Parshas Shemos - Thoughts on the first Rashi

This d’var Torah is dedicated to the victims of Nechemya Weberman, recently convicted pederast, and other survivors of childhood and teenage sexual abuse in the Orthodox community. May G‑d and our community support and comfort all those in our midst suffering from this scourge.

Rashi, commenting on the recitation of the names of the sons of Israel at the beginning of Sefer Sh’mos [Shemos 1:2-4], cites Sh’mos Rabbah to understand why the Torah would repeat names already identified in Parshas Vayigash as among those who descended with Jacob into Egypt:

Even though He counted them in their lifetime by their names [Gen. 46:8-27], He counted them again after their death, to make known His love for them, for they were likened to the stars, which He takes out and gathers in by number and by name, as it is said: ‘Who takes out their host by number — He calls them all by name’ (Sh’mos Rabbah, quoting Isaiah 40:26).

The full text in Isaiah, which is the concluding verse of the Haftorah read on Shabbos Nachamu, runs:

Lift up your eyes on high and see Who created these, Who takes out their host by number — He calls them all by name; because of [G-d’s] great strength and powerful might, no one is lacking. (Isaiah 40:26)

After employing part of Isaiah 40:26 to gloss host as echoing G‑d’s blessing to Abraham that his descendants would be numbered as the stars, Rashi omits the final assertion of the verse, that because of G‑d no one is missing. Subtly, Rashi raises a fundamental issue at the core of faith: If all are loved by G‑d, why are only the 12 sons of Israel mentioned? Were not all 70 of those who descended into Egypt with Yaakov loved?

Indeed, the Torah itself leads us to the question of the condensed enumeration of the house of Israel, noting in Sh’mos 1:5 that 70 souls came to Egypt — yet only Jacob’s sons are explicitly named. At a superficial level, we can perhaps beg the question ourselves and suggest that in order not to offend or embarrass those not here mentioned by name, the midrash and Rashi drop the second half of the verse in Isaiah, that no one will be lacking. But if indeed G‑d names the 12 sons of Israel simply because they are precious, why not identify by name all 70 souls again? Were not all 70 loved by G-d?

Perhaps a more effective response to this question may be found in Isaiah’s reassurance that G‑d will take us out (from Egypt) and gather us in (in Eretz Yisroel) as a numbered host, again following Rashi’s reading of Isaiah’s host not as mere stars but as the whole community of Israel. Indeed, while the opening verses of Sh’mos declare that “each man and his household” came — not even families, much less tribes or a nation — Rashi and Isaiah reaffirm our coming redemption as Klal Yisroel, the community and nation of Israel. Sh’mos counts the sons of Israel, then, not merely as an evocation of G‑d’s love for them as individuals, and not as an expression of affection for them alone, but as recognition of their imminent status as heads of tribes, the collective leadership of the nation Israel. We descend into Egypt as individuals, members of the extended household of Jacob and his sons; G‑d redeems us from Egypt as a people, the beloved host of G‑d.

Emphatically, Isaiah’s prophetic vision embraces and offers comfort not only to a select few but to all that ‘no one is lackng’, a particularly important expression of love in the looming shadow of the Churban Beis Ha-Mikdash and the ensuing dispersion. Isaiah, the midrash, and Rashi point us forward, to freedom and nationhood, to liberation from Egypt, the land of the dead, as G-d’s living people. As we learn near the end of the Torah’s story, after the final counting and naming in the desert and late in Moshe’s final oration in Nitzavim (De 29:9-14), all of us are here today, all of us count, from the hewer of wood to the drawer of water, elders and infants, pious and secular. We are and always will be part of the community and nation, the children of Israel, the host of the Eternal, embraced in an unceasing redemption in which all are precious, all loved by G‑d.

Guest posting by 

Craig Hanoch

Highland Park, NJ.

Craig is writing a book about nihilism and faith.

Parshas VaYechi – Thoughts on the first Rashi

“Yaakov lived in the land of Egypt for seventeen years. The days of Yaakov, the years of his life, were one hundred and forty seven years.”

Bereshis 47:28

Yaakov lived. Why is this portion of the Torah completely closed? This is because once our father Yaakov died the eyes and hearts of Israel were ‘closed’ because of the bondage because they [the Egyptians] began to enslave them [the Jews]. An alternate explanation:  Because he [Yaakov] wished to reveal the End [of Days, i.e. the time of the Messiah] and it was ‘closed’ [concealed] from him, according to Bereshis Rabbah.

