנַי, תָּמוּת - Pharaoh said to him, "Go away from me! Beware! You shall no longer see my face, for on the day that you see my face, you shall die!"' Pretty bad meeting, but it got worse. After his final prophecy after this event, the Pasuk (11:8) says וַיֵּצֵא מֵעִם-פַּרְעֹה, בָּחֳרִי-אָף "And he went out from Pharaoh in hot anger." In Zevachim 102a Resh Lakish explains that this means that Moshe slapped Paroh.

With their prior meeting fresh in his mind Moshe would understandably have been loathe to see Paroh, "for on the day that you see my face, you shall die". If they hear him calling them, they weren't going to come running.

Paroh understood this, and shouted "לַיְלָה"!! "It's night-time!". His threat had been "for on the day that you see my face, you shall die", and perhaps was suggesting that he did not want to see them by day, but by night it was different.

So to answer our original question of why לַיְלָה is repeated, the answer is, it isn't! If we add punctuation:

"!וַיִּקְרָא לְמֹשֶׁה וּלְאַהֲרֹן "לַיְלָה - And he called Moshe and Ahron saying "It's nighttime!"- {my threat isn't relevant now!}

So in fact, the second time isn't a description of the setting, it is actually what he said!

Me too!

A wonderful idea from the Sifsei Cohen, a student of the Arizal.

After Hashem sends down the hail that destroyed all the vegetation of Egypt, Paroh calls for Moshe and Ahron and says "ה' הַצַּדִּיק וַאֲנִי וְעַמִּי הָרְשָׁעִים" This is generally translated as– Hashem is righteous, וַאֲנִי וְעַמִּי הָרְשָׁעִים – and I and my people are wicked. But this pasuk can be split up in a different way, which results in a change in its meaning; !ה' הַצַּדִּיק וַאֲנִי -וְעַמִּי הָרְשָׁעִים – Hashem is righteous - as am I! וְעַמִּי הָרְשָׁעִים – and it is my people who are wicked!" . Paroh is faking innocence – and attempting to side with Hashem, and claims it is his people whom are wicked, not he!

In addition, if we take out וַאֲנִי, the roshei teivos (initials) of the remaining four words spell Hashem’s 4 letter name. The וַאֲנִי is in the center of this; it is interrupting the shem Hashem. He is claiming parity with G-d, and within G-d's Name itself!

Paroh proceeded, and told Moshe that he will allow the Jews to go, so Hashem stopped the hail, yet Parah did not keep his word, and did not allow them to leave. Hashem says to Moshe in the first pasuk of next week's sedra "בֹּא אֶל פַּרְעֹה כִּי אֲנִי הִכְבַּדְתִּי אֶת לִבּוֹ וְאֶת לֵב עֲבָדָיו לְמַעַן שִׁתִי אֹתֹתַי אֵלֶּה בְּקִרְבּוֹ - The Lord said to Moses: "Come to Paroh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, in order that I may place these signs of Mine in his midst" (10:1).

There is a problem with this that is not evident from a translation. Why does Hashem say כִּי אֲנִי הִכְבַּדְתִּי? The אֲנִי is superfluous , as הִכְבַּדְתִּי is in the first person, so there must be more to it than meets the eye. Literally, כִּי אֲנִי הִכְבַּדְתִּי means because of אֲנִי I have hardened – Hashem is saying that it is because of Paroh’s arrogance and usage of the word אֲנִי in 9:27 that הִכְבַּדְתִּי – I have hardened his heart so that שִׁתִי אֹתֹתַי אֵלֶּה בְּקִרְבּוֹ. Except, אֹתֹתַי can mean My signs or My letters. Hashem hardened Pharoah’s heart so that he can see ‘My letters’ in his midst. Which letters are we talking about? The letters that make up the name of Hashem which Pharoah had previously attempted to infiltrate!

So in essence, "because of אֲנִי, I have hardened their hearts to show my letters {ie G-d's name, with all His power,} and showing it in their midst".

This only goes to show how brilliant the Torah is, that it has so many levels of interpretation by just reading the words again.

Cross posted on http://thelivingtorahweekly.blogspot.com/

Why Moshe?

