Immediately following the exodus from Egypt and the splitting of the Sea of Reeds, the first opportunity for the freshly minted “Jewish people” to interrelate with HaShem and His Prophet Moshe, was at Mara (Shemot 15:22-27). It was here that in response to the people’s request for potable water, HaShem taught Moshe what was to be done in order to sweeten bitter waters, and the thirsty Jews were able to drink to their hearts’ content. The entire incident is categorized in 15:25 as a “Nisayon” (test/trial) of the people, but it is unclear from the text what is the nature of this test, and whether or not the people are to be considered to have passed or failed.

Two general types of “trials” in the desert.

                Rabbeinu Bachaye (15:22) asserts that travels in any desert constitute a “Nisayon.”[1]   The biblical commentator then points out that if spending time in the desert in general is by definition a challenging trial, then “walking in the great and awesome desert together with their wives and young children and not having water for three days during the summer, there is no greater test in the entire world.” But if his contention is valid, why does the Tora specifically mention that at Mara the people were tested, when in fact every moment spent in the desert is a test in one form or another? Rabbeinu Bachaye suggests that when they saw the spring at Mara from afar, they had high expectations of replenishing their water supply that had over the three days journey from Egypt just run out. Their deep disappointment upon realizing that the tempting water was in fact undrinkable, sharpened their upset, frustration and desperation, creating a situation by which their collective faith and trust in HaShem could be evaluated and ultimately strengthened by demonstrating how God could easily Alleviate the problem. [2]  Consequently, the commentator suggests that there are two levels of “testing” in the desert: a) simply having to be there over an extended period of time even while in possession of the requisite equipment and supplies, and b) spending time in the desert compounded by worrisome shortages, heat, thirst, and hunger.  By extension, the two subsequent instances in Parshat BeShalach when the term “test/trial” appears, 16:4 and 17:2, 7, involving shortages of food and water, could be similarly understood to be consistent with the acute type of desert “Nisyanot” i.e., b), rather than a).[3]  

A “test” of learning survival techniques.

However, to understand the term “Nisayon” in 15:25 as a general reference to desert hardships, or even a reflection of the sorts of specific needs that anyone facing such a situation has to cope with, independent of the unique context of the particular verse in question appears to be problematic from a methodological point of view. It is difficult to ignore the clear parallelism between the earlier exclusionary adverbial phrase[4]  in the verse “SHAM Sam Lo Chok U’Mishpat” (THERE He Gave Him a Statute and a Law) and its coda, “VeSHAM Nisahu” (and THERE He Tested Him). Apparently, the “Chok U’Mishpat” are part and parcel of the “Nisayon”. RaMBaN’s (15:25) literal and homiletic interpretations regarding the relationship between these elements in the verse are evocative in terms of how much at variance they are from one another. On the one hand, from the “Peshat” (literal meaning) perspective, the commentator suggests that “Statute and Law” have to do with how one is to conduct oneself in the desert, and therefore the test was not simply to see the manner in which the people will react to difficult conditions, but rather to instruct the formerly over-dependent slaves in self-reliant survival techniques and then to see whether they have understood and are able to apply them on their own. Learning the life-saving qualities of certain plants and animals can come in handy when facing starvation or dehydration both now and in the future.

A “test” of learning how to develop a meaningful social contract.

But in addition to simply learning about desert flora and fauna, another area of needed instruction and subsequent testing for the Jews who have just now emerged from Egyptian bondage is the nature of appropriate interpersonal relationships among freemen and freewomen. If they are to ultimately be transformed from a disorganized rabble of individuals who can think of nothing other than their own day-to-day personal survival into a highly functioning nation imbued with civility and humanity, RaMBaN writes,

They are given laws regarding a) how one person is to love the next, b) that the advice and direction of elders are to be heeded, c) the nature of modesty that is to apply to conduct within their individual tents involving women and children, d) the behavior that is to be undertaken with respect to outsiders who may come to the camp in order to engage in commerce, and e) rules governing an encampment so that the Jews will not be like marauders who engage in a wide range of abominations without embarrassment…

RaMBaN cites as a parallel to 15:25 a verse at the end of the book of Yehoshua, where it is stated, (Yehoshua 24:25) “And Yehoshua entered into a covenant with the people on that day and he gave him (the people) a ‘Chok U’Mishpat’ in Shechem.” In contrast to those who wish to interpret Shemot 15:25 as indicating that at least a portion of the Tora laws intended to be given in their entirety at Sinai, are already being revealed at Mara as an introduction to the law code that will be formally offered to the people in a few weeks,[5]  by the end of the book of Yehoshua, this same phraseology cannot be understood in a like manner, since the Tora was given long before, during the era of Moshe’s leadership. RaMBaN further suggests that the verse in Yehoshua may be referring to various pieces of social legislation that are attributed to Moshe’s successor in Bava Kama 80b.

Our Rabbis taught: Yehoshua laid down ten stipulations: a) that cattle be permitted to pasture in privately owned wooded areas (as opposed to planted fields), b) that wood may be gathered by all in privately owned fields, except in a field where fenugreek is growing, c) that shoots from trees be permitted to be cut by all in all places with the exception of those growing out of olive trees, d) that a spring emerging aboveground for the first time may be used by the townspeople, e) that it is permitted to fish with a hook in the Sea of Tiberius provided that no sail is set that would interfere with the navigation of other boats, f) that it is permitted for one to relieve himself at the back of a fence, g) that it is permitted for the public to use paths in private fields until the time when the second rain is expected, h) that it is permitted to use private sidewalks in order to avoid the road-pegs, i) that one who has lost his way in the vineyards be permitted to cut his way out when either going up or coming down, j) that a dead body which anyone finds has the right to acquire the spot where it is found and be buried there.

Consequently, this approach of RaMBaN suggests that in order to ready the Jewish people for developing and adhering to a social contract once they come into Israel, the desert in general, and Mara in particular, serve as a “proving ground” wherein the Jews could become accustomed to functioning as independent citizens, both respecting the rights of others even as they insist upon the privileges due themselves and their families. During their travels in the desert, the laws and customs governing these interactions were modified and refined, until the people conquer the land of Israel and permanently institute these types of rules by which their society is to be governed.

A “test” to learn how to properly approach God.

                But RaMBaN contends that there were spiritual goals as well that could be represented by the terms “Chok U’Mishpat”. The commentator suggests that in addition to learning how to act towards one another, i.e., “Mitzvot Bein Adam VeChaveiro” (Tora, Rabbinic and social Commandments between man and man), the people were being introduced to proper etiquette and procedure in terms of their relating to HaShem, “Mitzvot Bein Adam LaMakom” (Commandments between man and God). “He would Afflict them with desert conditions, and they would have to learn how to respond to starvation and thirst, how to call upon God properly, as opposed to constantly complaining.” Furthermore, the theological symbolism of the manner by which the bitter waters were sweetened was shown and explained to Moshe who in turn was expected to teach the lesson regarding HaShem’s “Hashgacha Pratit” (Divine Intervention) to the people. Midrashim such as Mechilta and Tanchuma on 15:25 claim that the branch that was shown Moshe came from a tree that itself was bitter, and yet when thrown into bitter water, the water counter-intuitively became sweet. Implied is that at least on occasion, even when something attributed to HaShem appears bitter at the outset, and it seems that additional bitterness is intensifying the situation, ultimately things may turn out sweet and palatable. The test then becomes one of seeing whether the people are able to suspend their customary pessimistic expectations of disaster, developed during their years of slavery in Egypt, and when confronted now with a difficult situation, whether they can develop the patience and faith that all will turn out well. At the Sea of Reeds, their dire predictions in 14:10-12 were refuted, and it is expected over time that they build confidence in HaShem’s Concern and Protection. And unfortunately, when repeatedly in Shemot and BaMidbar, the expectation of the Jewish people trusting in God’s Providence and Redemption is not realized in the generation that itself left Egypt, HaShem Decrees that that generation’s children will be given the task of entering and conquering Israel in place of their parents.

A “test” introducing Mitzvot representative of the entire corpus of Tora law.