Rashi’s comment on Bereshis 47:28

Rashi seeks to explain why there is no empty space in the Torah scroll between the end of the previous Torah portion, VaYigash, and the start of this week’s portion, VaYechi, as there usually is. He offers two possible answers to this anomaly.

I have to wonder if the two answers are in some way linked. Yaakov, through Divinely granted insight, had a vision of the ultimate ends of the Earth, humanity, Judaism, and all the struggles that lay ahead. As a caring father and a responsible leader of his clan, he wished to share this vision – to encourage his offspring in the difficult days ahead, to reassure them, and to bequeath the wisdom he gained through all his personal travails to the next generation. Yet God decided this was not something to be shared.

The time might not have been right for the children of Israel to receive this critical information because, as they were soon to experience the bitterness of slavery, a vision of the final days would not be received very well. The vision might have made the suffering seem more bitter. Try telling your child that the shot the doctor is giving them will make them healthier and safer – in my experience, such ‘reassurance’ is often not appreciated and may even be angrily disregarded.

As a father, though, I can also relate to and learn from Yaakov’s frustration in this matter. There he was, with a tremendous insight on ‘the purpose of it all,’ and he was eager to share it with his children. Yet he was prevented from doing so and went on with life knowing that his children would not benefit from his hard-earned insights. 

Parshas VaYigash – Thoughts on the first Rashi

“And Yehudah approached him [Yoseph] and said: Please my master let your servant speak a word in my master’s ears, and do not be angry with your servant, for you are equal to Pharoah.”

Bereshis 44: 18

And Yehudah approached … in my master’s ears. [Meaning] May my words penetrate your ears.

Rashi’s comment on Bereshis 44:18.

The scene – Yoseph (in the guise of the Egyptian prime minster) has just told his brothers that, because his attendant found Yoseph’s golden cup in Binyamin’s sack, he (Yoseph) intends to detain Binyamin as a slave while releasing the remaining brothers. Yehudah approaches to make an impassioned plea for clemency. Rashi points out that Yehudah was not merely protesting or ‘getting something off his chest’ but rather was intent to make an impact on Yoseph with his appeal.

We can parse the first verse of the parsha and see Yehudah’s care in initiating his appeal. He starts with the word “please,” he addresses Yoseph as “my master,” he asks that Yoseph not get angry at his [Yehudah’s] effort to appeal, and he concludes with flattery, stating that Yoseph is Pharoah’s equal. In all, it’s a very diplomatic start to a very important pitch.

Perhaps we can learn from Yehudah’s example. There are times when each of us faces a very troubling situation, with doubtful prospects. In such circumstances we may feel that the matter is hopeless, unjust, or even infuriating. Despite the pull of these emotions, if we can compose ourselves and appeal respectfully to the ‘powers that be’, we may yet be able - with God’s help - to pull some small success from the jaws of defeat. 

Parshas Mikeitz – Thoughts on the First Rashi

"And it was at the end of two years, and Pharaoh dreamt that he was standing by the Nile"

Bereshis 41:1

Rashi says on the first part of the pasuk: "As the Targum translates 'at the end,' because also such usages of 'keitz' imply the end of something." Rabbi Yissocher Frand writes that there is an obvious question that can be asked on this pasuk: what happened during this two year interval that just ended? At the end of last week's Parsha, Rashi quoted a Medrash that explains what happened during this period. Rashi says that because Yosef put his trust in the Butler, by asking the Butler to put in a good word for him with Pharaoh, Yosef was punished. His stay in jail extended by two full years because of two words that he spoke -- "u'zchartani, v'hotzaisani" (and remember me and take me out).

Rashi refers to an enigmatic Medrash Rabbah at the beginning of this week's Parsha. The Medrash says: "'Happy is the man who places his trust in G-d… [Tehillim 40:5] -- this refers to Yosef -- and turned not to the arrogant and to strayers after falsehood [ibid.] -- whose sentence in jail was extended for two years because of the two words he said to the butler." This Medrash contains an internal contradiction. At first it singles out Yosef as the prime example of a person who places his trust in G-d. Then it turns around and says, because Yosef asked the butler to put in a good word for him and did not trust G-d sufficiently, he was punished with two extra years in jail. Which way is it? Is it Yosef who had Bitachon [trust] or is Yosef a person who puts his trust in people?