The book of Shemos starts as one would expect, with a brief conclusion from Bereishis. It explains how Yakov's children thrived in Egypt, and when the brothers had died, only then did the slavery begin. It then continues as one would expect, with the process of how the enslavement began.

But Chapter 2 starts " וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ מִבֵּית לֵוִי - A man of the house of Levi went" - and it is talking about Amram, Moshe's father and the leader of the Jews at the time. But why doesn't Chapter 2 start with the part of the story that matters, Hashem contacting Moshe the shepherd? Would it not make more sense to say "A shepherd of the house of Levi called Moshe etc...."?

Clearly, there is something more for us to learn from the Torah's description of Moshe's early life, as the Torah does not waste ink to tell us stories for the sake of it. We can suggest that we are being told about the nature and personlaity of Moshe, that led to his selection as being suitable to lead the Jews out of Egypt.

When Moshe is first found by Batya, she says " וַתִּרְאֵהוּ אֶת הַיֶּלֶד - and she saw him the child", but then the next words are "וְהִנֵּה נַעַר בֹּכֶה - and behold, he was a weeping lad". He went from being a baby to a lad (a term to describe someone older). Various commentators note that it was a mature cry ie a cry for others, that subsequently led her to conclude " מִיַּלְדֵי הָעִבְרִים זֶה - "This is [one] of the children of the Hebrews." (2:1)

We must note that it is clear that although in 2:10 that he grew up and Batya was like a mother to him, he knew that he was a Jew, as in 2:11 it says" וַיְהִי בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וַיִּגְדַּל מֹשֶׁה וַיֵּצֵא אֶל אֶחָיו וַיַּרְא בְּסִבְלֹתָם וַיַּרְא אִישׁ מִצְרִי מַכֶּה אִישׁ עִבְרִי מֵאֶחָיו - Now it came to pass in those days that Moses grew up and went out to his brothers and looked at their burdens, and he saw an Egyptian man striking a Hebrew man of his brothers". Rashi points out that looking at their burdens distressed him as it was his brothers that were suffering, and yet he was a prince of Egypt! This is derived from the repetition of growing up in 2:10 and 2:11, where the first is in physical stature and the second in greatness, which Rashi interprets as meaning "Pharoh appointed over his house".

This undoubtedly created a schism in his psyche. Here he was, an Egyptian prince, yet he empathised with Egyptian slaves, who were his brothers. He was neither an Egyptian, nor a Jew.

The next Pasuk after we are told how he noticed his brothers suffering "וַיִּפֶן כֹּה וָכֹה וַיַּרְא כִּי אֵין אִישׁ וַיַּךְ אֶת הַמִּצְרִי וַיִּטְמְנֵהוּ בַּחוֹל - He turned this way and that way, and he saw that there was no man; so he struck the Egyptian and hid him in the sand." (2:12)

He made the decision to stand with his brothers, and murdered an Egyptian, which inherently means that he ostracised (cut off) himself from the that nurtured him.
I read an unbelievable explanation that supplements this, said over by Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo in his book, Thoughts to Ponder. This Pasuk is describing the internal conflict that we pointed out! "Moses turned {within himself} this way ({Egyptian?} and that way {or Jew?} and saw there was no {complete} man {ie he was neither}. So he struck the Egyptian {within him} and hid him in the sand."

The beauty of this is that it fits in perfectly with the Pasuk, and it fits perfectly with the first answer we gave as well! Whether or not he killed an Egyptian police officer, he chose to side with the Jews, thereby alienating Egyptian society culture within him, as he would be rejected by them (for siding with them and/or for murdering a police officer! Geshmack!

The point we can draw from this is that the history of Moshe Rabbenu made him into who he was. He was a product of Egypt, and he knew Egypt. In a way, he was Egypt! And he made the choice to become a Jew and severed his ties with Egypt, and this choice made him who he was. It is telling that G-d only speaks to Moshe after these events unfold.

Forgiveness - Big deal?