As for the standard Rabbinical interpretation of “Chok U’Mishpat” found in Sanhedrin 56b, i.e., that the specific Commandments of respecting parents, Shabbat, the Red Heifer, and the need for civil law were given to the Jews at Mara in order to acquaint them with Jewish Tora law, and see whether or not they would embrace these laws joyfully and with enthusiasm, RaMBaN insists that these laws did not become obligatory at this point, but were instead only intended for reflection and optional observance, in the manner that the forefathers were supposed to have observed Mitzvot (see Kiddushin 4:14). Such an understanding of the test therefore is not in terms of the ability to comply with the tenets of Tora laws, but rather how they would be understood, and in turn what would be concluded regarding the Intentions of HaShem Who is Giving them. Such an approach is reminiscent of Kiddushin 31a.

Ulla Rabba gave the following interpretation in the doorway of the Nasi’s residence: What is meant by the verse (Tehillim 138:4) “All of the kings of the earth will acknowledge You HaShem when they hear the Words of Your Mouth”? The WORD of Your Mouth is not said, but rather the WORDS of Your Mouth. At the moment that HaShem Declared, (Shemot 20:2, 3) “I Am the Lord Your God; You shall have no other gods before Me”, the nations of the world said, “For His own Honor He is Demanding.” But when He Said, (Shemot 20:11) “Honor your father and your mother”, they changed their minds and acknowledged the propriety of the initial Commandments.[6]  

Rava said: This lesson is learned from here—(Tehillim 119:160) “The Beginning of Your Words are True”. Does this imply that only the Beginning is True, but not the End? But rather from the End of Your Words, you can recognize that the Beginning is true.

The skepticism regarding HaShem’s Intentions that the Talmud attributes to the nations of the world, in light of how the people repeatedly challenge God’s Authority, could very well have been shared by the Jews themselves. And therefore some of these Commandments are presented early in order to gauge popular reaction as well as approaches for how to best educate the people to accept and enact these Laws.

Who is testing who?

While the test at Mara at first glance seems to be something that HaShem Designed so that the Jews would undergo a type of “training” prior to their entry into the land of Israel, further analysis reveals that according to the Tora, tests and trials are not only understood to emanate from God; while the Jewish people are sometimes on the receiving end, they are also accused by God Himself of having subjecting Him to tests of their own. During the course of the difficulties that arise due to the negative report of the land of Israel presented by ten out of the twelve spies,[7]  God States, (BaMidbar 14:22-23) “For all of the men who have seen My Glory and My Signs that I have Done in Egypt and in the desert, yet have TESTED ME THESE TEN TIMES and have not hearkened to My Voice, surely they will not see the land that I have Sworn to their fathers…” In contrast to RaShBaM and Ibn Ezra, who interpret “Ten Times” as an expression simply connoting numerous times rather than “ten” specific instances, RaShI, assumes the number “ten” is to be taken literally, and cites the Talmud in Erchin 15a which attempts to identify the particular instances to which HaShem is Alluding:[8]

It was taught: R. Yehuda said: With ten trials did our forefathers test the Holy One Blessed Be He—a) two at the sea, b) two because of water, c) two because of manna, d) two because of the quails, e) one in connection with the Golden Calf, and f) one in the wilderness of Paran.

a) “Two at the sea”—one at the going down, and the other at the coming up. At the going down: (Shemot 14:11) “Because there are not sufficient graves in Egypt you have taken us to die in the desert?” At the going up…for Rabba bar Mari said, “It is written (Tehillim 106:7) ‘But they were rebellious at the sea, even at the Sea of Reeds; nevertheless He Saved them for His Name’s Sake.’ This teaches that Israel was rebellious at that very hour, saying, ‘Just as we go up from this side, so will the Egyptians go up from the other side’…

b) “Two because of water”—one at Mara and one at Refidim. At Mara it is written: (Shemot 15:23) “And when they came to Mara, they could not drink.” And it is written: (15:24) “And the people murmured against Moshe.” At Refidim it is written: (17:1) “And the people encamped at Refidim and there was no water to drink.” And it is also written: (17:2) “Wherefore the people strove with Moshe.”

c) “Two because of manna”—[9] (16:27) “And it was the Seventh day, and some people went out to gather, and they did not find.”[10] (16:20) “But they did not listen to Moshe, but some of the people left the Manna until the morning, and it bred worms and stank…”

d) “Two because of the quails”—of the first and second quails. Of the first: (Shemot 16:3) “When we sat by the fleshpots…” Of the second: (BaMidbar 11:4) “And the mixed multitude that was among them…”

e) “The Golden Calf”—as it happened (see Shemot 32:1 ff.)

f) “The wilderness of Paran”—as it happened (see BaMidbar 13-14.)

                It is notable that among the ten events that are categorized as tests of God by the Jewish people cited in Erchin, the four[11]  that stem from Parshat BeShalach can simultaneously be viewed as tests emanating from HaShem to evaluate the people’s spiritual state. And although the actual term “Nisayon” is not used by the Tora with respect to the other six occasions cited by the Talmud, it is not difficult to recognize their dual natures as well, i.e., these situations are both tests by and of God. While God was Ready to Save the Jews at the Sea despite the skepticism of some, as was mentioned above, He did not immediately Make it clear how this was going to take place, and considerable faith is required of the people before the splitting of the Sea actually transpires—see e.g., Sota 37a. HaShem not only positively responds to the request for meat, but He also evaluates and ultimately punishes those who are improperly insistent upon obtaining it (see BaMidbar 11). The Golden Calf reflects a major shortcoming on the part of the people; yet Rabbinic sources and commentaries, e.g., RaShI on Shemot 32:31 and Keli Yakar on 15:22 based upon Berachot 32a suggest that ordering the Jewish people to despoil Egypt before they left (Shemot 12:36) as well as giving them the opportunity to collect the jewels from the drowned Egyptian forces at the Sea of Reeds (see Mechilta on 15:22) provided these newly freed slaves with a powerful temptation to use the precious metals that they had acquired for illegal idolatrous purposes. Finally with respect to the spies, while in retrospect Moshe admits in Devarim 1:22-23 that the impetus to send the delegation originated with the people, the initial account in BaMidbar 13:2 gives the impression that HaShem at least Authorized the spy mission, if He did not out and out Command Moshe to send the representatives of the tribes to scout out the land of Israel.

The double-edged sword of a test.

In order to place someone in a situation where he will be tested, one runs the risk that the tables will be turned. Instead of the one being tested demonstrating mastery, self-control and competence, he may lash out at the examiner, clearly evidencing a lack of preparedness and even comprehension of the task at hand and the skill set required for meeting the challenges being posed. The Jewish people have certainly experienced their share of “Nisyanot” throughout their history, as well as having presented a number of their own challenges to HaShem. Let us hope that we can learn from our challenges, go thereby from “Chayil L’Chayil” (from strength to strength), to live up to HaShem’s Expectations of us individually, communally and nationally.

[2] While the newly freed slaves can be expected to not be experienced and overly confident in terms of God’s Involvement with them due to their long years of suffering and servitude, when HaShem demonstrates that He will Produce water and food for them, these specific memories can serve as benchmarks for the future development of newfound trust and faith.

[3] When the term “Nisayon” is used in Devarim, for the most part it again is associated with the specific events in Shemot where the term first appeared. Devarim 6:16 cites the paradigm of “Massa”, the place where the second dispute over water occurs in Shemot 17. Devarim 8:16 invokes the past problems with the Manna, that originally became an issue in Shemot 16, although it rears its head again in BaMidbar 11:6-9 and 21:5. The only other instance where the term “Nisayon” is invoked by HaShem in Devarim, is in order to account for why false prophets sometimes can perform seemingly miraculous signs, i.e., in order for HaShem to be Able to test the Jewish people as to the extent of their exclusive love for Him and His Mitzvot. Since the events recorded in the book of Shemot take place while no one but Moshe can claim to be HaShem’s Prophet—even Korach challenged the designation of Aharon as Kohen Gadol, but not that of Moshe as the conduit of God’s Will to the people (see BaMidbar 16:10)—it is not remarkable that no paradigm for such a challenge is to be found in Shemot, in contrast to demands for water and food.