Rabbi Frand says that there are two basic approaches to answer this question. Rav Eliyahu Lopian, the Beis HaLevi, and many others use the approach that Bitachon is a relative concept that depends on a person's level. For instance, the Ramba"n states in Parshas Bechukosai that the Talmudic teaching [Brochos 60a] which tells us that it is permitted to seek medical treatment, and for doctors to practice medicine, based on the verse "and he shall surely heal" [Shmos 21:19], is only a permission for "everyday people." However, those individuals who live on such a high level that they put all their trust in G-d, should not go to doctors. They can (and perhaps should) rely on miracles. The Ramba"n says, a normal person who conducts himself in all matters "based on the laws of nature," must use a doctor.

Similarly, we find in Gemara Brochos [35b] a disagreement between Rav Shimon bar Yochai and Rav Yishmael regarding how a person should balance his obligation to learn Torah with his need to support himself and his family. Rav Yishmael says that a person should work, and set aside regular times for learning Torah. Rav Shimeon bar Yochai’s opinion is that a person should sit and learn and G-d will send him a livelihood. The Talmud says that many people followed the teaching of Rav Yishmael and were successful and many people followed the teaching of Rav Shimeon bar Yochai and were unsuccessful. The level of Rav Shimeon bar Yochai was not appropriate for the masses. There are individuals who are on that level, and for them G-d will send them their livelihood - but this is not to be common practice.

Bitachon, according to Rav Eliyahu Lopian, is a relative concept that depends on the level of the individual. If one clings to G-d, does everything for the Sake of Heaven, and is perfectly righteous, then it is true that G-d will provide for him. G-d will take care of his sicknesses, and He will feed and sustain him. The person will not have to make any human effort. However, if one is a normal human being, not only is he allowed to make an effort (hishtadlus) for his living and his health, but he is obligated to make that effort.

This is the interpretation of the Medrash. "'Happy is the one who places his trust in Hashem' -- this refers to Yosef." Yosef was of such a stature that he put his entire trust in G-d. He was a Tzadik, who was a pillar of the world. Therefore, commensurate with the type of person he was, he was obligated not to make an effort. He should have remained at his level of trusting in G-d alone and not seeking human intervention (by the butler). For Yosef to step down from this level was in fact a sin, says Rav Eliyahu Lopian, and so he was punished with two extra years in jail. 

Guest posting by 

Yossi Benedek
2nd Lieutenant - Highland Park First Aid Squad

Treasurer - First Investors Funds

www.firstinvestors.com

Parshas VaYeishev - a thought on the first Rashi

“And Yaakov settled in the land of his father’s residence, in the land of Canaan.”

Bereshis 37:1

Yaakov settled. “Another explanation of “Yaakov settled”; There was once a particular flax dealer whose camels arrived laden with flax. The blacksmith wondered: ‘Where will all this flax be stored?” There was a wise man there who responded: ‘Just one spark that goes out from your bellows can burn it all.’ Likewise, Yaakov saw all the chiefs of Esau enumerated above [enumerated in Bereshis 36:8 – 43]. He wondered and said: ‘Who could vanquish them all?’ What is written later? ‘These are the histories of Yaakov, Yosef.’ For it is written: ‘The House of Yaakov shall be a fire and the House of Yosef a flame, and the House of Esau straw.’ In other words, a spark will go out from Yosef and consume them all. ~ from an old edition of Rashi.”

- Rashi on Bereshis 37:1

It’s striking that the more things change, the more they stay the same. We read reports of the vicious anti-Semitism of Hamas, Hezbollah, the regime in Iran, and other prominent groups in Israel’s neighborhood. We learn about efforts by terrorist groups and governments bordering Israel to arm themselves with powerful weapons and to seek pretexts to launch them at Israeli civilian centers. And members of the Jewish community worry – how will Israel withstand these challenges? Will the US President support Israel properly? Will the American people continue to support Israel? Will American Jewry continue to support Israel? And what will all this mean to Israel?