When the brothers apologise to Yosef, he rebutted this by saying "אַל תִּירָאוּ כִּי הֲתַחַת אלֹהִים אָנִי - "Don't be afraid, for am I instead of God?" (50:19). It is unclear what exactly he means, but certainly he is not annoyed.

The Baal Haturim (info here) suggests that this is is poetic justice as this is precisely what his mother had been told when his mother had begged for children from their father, at which point he said "הֲתַחַת אֱ־לֹהִים אָנֹכִי אֲשֶׁר מָנַע מִמֵּךְ פְּרִי בָטֶן - "Am I instead of God, Who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?" (30:2)

The Maharil Diskin (info here)wonders why a simple yes/no answer isn't enough, and we can (and have) explained that he did not actually forgive them, but did not say this. We can look deeper into his words: In Parshas Matos (30:7-9) the pasuk describes a woman who makes a vow, but then her husband annuls it. In an event where she did not know he had annulled it, and she thinks she is deliberately breaking it, the pasuk says "'והֹ יִסְלַח לָהּ" - "...and the Lord will forgive her." This is astounding - she has technically done absolutely nothing wrong - her vow had been annulled at the time of her actions, and yet there is a certain something that requires forgiveness! And the same thing was true here:

The brothers thought they had committed a horrendously evil act onto their brother, and even though circumstantially it turned out for the best in the end, and the family were reunited, just as in the case of a woman who circumstantially did nothing wrong, there was still a certain something that required forgiveness. The Maharil Diskin suggests an alternate explanation to that which the Baal Haturim suggested, that this is exactly what Yosef was saying here, that due to the turn of events they had done nothing wrong, but he was not in the place of Hashem, because as we said by the woman, they needed G-d's forgiveness.

Rabbeinu Bachaye (info here) shares a frightening thought that is not worth waiting until Parshas Bechukosai to share as it is so brilliant. He takes the concept of Yosef not forgiving his brothers a step further, and suggests says this resulted in the Asara Harugei Malchus, one of the greatest tragedies in Jewish history, and one died in lieu of each of the group who'd sold Yosef. Yaakov was not told as an oath was made as a group of 10 (a minyan) to not tell him, and such an oath cannot be annulled.

But why were there 10 martyrs then, as there weren't 10 men present at the sale? Binyamin was not there, Reuven had gone home, and we can't include Yosef as part of such a minyan? There is a concept that a minyan can take place with 9 as Hashem joins in - Hashem was the 10th member of this group.

We can expand the pasuk in Bechukosai - "וְכָל מַעְשַׂר בָּקָר וָצֹאן כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ לַהֹ - Any tithe of cattle or flock of all that pass under the rod, the tenth shall be holy to the Lord" (27:32)- and there is a deeper meaning to this pasuk, in reference to Rabbi Akiva - וכי למא מת עקיבא, שהוא רואה בקר וצאן הכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ לַהֹ - Why did Akiva die? He was just a shepherd! When he passed under the staff (judgement?) he was the tenth, holy for G-d.

There is another allusion to this I found on Google (it's awesome) here on Parshas Vayigash (45:15), (sorry it's late,) that "וַיֵּבְךְּ עֲלֵיהֶם - and he cried on them" - we can break up עֲלֵיהֶם and read it על י ה"ם - for the ten Harugei Malchus.

Scary stuff indeed.

To end on a lighter note, I can quote my Rebbi, R' Hartman, who has an Otzar HaChochma harddrive (it's a sforim library on a hardrive) that can search keywords on a sugya, a bit like Google - about which he said "If I knew Torah like this little machine..."

:)

Vayigash - A New Approach

ויגש אליו יהודה ויאמר בי אדני - And Yehudah approached him and said, 'please my master...' (44:18)

Another insight into the brilliance of the ta'amei hamikra (cantorial notes): The Vilna Gaon points out that if you look at the notes on these words, you'll see something astonishing - kadma ve'azla, Revi'i, Zarka, Munach and Segol. But what is so amazing about this? Surely these are standard notes in a pretty standard format?

If you look back to Parshas Miketz (43:9), Yehudah guarantees Binyamin's safe return by saying, 'If I don't bring him back to you and place him before you, then...וחטאתי לך כל הימים - I will be sinning against you all the days'. The Midrash explains this last phrase to be referring to Olam Haba.