[4] The term “Sham” (there) suggests that an event took place in a specific locale to the exclusion of anywhere else.

[5] From the time of the Exodus from Egypt until the receiving of the Tora that is commemorated by the festival of Shavuot, seven weeks elapsed (VaYikra 23:15). The splitting of the Sea took place on the seventh day following the Jews’ fleeing Egypt (see e.g., RaShI on Shemot 14:5). And only three days more pass (15:22) before the test of Mara leaving about five and a half weeks until the giving of the Tora.

[6] Perhaps it is more than coincidence that Respecting Parents is one of the Commandments given at Mara in light of the passage in Kiddushin that attributes to this Mitzva the basis for justifying those Commandments leading up to it.

[7] Originally twelve, Kalev and Yehoshua refused to give a negative report.

[8] Another Rabbinic source that takes literally the Tora’s contention in BaMidbar that there were specifically ten trials in the desert is Avot 5:4 which focuses upon the association of the number ten and events during and following the Exodus—“Ten miracles were performed on behalf of our Forefathers in Egypt, and ten at the Sea. Ten plagues God Brought upon the Egyptians in Egypt and ten at the Sea. Ten trials did our Forefathers try God, Blessed be He, in the desert, as it is said (BaMidbar 14) ‘And they tested Me these ten times and they did not hearken to My Voice’”. Commentators on the Mishna such as Tosafot Yom Tov, strive to identify precisely which ten trials are being referenced, despite the listing in Erechin.

[9] The Talmud paraphrases the verse in 16:29 which records what Moshe says to the people AFTER they have already gone out to search for manna on Shabbat. This verse does not demonstrate how the people tried God, but rather what the Divine Response to the trial was, i.e., a reiteration of the rules applying to Manna gathering on the Seventh Day. 16:27 is a more appropriate reflection of the non-compliance on the part of the people. Similarly, with regard to the leaving over of the Manna, the Talmud cites 16:19 in which the instructions given by Moshe for the people not to leave the Manna over are recorded. However, if one wishes to illustrate how the people defied Moshe’s directive, the next verse, 16:20, has to be accessed. If all that one pays attention to is the order that was given, why should it be assumed that it was not carried out? Only in combination with the verse that describes the result can it be said that this constitutes a test of God by the people. In fact, the two verses cited by Erchin with respect to the Manna are examples of God Testing the people, rather than vice versa!

[10] Told in 23-26 that a double portion would fall on Erev Shabbat and that no Manna would be in the fields on Shabbat itself, thereby precluding the necessity for going out to gather manna on Shabbat.

[11] It could be contested that the challenges associated with the Manna cited by the Talmud have more to do with how and when it is to be gathered, rather than the untoward demands for food in the first place. However, it could be countered that the reason for the people’s impatience with respect to not collecting Manna on Shabbat and attempting to save some from one weekday to the next, was due to the same lack of faith in HaShem that caused them to challenge whether He would Give them food in the first place.

                Part of the “Brit Bein HaBetarim” (the Covenant between the Pieces) (Beraishit 15:9-21) is the Divine Promise that when the Jews finally are redeemed from the servitude and oppression that they will suffer in a land that “is not theirs”, they will emerge with “great wealth” (15:14). Although HaKetav VeHaKabbala strives to define this “wealth” as not only finite precious material objects, but also as  a positive historical evolution of the Jewish people by means of  lessons learned during the course of the Egyptian exile, e.g., a demonstration of the impotence of false gods, as well as an appreciation of HaShem’s Omnipotence and the wondrousness of His Miracles, nevertheless even R. Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenberg  admits that the simple meaning of 15:14, along with the apparent import of verses in Parashiot Shemot[1] and Bo[2] appear  to emphasize the acquisition of  monetary wealth.

The repetition of the Promise that the Jews would leave Egypt enriched suggests the importance of this Promise.

The importance of the Divine Promise that the Jews will leave Egypt materially enriched originally made to Avraham in Beraishit, is reflected in this prophecy and its fulfillment being mentioned on three different occasions in Sefer Shemot.  In Shemot 3:21, Moshe is told by God before he even agrees to return to Egypt and confront Pharoah, , “And I will Place the ‘Chen’ (grace) of this people in the eyes of Egypt, and it will be that when you go (out from Egypt) you will not go empty-handed.” The prediction is repeated by God to Moshe  a second time just prior to “Makat Bechorot” (the plague of the firstborn), (11:3) “And God will Place the grace of the people in the eyes of Egypt; also the man Moshe is very great in the land of Egypt in the eyes of the servants of Pharoah and in the eyes of the people.” NeTzIV suggests that the reason why HaShem Informs Moshe about the Promise a second time is because Moshe might have thought that there had been a change in the Divine Plan.[3]  While God had also Mentioned to His Prophet early on that the Egyptian ruler would not immediately agree to allowing the Jews to leave (3:19-20), Moshe is nevertheless shocked when Pharoah in addition to refusing to free the slaves, also imposes harsher work quotas upon the Jews (5:7-9). Moshe registers his dismay when in 5:22-23 he accuses HaShem of Maltreating the very people that He had Said He would Redeem. Consequently, HaShem Reassures Moshe in 11:3 that not only is the plan for redemption still on track, but that the Commitment regarding the enrichment of the Jews would also be carried out as originally promised independent of where the Jews might currently be religiously.

The obtaining of Egyptian property by the Jews is mentioned for a final time when the Tora describes what takes place following the Plague of the Firstborn and immediately prior to the Jews’ leaving Egypt. We read how God is True to His Word: (12:36) “And God Placed the grace of the people in the eyes of Egypt, and they (the Egyptians) caused them (the Jews) to borrow and they despoiled Egypt.”

The hardening of one heart; the softening of others.

Amos Chacham in Da’at Mikra notes the parallelism between the hardening of Pharoah’s heart by HaShem during the last five plagues (9:12; 9:34—10:1,[4]  10:20, 27; 11:10)  and the “softening” of the Egyptians’ hearts with regards to their “lending” the Jews  their silver and gold, reflecting a disconnect between the Egyptian leader and his nation. 

Are the respective attitudes and actions of Pharoah and the Egyptians indicative of their own intentions and choices?

However, one can question whether the actions on the part of both Pharoah and his subjects should be regarded as reflections of either their respective evil or good intentions in light of the direct Divine Catalyst for what they do.  RaMBaM, Mishna Tora, Hilchot Teshuva, Chapt. 5 goes to great lengths to explain how only when an individual has free choice can he be both held accountable as well as praised and rewarded for his actions:

(5:4) If HaShem would Decree regarding an individual to either be a righteous person or an evildoer, or if there would be some factor inherent in an individual’s basic makeup  that would inevitably direct him to take a certain path, or to develop a certain personality trait, or to form a certain opinion, or to act in a certain manner, as some fools who delve into astrology maintain, how could He Command us by means of His Prophets, “Do this”,  “Don’t do that”,  “Improve your ways and do not follow your evil tendencies” since from his very earliest beginnings it has already been decreed, or his nature has been so constituted that he embark upon a path that cannot be altered? And what purpose would there be for the entire Tora (which lists positive and negative commandments along with their rewards and punishments), and based upon what law or judgment could a sinner be punished or a righteous person rewarded? (Beraishit 18:25) “The Judge of the entire world, should He not Engage in Justice?”[5]  

Consequently, while Pharoah can be morally criticized and properly punished for the first five instances when he turns down Moshe’s and Aharon’s request to free the Jews, this is not true with regard to his responses for the last five plagues (see fn. 4).  Similarly, if the converse process, i.e., instead of forcing someone to do evil, he is made to do good, lies at the heart of the decision by the Egyptians to offer their precious possessions to the Jews, they also cannot be regarded as having treated the Jews favorably, since God is merely manipulating them to only give the impression that the Egyptians have high regard for Moshe and his people. 

What role did despoiling Egypt play in the events of the Exodus?