 

Of course, there are no guarantees. And none of us are prophets. Yet Rashi’s comment tells us that, if the Jewish people are deserving, the largest and most disproportionate threat is easily dispatched. It is up to each of us to work on our own mitzvah observance, and our own faith in God, which in turn can make our people, collectively, deserving of such divine benevolence

Parshas Vayishlach - Considering Rashi's comment on Yaacov's message to Eisav

In the beginning of Parshas Vayishlach, Yaacov sends the following message to his brother Eisav: "I have lodged with my father-in-law Lavan and therefore I have been gone for so many years." Rashi comments that the word 'Garti,' which means 'I have lodged,' has the numerical equivalent of 613. This represented an additional message to Eisav, that despite having lived with Lavan for all of these years, Yaacov was still able to perform the 613 Mitzvos and was not influenced by Lavan’s evil ways.

One may ask, why would Yaacov want to send this message to Eisav. Yaacov’s entire strategy with regard to Eisav was one of appeasement. Yaacov prepared elaborate gifts for Eisav and even was ready to bow down to him. He would do anything to avoid a deadly conflict with Eisav and his militia. Why then would Yaacov make a seemingly boastful statement which hints at Yaacov’s superiority and worthiness of receiving his father’s blessings?

Further on in the Parsha Yaacov took his family across the river and he then remained alone on the other side. It was at this time that the angel of Eisav wrestled with Yaacov. Many commmentaries ask about the meaning of the phrase 'And Yaacov remained alone'. What is the significance of this? Rabbi Gedalya Schorr ZT'L explains that this is a reference to Yaacov's strength of character. Whereas many people are strongly influenced by the opinions of others, Yaacov was able to act purely based on what he thought was correct. Even when among other who disapprove of and ridicule his ways, Yaacov was able to remain 'alone', and not be pressured to change. As an example, Yaacov was ridiculed in Lavan's household, for his honesty and for constantly falling for Lavan’s tricks. Despite being laughed at and ridiculed, Yaacov continued to do what he knew was right. He faithfully watched Lavan’s sheep, even when it kept him up all night.

This can perhaps explain Yaacov’s message to Eisav. In order to avert a potential conflict, Yaacov was ready to show his subservience to Eisav. He would bow down, and do whatever was necessary to appease Eisav, but Yaacov wanted to clearly delineate how far he will go. The message to Eisav was, I will bow to you, and I will appease you, but I will not allow myself to be influenced negatively by you, even if this is your desire. Yaacov's ability to remain independent was the source of his strength, and he could not compromise on that.

Guest posting
by Rabbi Israel Botnick

Parshas Vayeitzei – Thoughts on the First Rashi

“Yaakov left Beersheva and went toward Charan.”

Bereshis 28:10

Yaakov left. Since it was due to the fact that the daughters of Canaan were evil in the eyes of his father, Yitzchok, that Eisav went to Yismael [to take Yishmael’s daughter, as a wife], the text interrupted the narrative of Yaakov and wrote: “Eisav saw that Yitzchok blessed, etc.” and when the text finished, it went back to the previous subject.”

Rashi on Bereshis 28:10

Towards the end of last week’s parsha we learned that, on Rivkah’s urging, Yitzchok told Yaakov explicitly not to marry a Canaanite woman, sent him to Padan Aram to seek a wife, and blessed him. The text then detoured to tell us, in four verses, that Eisav observed all this and realized that his parents disapproved of his Canaanite wives. So Eisav went and took another, non-Canaanite wife.  In this week’s parsha Yaakov’s story resumes and Rashi appears to be stating that the episode about Eisav, though worth noting, was not the essential story so now the text returns to the primary subject.

I understand Rashi to be making an assertion about the Torah’s view of proper story telling, especially in regards to our spiritual role models. The Torah is stating that Yaakov, our forefather, is the main story of the narrative and not Eisav - his brother, sometime nemesis, and the generally less wholesome character.

In my experience, in our own storytelling we often dwell on the more colorful and less savory characters. As an example – I went online to determine which Star Wars character is considered the most popular. On the highest-ranking fan-based lists I found, Darth Vadar (the bad guy) easily outscored Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia, the unvarnished heroes of the first trilogy. In this vein we might also consider the continued public interest in the more tasteless and/or amoral entertainment figures such as Lady Gaga, Chris Brown, Snooki, the Kardashians, Tiger Woods, Sarah Silverman, and others.