Now let's have another look at our notes and we will get an insight into what the Vilna Gaon was referring to - firstly, kadma ve'azla, Revi'i - Yehudah, the fourth son (revi'i) went and stepped forward (קדם ואזל) to confront Yosef. Surely Reuven should have been the one to step forward - why Yehudah?
Because he threw himself into a situation where he would be 'rested from being parted from the Am segula, in Olam Haba - (זרק את עצמו מלנוח בתוך עם סגולה). This is Zarka, Munach and Segol - and Yehudah is prepared to give up everything for his brother.

Geshmack!

Postscript: I do intend at some point, to explain my comment from a previous post, where I suggested that the ta'amei hamikra might be the genius of Chazal, as opposed to the widely accepted view (from the Gemara) that they are Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai...

Random searches?

The Pasuk says "וַיְחַפֵּשׂ בַּגָּדוֹל הֵחֵל וּבַקָּטֹן כִּלָּה וַיִּמָּצֵא הַגָּבִיעַ בְּאַמְתַּחַת בִּנְיָמִן - "He searched; he started with the eldest and finished with the youngest, and the goblet was found in Benjamin's sack" (44:12). You would think this means he searched from Reuven's bag until Binyamin's bag. Not so. The Midrash Rabba says that the eldest referred to was in fact Shimon. And Yosef only searched this eldest and the youngest, Binyamin. The Griz, the Brisker Rav asks how the Midrash reached this conclusion.

He answers in the name of the Maharil Diskin that in 44:8 the brothers said a kal v'chomer, one of ten in the Torah, that" הֵן כֶּסֶף אֲשֶׁר מָצָאנוּ בְּפִי אַמְתְּחֹתֵינוּ הֱשִׁיבֹנוּ אֵלֶיךָ מֵאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן וְאֵיךְ נִגְנֹב מִבֵּית אֲדֹנֶיךָ כֶּסֶף אוֹ זָהָב: - Behold, the money we found in the mouth of our sacks we returned to you from the land of Canaan; so how could we steal from your master's house silver or gold?". However, there are two people who did not make this kal v'chomer: Shimon and Binyamin! Binyamin was not there so he could not say he was as honest as his brothers who returned Yosef's gold, and in 44:24 it says " וַיִּקַּח מֵאִתָּם אֶת שִׁמְעוֹן וַיֶּאֱסֹר אֹתוֹ לְעֵינֵיהֶם - and he took Simeon from among them and imprisoned him before their eyes".

So the pasuk is actually telling us that the only people who were searched were the oldest and youngest of the people whose honesty had not been proven, Binyamin and Shimon!

Cow Spirituality. What?

I heard this from my Rebbi, Rabbi Yehoshua Hartman Shlita, to whom I owe everything. He is also the inspiration for the blog title, "Geshmack" is his catchphrase you see :)

וְהִנֵּה מִן הַיְאֹר עֹלֹת שֶׁבַע פָּרוֹת יְפוֹת מַרְאֶה וּבְרִיאֹת בָּשָׂר וַתִּרְעֶינָה בָּאָחוּ - And behold, from the Nile were coming up seven cows, of handsome appearance and robust flesh, and they pastured in the marshland. (41:2)

(Rashi)
יפות מראה: סימן הוא לימי שובע, שהבריות נראות יפות זו לזו, שאין עין בריה צרה בחברתה - of handsome appearance: This was a symbol of the days of plenty, when creatures appear handsome to one another, for no one envies his fellow. — [from Gen. Rabbah 89:4]

This describes Paroh's dream as he sees it. But why does Rashi interpret the dream, isn't Yosef about to do that, and differently? Where did Gen. Rabba (source) get this from?