Furthermore, it appears that this ostensible “good deed” on the Egyptians’ part is, at least according to RaShI, designed by God to supply  Pharoah with the leverage by which he could eventually urge the Egyptian people to join him in pursuing the Jews to the Sea of Reeds:  

RaShI on Shemot 14:6 “VaEt Amo Lakach Imo” (And his [Pharoah’s] people he [Pharoah] took with him)   

He (Pharoah) drew them with words.[6]  “They smote us with plagues, TOOK OUR POSSESSIONS and we sent them out!?  Come my nation…”

Pharoah is portrayed as appealing to the Egyptian sense of having been taken advantage of by the Jews’ who now that they have traveled beyond the journey of three days that Moshe originally requested (5:3; 8:23), appear to not only have no intention of returning to their former state of enslavement, but, adding insult to injury, they also intend to permanently keep the objects that they had ostensibly only “borrowed” from the Egyptians.  The ensuing moral outrage on the part of the Egyptians concerning both their lost slave labor as well as their personal possessions, convinces them to throw caution to the wind, forget about the massive destruction and hardships that they had just recently suffered, and attempt again to inflict pain and devastation on the Jews, despite the power evidenced by God Acting on the former slaves’ behalf. Although the text regarding the Egyptian’s final pursuit only notes that it is Pharoah’s heart that is hardened in terms of his deciding to chase the Jews (14:8), “And HaShem Hardened Pharoah’s heart, the king of Egypt, and he pursued after the Jewish people…”, it would appear that the soldiers manning the 600 chariots that joined the king (14:6) no longer retained any of the “grace” that had been placed in their eyes earlier on, following the Plague of the Firstborn in Shemot 12:36.  Consequently, HaShem’s Orchestrating the Egyptian’s feeling positively towards the Jews could be paradoxically understood to contribute to setting up the Divine Coup de Grace for Egypt and its armies.[7]  

Perhaps the Grace with which the Egyptians looked upon the Jews was genuinely felt and God “Assisted” the Egyptians to act upon their own intentions.

In contrast to the apparently literal reading of the verses in question that attributes the “grace” with which the Egyptians looked upon the Jews to a Supernatural Influence comparable to the manner in which Pharoah’s heart was hardened from Above, both RaMBaN as well as R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch suggest that the Egyptians’ positive feeling towards the Jews came from within the Egyptians themselves and was well-deserved by the Jews.

RaMBaN argues that a close reading of the Biblical text in 11:3 would make it impossible to assume that God’s Placing the “grace” of the Jews in the eyes of the Egyptians at this point prior to “Makkat Bechorot” is synonymous with what is stated in 12:36 regarding the borrowing of possessions after the final plague, when the Jews are about to leave Egypt. The commentator claims that in 11:3, the language “VaYitein“ should not be understood as “And He WILL Place the grace of the people” in the future, i.e., an exact reference to the next chapter when the Jews actually ask for the Egyptians’ property, but rather “And He PLACED”, i.e., the text is describing something that has already happened at this point in Chapt. 11. The grammatical issue in play is how to understand a future form of a verb that is introduced by a “Vav”, known as the “Vav HaHipuch”, the reversing Vav, i.e., in most instances in the Tora, the connotation of the future tense of the verb is reversed to be understood as something that pertains to the past. The Tora often employs such a construct to refer to what has already occurred rather than to what is about to take place. [8] RaMBaN suggests that the “grace” being referred to in Chapt. 11 is a reflection of a newly repentant attitude on the part of the Egyptians concerning their past ruthless treatment of the Jews.  Contrary to the reasonable expectation that as a result of the unrelenting plagues that have destroyed crops (hail, locusts) and livestock (wild animals, plague, hail) as well as discomforted and killed segments of the people themselves (blood, frogs, lice, wild animals, boils, darkness, the plague of the firstborn), the Egyptians would be filled with additional loathing and hatred for the Jews, the commentator contends that the opposite had taken place. The plagues, rather than fanning the flames of hatred, aroused a sense of guilt within those who had taken advantage of the Jews, stripping the Egyptians of their elaborate rationalizations and sense of entitlement and demonstrating to them that an Awesome Power was going to punish them and thereby defend the victims of their cruelty. RaMBaN has the Egyptians at least thinking, if not actually saying, “We have done evilly, even perpetrated violence. It is altogether appropriate that ‘Elokim’[9] should Show you favor.” Consequently, RaMBaN suggests an additional dimension to the many references by HaShem to His Desire to demonstrate to the entire Egyptian people (as opposed to Pharoah and his servants whom God does not Allow to repent until after the final plague and the miracle of the splitting of the Sea) His total control of the forces of nature, e.g., 7:5; 9:14, 16; 14:4. The Egyptians come to recognize not only the Omnipotence of the God in whom the Jews believe, but also their duplicity in having abused the Chosen People for so many years. Could this have been a positive motivation for the “Eiruv Rav” (the mixed multitude) wishing to accompany the Jews when they left Egypt?[10]   

Was a positive Egyptian predisposition towards the Jews recent or more long-standing?

R. Hirsch appears to go farther than RaMBaN, and not only suggests that a change of heart was experienced by the Egyptian people independent of HaShem’s Influence, but that it was precipitated by specific Jewish behavior. In his comment on 3:21, R. Hirsch claims that antipathy evidenced by Egyptians towards Jews was an abnormal state of affairs, and that looking upon the Jews with favor was a more “normal” Egyptian attitude. “The hate of the mass of the nation against the Jews in Egypt did not exist originally. It was artificially called into being and fostered from above by Pharoah and his government.” [11]

                What substantiation could we bring to R. Hirsch’s presumption? In addition to the Tora’s own statement in Devarim as to how appreciative Jews should forever be to the Egyptians for having taken them in while Canaan was stricken with severe famine (Devarim 23:8), the following inferences can be drawn from verses in Beraishit and Shemot:

a)  When the Jews originally come to Egypt during Yaakov and Yosef’s lifetimes, they are welcomed and granted an area of their own in which to live (Beraishit 45:17-20; 47:1-12).

b)   The Jews flourish in Egypt and experience rapid population growth (Shemot 1:7).

c)   The new king that begins to rule over Egypt frightens the Egyptians into thinking that the Jews pose a potential threat as a fifth column, should Egypt ever be attacked from without (1:9-10).

d)   If we assume that the midwives that helped Jewish women give birth were actually Egyptians rather than Jews,[12] the Tora presents a clear example of common Egyptian folk who do not wish to participate in the new Pharoah’s genocidal schemes (1:17).

e)   Even Bat Pharoah is not ready to go along with her father’s decree, at least not in the case of Moshe (2:6).

f)   There are some among Pharoah’s own servants who heed Moshe’s warnings about the impending hail and thereby save their possessions (9:20).

g)   While there does not seem to be great protests when the plagues begin, it appears that the Egyptians become disillusioned by Pharoah’s obstinacy in not letting the Jews leave and thereby relieving the pressure on the country and its citizenry that was due to the continued plagues (10:7). While the speed with which the Egyptians wish the Jews to finally leave could be attributed to their fright as a result of the death of the firstborn, it could also be a reflection of the attitude of those cohorts who never agreed with enslaving the Jews in the first place and who are finally taking advantage of the opportunity to publicly evidence a viewpoint that previously had been impossible to express (12:33).  

Jewish personal behavior as a catalyst for Egyptian “grace”?

                In addition to assuming that originally, the Egyptians never harbored ill feelings towards the Jews, and it was only the result of government propaganda and anti-Semitism[13]  that soured the relationship,[14] R. Hirsch claims that the positive emotions categorized as the perception of Jewish “grace” leading to the Egyptians generously lending their possessions to their Jewish neighbors were engendered not due to Divine Influence, but rather as a result of the Jews’ personal behavior.

R. S.R. Hirsch on Shemot 11:2-3

 …The people had just proved their sterling moral quality in the most brilliant manner. For three days long their oppressors, chained in blindness, were completely helpless in their power; for three days long all their treasures lay open in their houses, and no Jew took the opportunity to take the slightest advantage either against their persons or their possessions. At the moment when they recovered the use of their eyesight and found all their possessions untouched, God Made this recognition of the moral nobility of the Jews at last overcome  the Egyptians’ antipathy to the Jews. This moral greatness on the part of the people, more than all the miracles he performed, made the man Moses great in the eyes of the Egyptians…

Ibid. (12:36)

…It can very well be that the subject of “VaYenatzlu” is also the Egyptians. “And they (the Egyptians) stripped Egypt.” The honesty and magnanimity which the Jews displayed during the three days of darkness had so raised the opinion of the Egyptians towards Israel, that they pressed their possessions upon them before they asked, and stripped themselves of their treasures. (Earlier, in the introduction to verses 11:2-3, R. Hirsch tries to make a case that “Sha’al MeiEit” as opposed to “Sha’al MeiIm” suggests an outright gift as opposed to only a loan.)