The Torah does not devote any attention to tales of Eisav’s courtships, married life, family dynamics, livelihood, relations with his neighbors, and any scandals he created. The Torah only comments on Eisav as he relates directly to Yitzchok and Rivkah or to Yaakov. In sharp contrast, the Torah tells us a great deal about Yaakov’s personal life. The message in the story is clear – for our purposes, it’s best to focus on the good guys.

Parshas Toldos – Thoughts on the first Rashi

“These are the descendants of Yitzchok son of Abraham. Abraham was the father of Yitzchok. Yitzchok was 40 years old when he took Rivkah, the daughter of Besueil the Aramite, of Padam Aram, sister of Lavan, the Aramite, to be his wife.”

[Bereshis 25:19-20]

These are the descendants of Yitzchok. (This refers to) Yaakov and Esau who are discussed in this parsha.

There are apparently two ways to translate the word “Toldos” – as either “the descendants of" or as “the chronicles of.” Rashi is intent on the first translation and is thus pressed to explain when the phrase is used in the Torah and is not immediately followed with a list of children, such as the instance cited above which uses the word “Toldos” and then tells us about Yitzchok's relationship with Abraham.¹

The Sforno (and others) differs from Rashi and understands the word “Toldos” to mean “the chronicles of.” Sforno explains that the Torah first states “These are the chronicles of Isaac, son of Abraham,” and then restates “Abraham was the father of Yitzchok,” to make the point that only Yitzchok is considered the true and worthy heir of Abraham, which we see in the accounts in this week’s parsha of how Yitzchok led his life.

The comment of Sforno can prompt us to consider a basic question – are we leading our own lives in ways that would lead other people to see us as worthy heirs of Abraham? The Torah is timeless and thus the message in this verse, as understood by Sforno, is not merely a history lesson – it is meant to provoke us to introspection as well.   

1 = Rashi faces a similar problem with the first verse of Parshas Noach, which uses the word “Toldos” and then tells us that Noach was a righteous person.

Parshas Chaye Sarah - Thoughts on the first Rashi

“Sarah’s lifetime was one hundred years, and twenty years and seven years the years of Sarah’s life” (Bereishis 23:1). Rashi comments, the fact that the word “shanah” (years) is repeated, the Torah was adding a message – that of, when Sarah was 100 years old, she was like 20 years old regarding sin – there is no liability for divine punishment until 20. When she was 20 years old, she was like a seven year-old for beauty.

Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt”l commented that a person goes through different stages in life – infancy, childhood, adolescence, young adulthood, middle age and old age. Normally, when we complete one stage and advance to the next stage we leave the earlier stage behind us. We may cherish fond memories, but that chapter of our life is closed. At age 100, a person would have acquired much wisdom – wisdom that only comes with life experience. At 20, a person is full of energy, vitality and idealism. The age of 7 represents innocents and purity.

Chazal are teaching us, that regardless of how old Sarah was at any point in her life, Sarah had within her the attributes of a 7 year old (purity & innocence), the attributes of a 20 year old (vitality and idealism) and the attributes of 100 year old (wisdom and experience).

To a 7 year old, G-d is a reality. When you want something, you simply ask Hashem for it. Their prayer is pure. Most of us no longer have this innocence in our prayer. We have been swayed by the unpredictable happenings of life. The 20 year-old is full of idealism, and the 100 year-old is full of wisdom.

Sarah, on the other hand, was able to blend these characteristics together throughout her life. At the age of 50 (or any age), she had the purity and innocence of a 7 year-old in her belief in G-d as the Almighty was real and untainted. At the same age, she had youthful idealism and energy of a 20 year-old. With this, she had the wisdom of an old lady. She never left behind the stages of life that she “outgrew” rather she took the positive attributes of each stage and applied them as she continued to advance through life’s stages. The goodness of her life was equally distributed. She was at the same time a child in her total faith, youthful in her exuberant enthusiasm and an adult in her maturity and judgment.

May we learn this lesson of how important it is to build on life’s experiences, to mature to greater heights and grow with life’s experiences. 

Guest posting

by Rabbi Shlomo Ziegler

VP Technology

Tullett Prebon Americas Corp.