It is interesting to note that the words יְפוֹת מַרְאֶה are used, which we translated as having "handsome appearance". This is an imprecise translation. If we look to 29:17, "וְעֵינֵי לֵאָה רַכּוֹת וְרָחֵל הָיְתָה יְפַת תֹּאַר וִיפַת מַרְאֶה - Leah's eyes were tender, but Rachel had beautiful features and a beautiful complexion." What is the difference between תֹּאַר and מַרְאֶה? Rashi explains that תאר: הוא צורת הפרצוף לשון (ישעיה מד יג) יתארהו בשרד, קונפ"ס בלע"ז [מחוגה]: - features: That is the form of the countenance, an expression similar to (Isa. 44: 13)“he fixes it (יְתָאִרֵהוּ) with planes (בַשֶׂרֶד) ,” conpas in Old French, outline, shape.

So תֹּאַר is a physical beauty. But what is מַרְאֶה ?
מראה: הוא זיו קלסתר - complexion: That is the shine of the countenance.

So מַרְאֶה is more of a spiritual/aura/radiant beauty. However, when Paroh dreamed he dreamed of יְפוֹת מַרְאֶה cows, spiritually beautifully cows. If the idea of spiritual cows sound absurd to you, you're not alone: so did Paroh! When he recounted his dream to Yosef (41:18), he changed what he saw to וִיפֹת תֹּאַר, physically beautiful cows, rather than what he'd seen, יפות מראה spiritually radiant cows!

But Rashi and Gen. Rabba that we quoted ("when creatures appear handsome to one another, for no one envies his fellow") worked out what the dream was when we knew that really they'd been spiritually beautiful. Cows don't have spirits: people do. So clearly, the cows are metaphors for people. This is also how Paroh knew that Yosef's interpretation was right, as he saw that this interpretation accurately describes the nature of people, something he'd seen in his dreams and failed to recount.

But we can answer our original question: why is Rashi interpreting the dream? So the answer is, he isn't! He's pointing out to us that יְפוֹת מַרְאֶה should not theoretically be there, and the fact it is shows that there was more than meets the eye, he is telling us to question this.

This Dvar Torah should be a Zchus for the Neshama of Rut Nechama bat Noam Shlomo (v'Revital)

Geshmack!

What Goes Around...

There are several Divrei Torah this week, click here to see the rest

The Pasuk says " ....עֵד הַגַּל הַזֶּה - This pile (of stones) shall be a witness..." (31:52)

Many Midrashim mention that Yaakov thrust a sword in to the wall as a second witness. The Da'as Zkeinim mentions this and then points out that Bilam ben Be'or's downfall was with these two, a wall and a sword. Why is this relevant?

He quotes a Gemara in Sanhedrin (105.) that "תנא הוא בעור הוא כושן רשעתים הוא לבן הארמי - Be'or is the same person as Lavan the Aramean and Kushan Reshasaim (an evil king in judges)", both of whom were mockers and scoffers who caused great difficulties for the Jews. Bilam was Lavan's son.

Bilam was damaged by a wall, (Numbers 22:25) as it says "וַתִּלְחַץ אֶת-רֶגֶל בִּלְעָם, אֶל-הַקִּיר - and his foot was crushed against the wall", and killed by the sword (ibid. 31:8) "וְאֵת בִּלְעָם בֶּן-בְּעוֹר, הָרְגוּ בֶּחָרֶב - also Bilam son of Be'or was slain by the sword".

There is a terrifying story in the Gemara quoted by Rashi and Tosfos (Taanis 8.) that a young boy found a girl who'd fallen into a deep pit, and promised to rescue her on the condition that she marry him. She consented, and they made the pit she was in and a passing animal witnesses. He rescued her and they went their seperate ways, and years later he married another woman, who bore him two sons. Unfortunately, one died falling into a pit, and another was killed by this animal. The woman asked why these bizarre misfortunes had befallen them, and he remembered the witnesses and his vow. His wife told him to divorce her and find this girl, which he did.

This is similar to the case of Bilam in that the witnesses came back to "remind" them of their duties, a clear demonstration of measure for measure.

Perhaps we can suggest an additional point to ponder: when Yakov entered Lavan's house, he clearly did not have sons, as otherwise why would he send his daughters to tend the sheep, surely a man's job? (We see this too by Yisro's daughters) Yet in this week's Sedra he clearly has sons (31:1). Lavan only had daughters until the blessing that Yakov brought with him gave him sons, and his own son broke his vow that nothing should befall his daughters.