R. Hirsch applies to the events towards the end of the Exodus a profoundly different emphasis than is normally presented by traditional commentators. The plague of darkness is often characterized as the time when the Jews specifically looked through the Egyptians’ possessions in order to be in a position to ask for articles that their owners might otherwise have denied possessing, as in Shemot Rabba 14:3. It is also reputed to have been a period during which those Jews who were refusing to leave Egypt due to their comfortable circumstances died in order that their defiance of God’s Plan for His People not be in evidence once their co-religionists had left—see Mechilta on Shemot 13:18. For R. Hirsch to instead maintain that these three days constituted a demonstration of Jewish self-discipline and moral virtue to the point that negative stereotypes and false accusations would be discarded, constitutes not only an innovative understanding of the events at hand, but also a utopian hope for how Jews in R. Hirsch’s own day in 19^th century Germany as well as we today should strive to respond to narrow-mindedness and prejudice. Naturally Jews must protect themselves from physical threats and discrimination. But at the same time, they should seek out venues for Kiddush HaShem whereby those not afflicted with deep-seated hatred, or even what Jean Paul Sartre has referred to as “the mental illness” of anti-Semitism, might be forced to evaluate the harsh depictions and caricatures of Jews and Judaism.

Approaching the views of RaMBaN and R. Hirsch re the borrowing of valuables as complementary.

It is possible that the two basic views regarding the origins of the “grace” that was perceived by the Egyptians for the Jews, i.e., that this attitude was Divinely inspired, or that it originated from within the hearts of the Egyptians themselves, can be seen to complement one another, although the commentators themselves do not appear to suggest such an approach. Sometimes human beings require “Siyata D’Shmaya” (Assistance from Heaven) in order to do the right thing, to see what is obvious, to cease deluding themselves into believing lies and misrepresentations. It is as if one has to act as a Prophet, to form opinions from a Divine Perspective, rather than relying  on his own petty, often biased takes on the world and its inhabitants. While “seeing” and “hearing” should be done reflectively and introspectively, a certain crucial moral, ethical objectivity is often lacking as a result of political perspectives and personal biases. Just as the text suggests at least according to some commentators that the Egyptians and Jews were finally reconciled after a terrible, abusive relationship, let us hope that similar transformations can take place, with God’s Help if necessary, between feuding individuals, family members, community members, religious groups and nations of the world.

“And I will Place the grace of this people in the eyes of the Egyptians. And it will be, that, when ye go, ye will not go empty=handed; but every woman shall ask of her neighbor, and of her that sojourns in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment; and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.’” 

[2] Ibid. 11:2-3

“’Speak now in the ears of the people, and let them ask every man of his neighbor, and every woman of her neighbor, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold.’ And God will Place the favor of the people in the eyes of the Egyptians. Also the man Moshe was very great in the land of Egypt, in the eyes of Pharaoh’s servants, and in the eyes of the people.”

Ibid. 12:35-6

“And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they asked of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment. And God Placed the grace of the people in the eyes of the Egyptians, and they caused them to borrow. And they despoiled the Egyptians.”   

[3] Such a change does not reflect “indecision”, as it were, on God’s Part, but rather that it is possible that the people’s status had changed in the interim from more deserving of Divine Consideration to less so. If their already difficult workload could be increased due to some new iniquity, perhaps other benefits would also be cancelled in light of some general shortcoming on their parts. The principle “Shema Yigrom HaChet” (lest sin [on the part of the promis-ee] cause [a reevaluation of a previous Divine Promise]) reflects the idea righteous individuals never assume that what has been promised to them will be fulfilled because they recognize their own imperfections and the inability for a human being to maintain a steady spiritual level from minute to minute, let alone day to day and year to year. See e.g., Berachot 4a; Sanhedrin 98b; Rabbeinu Yona on Avot 2:13.

[4] Although the implication in 9:34 with regard to the plague of hail is that Pharoah hardened his own heart in not granting permission for the Jews to leave, in the very next verse (10:1) God Takes credit for Pharoah’s negative response. This is consistent with the idea that after the first five plagues when Pharoah is described as hardening his own heart (7:23; 8:11, 15, 28; 9:7), he is no longer given this prerogative. While Pharoah may be under the impression that he is independently making up his own mind—suggested by 9:34—in fact, the Tora states that this is not the case. By extension, one can wonder whether, if according to the view that a similar manipulation of the Egyptians’ free choice took place in order to get them to lend their most precious possessions to the Jews, they were aware that something artificial and against their will was taking place, or whether they felt that this was a natural disposition on their parts.

[5] RaMBaM here incorporates what Avraham said to HaShem during the course of his negotiations concerning the sparing of the inhabitants of Sodom and Amora. RaMBaM seems to imply that not only does Avraham argue against destroying innocent people along with evildoers, which appears to the overt focus of his comments based upon Beraishit 18:24-25, but that even the elimination of the evildoers must be based upon the presumption that they must not inevitably do evil, although Beraishit 13:13 might lend itself to such a fatalistic interpretation, unless one posits that the evil of the Sodomites was acquired rather than intrinsic behavior. But one has to wonder about people who have spent their entire lives in an amoral or immoral environment, to what extent is it reasonable to expect them to separate themselves from the values and behaviors of the society around them?

[6] RaShI consistently  interprets the verb L-K-Ch when used in connection with human beings, as opposed to objects, as connoting verbal persuasion as opposed to literal physical coercion, e.g., Beraishit 2:15; 16:3; Shemot 14:6; VaYikra 8:2.

[7] Although it was predicted in Beraishit 15: 13 that a people would enslave and afflict the Jews, suggesting that if they were carrying out a Divine Plan, the Egyptians should be exempt from punishment (see RaMBaM cited earlier in the essay), it is assumed that they went further than their mandate allowed, e.g., nowhere in the “Brit Bein HaBetarim” did it ever say that children would be killed. See e.g., RaMBaN on Beraishit 15:14 and Shemot 3:9. But for HaShem to Give the impression that something good was happening via the Egyptians looking favorably upon the Jews, when in fact these feelings and the actions based upon them, i.e., the lending of precious possessions, would lead to something bad appears somewhat cynical.

[8] Aside from merely being viewed as an archaic literary form, the Vav HaHipuch vis-à-vis when the Tora is describing a Divine Action, can allude to the theological assumption that God is above time, a concept connoted by the Tetragrammaton, consisting of a combination of the past, present and future forms of the Being verb, Heh-Vav-Heh.

[9] While the Tetragrammaton is the term for HaShem that is pertinent to Jews, in most cases when non-Jews refer to the God worshipped by the Jews, they use the term Elokim, as in Shemot 5:2-3 where commentators point out how in order to properly convey the Jewish concept of God to Pharoah, Moshe has to switch from the Tetragrammaton to the term Elokim. Furthermore, the attitudinal stance of “Yirat Elokim” (fear of God) is attributed to non-Jews, as in Beraishit 20:11; 42:18; Shemot 1:17.

[10] All sorts of negative motivations are attributed to the “Eiruv Rav”, e.g., they wanted to “jump on the bandwagon”, to share in the power that the Jews obviously now possessed, to obtain a portion in the new land to which the Jews were traveling, etc. Is it impossible to suggest that they felt badly about the moral level of Egyptian society, and they now wished to join an obviously more righteous society? Could Yevamot 79a be a paradigm for such an attitude?