These are a fulfilment of the Pasuk "יַד הָעֵדִים תִּהְיֶה בּוֹ בָרִאשֹׁנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ - The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death".

Scary stuff! But it is Geshmack to see how all the psukim are inter-connected!

Why did G-d "relent" to Isaac and Rivka's prayers?

You'll find we've already written a Dvar Torah that explains a Pasuk in Toldos, located here

This Dvar Torah blew me away. When it was clear that they would be unable to have children, Isaac and Rivka prayed, and the Pasuk (21:25) says:

'וַיֶּעְתַּר יִצְחָק לַיהוָה לְנֹכַח אִשְׁתּוֹ, כִּי עֲקָרָה הִו וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה - "And Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren; and He relented to him"

A gentleman once told R' Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld a short Dvar Torah on this. Why does the Pasuk say "and He relented to him". Does this not seems an odd way of saying that G-d heard and heeded his prayer?

The gentleman explained that there is a tradition that all the Patriarchs were meant to live until the age of 180. Yet Avraham died aged 175 (25:2). We can work this out: Avraham was 99 when he circumcised himself, 100 at Isaac's birth, 137 at the Akeida, at which point Isaac was obviously 37. Isaac was 40 at his marriage, and 60 at the birth of Yaakov and Esau (25:26) making Avraham 160 at their birth. Esau first murdered aged 15, making Avraham 175. There is a Rashi that Avraham would live to see Yishmael repent (25:9), but die before Esau killed someone for the first time (25:30). If he died aged 175, where are the missing 5 years?

The gentleman said to R' Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld that 'וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה is the answer. There was never any doubt that Isaac would have children, his father had been promised "nations", certainly Isaac would have children then, and Rivka would certainly be their mother as she was the one deemed worthy, as evidenced by the miracles Eliezer witnessed. וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה can be interpreted to mean that G-d did not want to give them children just yet, He simply wanted them to wait a bit longer so Avraham would not live to see his grandson become a murderer.

When R' Yosef Chaim heard this, he jumped up and exclaimed that this vort was Emess, because 'וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה is Gematria (numerical value) 748 (686+36+26), which is the same Gematria as חמש שנים - five years - 748, which represents G-d relenting to their prayers to have children at the expense of חמש שנים from Avraham Avinu's life.

R'Yosef Chaim also said that we say " רְצוֹן-יְרֵאָיו יַעֲשֶׂה; וְאֶת-שַׁוְעָתָם יִשְׁמַע, וְיוֹשִׁיעֵם - He will fulfil the desire of them that fear Him; He also will hear their cry, and will save them ". Isn't this in the wrong order? Doesn't Hashem fulfil their desires to placate their cries? R' Yosef Chaim explains that the prayers of a devout person are able to change what is meant to happen to people, which explains fulfilling their desires. But people don't know what's best for them, and sometimes suffer as a consequence of getting what they desire. The pasuk teaches that Hashem will even repair this later cry of suffering that is of their own doing.


Geshmack !

What did Avraham buy?

This week is in keeping with the theme of the past few weeks, demonstrating the level of intricacy and detail in the Torah. This week's is courtesy of the Vilna Gaon.

The Pasuk says Avraham " וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָהָם, אֶל-עֶפְרוֹן, וַיִּשְׁקֹל אַבְרָהָם לְעֶפְרֹן, אֶת-הַכֶּסֶף אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר "בְּאָזְנֵי בְנֵי-חֵת--אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף, עֹבֵר לַסֹּחֵר -" And Abraham listened to Ephron; and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had named in the hearing of the children of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant." (Gen. 23:16)

How much did he get for 400 shekels? Why are we told about all the specifics in the story, such as the price/negotiations, surely they don't really matter? You'll have to bear with me, as this answer is all literally over the place.

We will go on a tangent for a second, to Kesubos 17, where we are told that since the Torah was given to 600,000 adult men, this is the appropriate amount of people to have at a funeral. The Vilna Gaon proves that the land Avraham bought has this capacity.