[11] Commentators like Sephorno suggest that when God Hardens Pharoah’s heart, it was not to make him do something that was against his nature, but rather, on the contrary, since Pharoah did not really want to release the Jews, God Made it possible to resist the pressure of the plagues in order to do what he really wished to do. We might say by extension that the Egyptians may have felt positively disposed to the Jews, but out of fear of Pharoah’s reprisals, repressed those feelings and distanced themselves from the slaves. God Placing the grace of the Jews in their eyes then allowed them to do what they personally really wanted to do.

[12] E.g. Otzar HaMidrashim, 474: “And there were additional pious women converts from the nations: Asnat, Tziporra, SHIFRA, PUAH, Bat Pharoah, Rachav, Ruth and Yael.”

[13] The Egyptians were descendants of Cham rather than Shem—see Beraishit 10:6. Therefore while the term “anti-Semite” ironically applies to those who discriminate against some of Israel’s Middle Eastern antagonists, who claim to be the descendants of Yishmael, and who therefore trace their lineage through Avraham, a descendant of Shem, someone antipathic towards Egyptians would not technically qualify to be called an “anti-Semite”.)

[14] Commentators like RaMBaN and R. Hirsch will have to account for Pharoah’s ability to sway the Egyptians into chasing the Jews, if in fact they looked upon them favorably. Perhaps one could say that even if the emotion that led the Egyptians to lend their possessions to the Jews was a positive one, they reacted indignantly to being exploited by those whom they had viewed favorably when it was reported that the Jews never intended to return to Egypt and by implication return the borrowed property to their original owners.

Going outside one’s immediate family as part of the process of identity formation.

The seminal event in Moshe’s coming of age, the action that simultaneously reveals to us his true essential nature, as well as the types of actions that he is destined to undertake throughout his life, appears in Shemot, 2:11. “And it came to pass in those days, and Moshe grew and he WENT OUT to his brothers, and he SAW (/understood)[1] regarding their burdens, and he SAW an Egyptian man beating a Hebrew man of his brothers.” Moshe’s curiosity that leads him to leave the safety and insularity of the Egyptian royal palace in order to see for himself the condition of Jewish suffering, sets in motion a chain of events whereby he kills an Egyptian taskmaster (2:12), realizes that his violent act of personal intervention has become public knowledge (2:14), and flees for his life to Midyan (2:15). The Tora has described a young person “going out” and “looking around” before, with disastrous results—(Beraishit 34:1) “And Dina the daughter of Leah, who was born to Yaakov WENT OUT TO SEE among the daughters of the land.” Dina’s adolescent desire to see her peers and contemporaries in settings and contexts other than those of her own family home in which she was growing up, was categorized as part of the process by which an adolescent explores his/her identity, values, and commitments. Not only does the individual reflect upon the lifestyle that s/he knows well in terms of a possible pattern of behavior in the years to come, but s/he is also interested in being able to compare and contrast these experiences and behaviors with those of others at a similar stage of life.

Moshe’s age at the time that he “went out”.

Consequently, it is not difficult to imagine that Moshe too must have been beset with serious questions regarding his true identity when he reached adolescence. Although Shemot Rabba 1:27 presents hypotheses that Moshe was either twenty or forty[2] when he went out to see about his brothers, it is reasonable to approach the verb “G-D-L” in Shemot 2:11 in a manner similar to how it is understood in Beraishit 25:27, “The youths ‘VAYIGDELU’ (GREW), and Eisav was a man knowledgeable of hunting, a man of the field, and Yaakov was a simple man dwelling in tents.” RaShI comments on the chronological stage of development being described by the verse in Beraishit:

“As long as they were small, their particular preferences and actions could not be discerned and no one could draw any conclusions about their inherent natures. When they reached the age of thirteen,[3] this one (Yaakov) headed for the houses of study and this one (Eisav) turned towards idolatry.”[4]   

Therefore, it is likely that Moshe was similarly only thirteen at the time when he decided to undertake his fateful expedition to “see” his brethren, and thereby obtain a greater understanding about himself.

What catalyzed Moshe’s original interest in “his brothers”?

Yet what is less comprehensible is HOW Moshe came to know that he was Jewish in the first place to the extent that he should identify with the Hebrew slaves in Egypt and wish to keep abreast of their situation. Nechama Leibowitz, ZaTzaL[5]  articulates the problem succinctly:

The Tora does not recount how Moshe, who was raised by Bat Pharoah and before whom all doors of opportunity were open, reached the decision to abandon his lofty social position, “his opportunities for a bright future”, and to instead identify with a group of oppressed and downtrodden individuals, to whom he may have been related by birth, but not in terms of his education and lifestyle. The Tora does not reveal whether these concerns developed over a long period and were the result of intense inner conflicts, or the consequence of a sudden, precipitous decision that was immediately acted upon. The Tora is not a psychological novel and does not come to satisfy biographical curiosity, and consequently all that is stated regarding Moshe’s leaving one group (the Egyptians) and identifying with another (the Jews) is the single verse, 2:11.

Shemot 2:10 notes that while Moshe’s infant years were spent in the care of his mother Yocheved, she returned him to Pharoah’s daughter when “he had grown”. Since Yocheved was specifically recruited to serve as Moshe’s nursemaid (2:7-9) it is most likely that he had to be given back to the royal family once he was weaned. To obtain a sense of the length of time weaning a child might take, one could consider the case of Shmuel as a correlative. Chana vows that should HaShem finally Grace her with a child, she would dedicate him to serve in the Mishkan (Tabernacle) during his entire life (I Shmuel 1:11). However, Chana insists on keeping the newborn with her (Ibid. 22) “Ad Yigamel HaNa’ar” (until the youth is weaned). RaShI and RaDaK define this amount of time as typically a period of twenty-four months, the view attributed to R. Eliezer in Ketubot 60a.

But how much of a sense of Jewish identity could Yocheved, Amram and/or any other family member have imparted to Moshe during the two short years at the beginning of his life?[6]   How cognitively astute could he possibly have been? What would he remember, beyond some dim recollections of people and sensory experiences?

Bat Pharoah may have undertaken an enlightened approach re Moshe’s identity.

Amos Chacham, in his commentary to Sefer Shemot,[7] speculates that Bat Pharoah, Moshe’s royal patron, was responsible for his interest in the Jews, and that she acted in a manner strikingly consistent with modern attitudes with respect to allowing adopted children to become acquainted with their biological parents:[8]  

It is customary for members of the royal family to travel throughout the lands of their kingdom in order to be aware of the situations of their subjects. And Moshe chose to check up on his brothers. Based upon this, it is reasonable to conclude that Pharoah’s daughter did not conceal Moshe’s true identity, i.e., that he was a Jew, from him. Consequently even while in Pharoah’s palace, he might have been aware of his parents and family.

Did Moshe’s father maintain a relationship with him well-after his being returned to Bat Pharoah?

A curious Midrashic insight (Shemot Rabba 3:1 interpreting Shemot 3:6, “And He Said: I Am the God of YOUR FATHER”) implies that Moshe at age eighty (7:7) still remembered his father Amram’s voice, and therefore must have had some sort of significant relationship with him beyond those initial formative years when he was being nursed in the family home, prior to being brought to the Egyptian palace:

Said R. Yehoshua HaKohen bar Nechemia: The moment when HaShem Revealed Himself to Moshe, Moshe was a complete novice with respect to prophecy. Said the Holy One, Blessed Be He: If I Reveal Myself to him in a loud voice, I will Frighten him; in a soft voice, he will not properly respect prophecy. What did He Do? He Revealed Himself to him in the VOICE OF HIS FATHER. Moshe said: Here I am, what does father wish?[9] Said Hashem: I Am not your father. I Am the God of your father. I have Come to you in a manner that would attract you in order that you not be frightened.

Is it possible that Moshe conducted clandestine meetings with Amram over the years? In line with Amos Chacham’s approach, did Pharoah’s daughter even facilitate such meetings? Unfortunately, textual evidence for any such interaction is sorely lacking, but is intriguing to consider, nevertheless.

Did Moshe’s circumcision serve to spark his curiosity?

Another possibility for what constituted the catalyst for Moshe’s awareness of his connection to the Jewish people could be his curiosity about his circumcision. Although there are Rabbinic sources that suggest that the Jews in Egypt had ceased to practice this particular ritual—see e.g., RaShI on 12:6—such sources are countered by others that suggest, that at least in Moshe’s case, the practice was still being observed. One such alternative view is expressed in association with 2:6, where Pharoah’s daughter, upon finding Moshe in the basket that his mother had devised so that she could hide him among the reeds, exclaims, “This is one of the Hebrew children.” Commentators offer various possibilities regarding why she drew such a conclusion, and many of them focus upon her noticing Moshe’s circumcision:

a.   RaShBaM: She saw that he was a boy and circumcised, which led her to conclude that he had been abandoned not because his parents did not want him, but rather to save him from the decree against Jewish boys.

b.   Ibn Ezra: …His limbs were well-developed, explaining the use of the term “Na’ar” (youth) as opposed to “Yeled” (boy) (in Shemot 2:6); she saw that he was circumcised, and because of his overall beauty, she had compassion for him.

c.   RaMBaN: She recognized that he had been hidden in order to either attempt to save him, or at least not have to watch as he is put to death. Why would an Egyptian child be treated in such a manner? There are those who say that she saw that he was circumcised, but this would mean that she had to remove his clothing before making such an observation, and there is no need to read such an action into the text (when all that is stated is that the basket was “opened”.) (It would appear that RaMBaN does not negate from a logical standpoint the view that Bat Pharoah drew her conclusion about Moshe’s identity from his circumcision. The commentator just believes that the Biblical text does not bear out such a conclusion. However, if Moshe had been left in the basket covered by or swaddled in a blanket, it is reasonable to imagine that at least part of the covering had become undone and therefore the circumcision was readily apparent as soon as the basket was opened–yb.)

The assumption that Moshe’s circumcision was what distinguished him from other Egyptian children is based upon the premise that the Jews were the only ones to practice circumcision in contrast to the other cultures in the Middle East. Amos Chacham[10] rejects this assumption and writes, “(after citing RaShBaM’s approach)   …but this is not a perfect answer, for it is known that many of the Egyptians themselves circumcised their children.[11]  

Did Moshe “look” Jewish?

When Amos Chacham himself[12] suggests that Bat Pharoah decided that Moshe was a Jewish child based upon his facial appearance or by the clothing which he was wearing, another possible explanation for Moshe’s sense of alienation from the Egyptian majority presents itself. To what extent were the Jews physically distinct from their Egyptian masters? When Avraham and Sara had to leave Canaan and travel to Egypt due to a severe famine, he comments to his wife in Beraishit 12:11 that he now recognizes how beautiful she is. Among the various hypotheses regarding what precipitated such a realization after several years of marriage, Ibn Ezra suggests that Sara’s beauty, unremarkable as it may have been in Canaan, was extremely noticeable in Egypt because “human physiogamies differ due to climate and atmosphere.”[13]

However a counterargument against insisting upon Moshe’s possessing a unique “Jewish look” could be offered based upon an aspect of the story of Yosef, as well as a later incident in Moshe’s life. When Yosef becomes administrative ruler of Egypt and personally supervises the distribution of food during the years of famine, there is never any indication in the accounts of his interactions with his brothers that they suspect him of being anything other than an Egyptian—see e.g., 42:8, 30; 43:26; 44:14—until he explicitly reveals his identity in 45:3. If Jews possessed a distinct “look” or racial profile distinct from Egyptians, wouldn’t the brothers have been curious about Yosef’s identity? Similarly, when Moshe saves Yitro’s daughters from the shepherds’ harassment in Shemot 2:17, they report to their father that “an Egyptian man” saved them (2:19), never suspecting that Moshe was anything but Egyptian. Never having met him before, and not knowing anything about his past history, why would they have been so certain that he was Egyptian unless he completely looked the part? While stereotypes and preconceptions sometimes cause one to overlook obvious characteristics or indicators, it is also possible that in this case there were no physical indicators of specific cultural origin.

Don Yitzchak Abrabanel’s creative interpretation of 2:10 suggests yet another possible basis for Moshe’s quest to find out more about his origins. Whereas the verse is understood by most commentators as attributing to Bat Pharoah the naming of Moshe, particularly in light of the verse’s explanation of the name as connoting “from the water I drew him up”, Abrabanel contends that it was Yocheved, Moshe’s birth mother who named him. The commentator argues that with regard to proper names of characters, it would not make sense for the Tora to translate the names given in another language to Hebrew. Consequently, if Moshe was the name by which everyone referred to him, then it must have been a Hebrew name, rather than one translated from the Egyptian, a name bestowed upon him by someone who spoke Hebrew, Yocheved, as opposed to Bat Pharoah who was most probably not conversant in this language.[14]   Having a Hebrew name could hardly have been lost upon this boy, and when he became an adolescent, it is understandable that he would make a concerted effort to uncover his true origins and his relationship with his people.

What really matters.

Perhaps the reason why the Tora is not specific about what brought about Moshe’s search for his identity is that the search itself is more important than what brings it about. And just as the Tora describes such searches undertaken by various Biblical personalities,[15] similar developmental issues play themselves out in every human being’s life at one point or another. What is of importance as far as the Tora is concerned is the manner in which the individual hopefully finally does develop into a committed, caring, and devoted member of his family and community.   

[2] Perhaps assuming that Moshe was only a teenager would make it difficult to understand how he would be able to physically overcome the Egyptian taskmaster. However, the view that instead of striking him physically, Moshe pronounced the Tetragrammaton in order to kill his adversary, e.g., Midrash Tanchuma, Parashat Shemot, Chapt. 9, would alleviate the issue of how much physical strength would be needed on the part of Moshe to accomplish this fete. Nevertheless, it could still be maintained that a certain modicum of maturity would be required before Moshe would have been initiated into the mystical nature of the Divine Name and how It could be utilized in such a manner. R. Menachem Kasher, in fn. 81 on Shemot 2 in his compilation, Tora Shleima, (p. 73) finds sources that provide the following alternatives for Moshe’s age at this time: 12, 18, 20, 21, 29, 32, 40, 50, 60, leading to the conclusion that to establish this fact beyond a doubt will be impossible. Nevertheless, as has already been explained, a strong case can be made for this taking place when Moshe was younger rather than older.

[3] Traditional commentators are bothered by the assumption that Eisav was already engaged in idolatry at the age of thirteen. The standard interpretation of Beraishit 15:15 “and you will buried at a good old age” is that despite Avraham’s living quantitatively only to the age of 175 (25:7), which is relatively short when compared to the age of Terach, Avraham’s father at the time of his passing, 205, and that of Avraham’s son Yitzchak when he died, 180 (35:28), qualitatively not seeing his grandson Eisav diverting from the traditions that Avraham had developed, would constitute a benefit. Yet if it is assumed that already at thirteen Eisav was grievously sinning, this would mean that Avraham was alive to notice: Avraham lived for 175 years; he was 100 at the time of the birth of Yitzchak (21:5); Yitzchak was sixty when Eisav was born (25:26), making Avraham 160 at that juncture. This means that Eisav was fifteen at the time of Avraham’s death. Positing that he already was engaged in idolatry at thirteen results in creating the possibility that Avraham would find out, obviating the promise of his being buried at “a good old age”!? Talmud Yerushalmi, cited by Ba’alei Tosafot, both quoted in Malka Shel Tora, (Yeshayahu Deitch, Vol. 1, Zohar Press, Yerushalayim, 5742, p. 400) suggest that initially Eisav sinned secretly, and only after Avraham’s death did he publicize his beliefs and rituals. The Vilna Gaon (Ibid.) interprets that Eisav spent between thirteen and fifteen studying the premises and assumptions of idolatry and only began to practice these observances once Avraham had died. This latter view again reinforces the theme of experimentation and exploration that oftentimes mark the adolescent years. What is less clear is why should Yaakov have taken one path, and Eisav the diametrically opposed other? To what extent were these paths independently and deliberately chosen for themselves, as opposed to constituting a contrary set of practices and beliefs in contrast to that of the sibling twin? This particular dichotomy between the twins is already posited to have existed in utero. Consider RaShI on 25:22: “’VaYitrotzetzu HaBanim BeKirbah’ (and the children struggled within her)–…and our Rabbis interpreted the phrase as an expression of ‘Ritza’ (running), i.e., when she (Rivka) would pass the portals of the Yeshiva of Shem and Ever, Yaakov would run and struggle to emerge; when she would pass the entrance to an idolatrous temple, Eisav would run and struggle to emerge…”