First, I need to prove to you how much a se'ah is. A se'ah is a measurement of land size. The perimeter of the Mishkan courtyard was 100x50 amos (cubits - roughly 60 centimetres). It is known sometimes as "Beis Se'asayim", or 2 se'ah. The Mishkan was 100x50. A se'ah is therefore half of this, 50x50 amos. The amount of amos in a se'ah is 50x50, = 2500 square amos.

I now need to explain how much a kur is. It is also a meausrement of land, and is 30 times the size of a se'ah. 30x2500 amos = 1 kur = 75,000 square amos.

In Succah 7 the Gemara informs us that the amount of space a person occupies will standing is 1 square ama. If we are going to say that Avraham purchased land that could hold 600,000 people, it would need to be at least 600,000 square amos.

There is a Gemara in Erchin 25, that explains that when people want to retract donations to the Temple fund (hekdesh), they must pay a fee to redeem the item. The price set by the Gemara for land donations is 50 shkalim per kur.

Avrhaham Avinu spent 400 shkalim, which at the Gemara's price mean he bought 8 kur of land from Efron. We said that a kur is 75,000 square amos. 8 kur = 8x75,000 amos = 600,000 square amos.

This proves there was enough room on the land for 600,000 people to attend the funeral in keeping with the Gemara, but moreover, it further shows there is not a spare word in the Torah, the details of the narrative including the price were not written purely for the story's sake.

(This also proves how lucky we are to have the decimal system! :) )

If you thought this was Geshmack , leave a comment below!

Breaking the chain

In some ways, quite a simple one , that some may have heard before, but worth repeating as it shows meaning on every level that חז''ל set out for us...

There is an interesting debut appearance in this week's sedra - in 19:16 - a שלשלת (Shalsheles), a rare cantor's note. It is only to make 3 further appearances in chumash - in Chayei Sarah - 24:12, in Vayeshev 39:8 and in Tzav 8:23 So what is its significance?

Let's see in what contexts it appears...

In next week's sedra, Chayei Sarah, we find that Eliezer, Avraham's most trusted servant, is charged with finding a wife for Yitzchak. He is not allowed to take a wife from Canaan. The Midrash tells us that Eliezer had a daughter and it could have been in his mind that he might 'just not have found' a suitable wife outside Canaan. This could have left the path open for his daughter (although Rashi does point out that Avraham' friends Anar, Eshkol and Mamreh were next in line). Nevertheless, Eliezer overcomes any personal attachments and davens that 'ה should heed his master's request. This triumph over his own desires is signified by the Shalsheles on the word ויאמר - the opening word of his prayer.

In Vayeshev we see the tremendous personal struggle that Jospeh had to overcome. Indeed, by running out and leaving his coat behind, in the hands of his master's wife, it got him into more trouble in some ways. But on a personal level, he could not afford to be in the house a moment longer, refusing his master's wife's advances. That very word - וימאן (and he refused), has a שלשלת on it, denoting the breaking of his own potential negative desires.

As for the final appearance - in Tzav - the Midrash tells us that Moshe Rabbenu was the Kohen Gadol until the end of the Miluim, the first week of the Mishkan's use, at which point he had to hand over the position to his brother Aharon(according to various sources, because he argued at the burning bush). It must have been hard for him. Yet he overcame any personal desires and handed over the baton wholeheartedly. His final act as High Priest was וישחט...no surprises about the musical note on this word, at the point of his breaking with his own emotions...

Looking back at our Sedra, we see from Rashi that the Pasuk tells us that the angels had to grab hold of Lot because he was tarrying...leaving behind all his possessions. The first word of the Pasuk, which means he hesitated, contains a שלשלת - he overcame his physical desire for wealth and grabbed reality with both hands...literally.

It is no accident that Shalsheles actually means a chain. Furthermore, if you listen to its sound, it is elongated (3x a פזר - Pazer, another musicla note - which is long already), yet comes to an abrupt end, thus breaking the chain. See how wise Chazal are, even when ascribing the musical notes to the words...

מתוק מדבש!

Btw - obviously, you have 4 opportunities to use this Dvar Torah!

Geshmack!