[4] The simple meaning of “a man knowledgeable of hunting, a man of the field” does not appear to immediately bring to mind associations with idolatry.  While it could be maintained that this thesis/anti-thesis tension is fabricated exclusively from its starting point, i.e., if Yaakov is associated with the tents of Tora and study, then Eisav must be the opposite, and therefore this means idolatry, another line of reasoning that could lead to associating the act of hunting with idolatry would be based upon Nimrod who a) is the first individual categorized as a hunter (10:9), b) that the Tower of Babel is built in his kingdom (10:10) and therefore possibly at his initiative, and c) that the Rabbis viewed the Tower as designed to “wage war with Heaven” (Midrash Tanchuma [Buber], Parshat Noach #28—Said R. Shimon bar Yochai: They took an idol and placed it at the top of the Tower. They said: If HaShem Decrees upon us Decrees, this will stand in opposition to Him and stop Him. This expression, (11:4) “And we will make for ourselves a NAME” is associated with idolatry, as it states, (Shemot 23:13) “And the NAMES of other gods do not mention.”) In addition, Nimrod is identified as the potentate who casts Avraham into a furnace due to the latter’s refusal to acknowledge idolatrous gods—see e.g., RaShI on Beraishit 11:28.

[5] “VaYigdal Moshe VaYetzeh El Echav”, in Iyunim Chadashim B’Sefer Shemot, Jewish Agency, Yerushalayim, 5730, p. 34.

[6] Although in Ketubot 60b, R. Yehoshua’s view that nursing could last until the child was four or five is cited along with that of R. Eliezer, and were we to assume that Moshe remained with Amram and Yocheved until this point, perhaps more lasting impressions may have been made upon him in terms of cultural and religious identity, would Pharoah’s daughter have allowed Moshe to be taken care of for so long?

[7] Da’at Mikra, Sefer Shemot, Vol. 1, Mosad HaRav Kook, Yerushalayim, 5751, pp. 23-24.

[8] “One of the misconceptions that adoptive parents have,” says Marshall Schechter, M.D., professor emeritus in child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, “is that they have done something to make the child want to search. They haven’t. Everyone needs to know that they are part of a continuum of a family…As more is learned about genetics, scientists are discovering that many talents and personality traits have a genetic basis. So it should not be surprising that TEENAGERS who focus on developing an identity should begin thinking about their origin.”—    http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/f_adoles/f_adolese.cfm

[9] Shemot Rabba 45:5 presents the same conceptual idea with slight variations:

                a. The statement is attributed to R. Yehuda son of R. Nechemia.

                b. Moshe’s response to God’s Call is: “Father has come from Egypt (it is unclear if the punctuation at the end of this exclamation should be a “!” or a “?”).

[10] Da’at Mikra, p. 21, fn. 8*.

[11] While anthropologists and archaeologists have demonstrated that circumcision was practiced throughout the Middle East, it appears to have served as a puberty rite rather than as a ritual carried out on newborns. Consequently, in order to refute the approach of the traditional commentators that Bat Pharoah was able to recognize Moshe’s Jewishness by his circumcision, it must not only be demonstrated that circumcision was an Egyptian practice, but that it was also performed on very young children.

                One Midrashic theme traces Egyptian circumcision back to Yosef:

Beraishit Rabba 91:5

…When the famine became more severe in the land, the Egyptians gathered and came to Yosef. They said to him: Give us bread. He said to them: My God does not feed the uncircumcised.

Go circumcise yourselves and I will give you (food). They went to Pharoah and they screamed and cried before him…and he said: Go to Yosef and do whatever he says. They said: We went to him and he said to us ridiculous things and said “Circumcise yourselves.” He said to them: Idiots! Didn’t I say to you that you should serve him and also acquire for yourselves grain? Didn’t he call out to you during all of those years of plenty and command you “Know that the famine is coming!” You have only yourselves to blame for this situation. Why didn’t you store up in your homes grain for two, three and four years? They said to him: All the grain stored in our homes rotted. He said to them: Don’t you have flour left over from yesterday? They said to him: Even the bread that we have in our baskets rotted. He said to them: Go to Yosef. Whatever he says to you, you should do. He said to them: If he can decree regarding the grain that it rot, lest he decree against us and we die. He said to them: Go to Yosef. If he says to you to cut off part of your flesh, listen to him…

[12] Da’at Mikra, p. 21.

[13] Such an approach parallels a discussion in the Talmud involving Hillel:

Shabbat 30b-31a

Our Rabbis taught: A man should always be gentle like Hillel, and not impatient like Shammai. It once happened that two men made a wager with each other, saying, He who goes and makes Hillel angry shall receive four hundred zuz. Said one, ‘I will go and incense him.’ That day was the Sabbath eve, and Hillel was washing his head. He went, passed by the door of his house, and called out, ‘Is Hillel here, is Hillel here?’  Thereupon he robed and went out to him, saying, ‘My son, what do you require?’ ‘I have a question to ask,’ said he. ‘Ask, my son,’ he prompted. Thereupon he asked: ‘Why are the heads of the Babylonians round?² ‘My son, you have asked a great question,’ replied he: ‘because they have no skillful midwives.’ He departed, tarried a while, returned, and called out, ‘Is Hillel here; is Hillel here?’ He robed and went out to him, saying, ‘My son, what do you require?’ ‘I have a question to ask,’ said he. ‘Ask, my son,’ he prompted. Thereupon he asked: ‘Why are the eyes of the Palmyreans  bleared?’ ‘My son, you have asked a great question, replied he: ‘because they live in sandy places.’ He departed, tarried a while, returned, and called out, ‘Is Hillel here; is Hillel here?’ He robed and went out to him, saying, ‘My son, what do you require?’ ‘I have a question to ask,’ said he. ‘Ask, my son,’ he prompted. He asked, ‘Why are the feet of the Africans  wide?’ ‘My son, you have asked a great question,’ said he; because they live in watery marshes.’ ‘I have many questions to ask,’ said he, ‘but fear that you may become angry.’ Thereupon he robed, sat before him and said, ‘Ask all the questions you have to ask,’ ‘Are you the Hillel who is called the Nasi  of Israel?’ ‘Yes,’ he replied. ‘If that is you,’ he retorted, may there not be many like you in Israel. ‘Why, my son?’ queried he. ‘Because I have lost four hundred zuz through you,’ complained he. ‘Be careful of your moods,’ he answered. ‘Hillel is worth it that you should lose four hundred zuz and yet another four hundred zuz through him, yet Hillel shall not lose his temper.’

[14] Both Yocheved and Bat Pharoah are subjects in Shemot 2:10 and therefore the pronoun “she” with respect to the giving of the name could apply to either of them equally.

[15] E.g., Avraham and Yaakov engage in self-discovery when they leave home; Rivka evolves once she is away from her family; Yosef undergoes major changes from the time that he is sold into slavery, etc.

                In the essay for Parshat VaYeshev, “A Powerful Adolescent Commitment to Righteousness”,[1] Yoseph’s special qualities that caused ChaZaL to categorize him as a “Tzaddik” already at the relatively tender age of seventeen were discussed. His repeated adherence to a powerful idealism that precipitated certain exceedingly unpopular behaviors vis-à-vis his brothers, as well as his resistance to considerable sexual temptation once he was sold into slavery in Egypt, were attributed to typical adolescent insistence upon consistency, justice, and loyalty, despite powerful pressures to act to the contrary.[2]  In Parashat VaYechi, when explaining a peculiar phrasing in Beraishit 47:31, RaShI once again invokes Yoseph’s righteousness, but this time it refers to his actions at a later point in his life, after he has been appointed administrative ruler over Egypt at age 30 (41:46).

Beraishit 47:31

And he (Yaakov) said: ‘Swear to me.’ And he (Yoseph) swore to him. And Yisrael (Yaakov) bowed himself on the bed’s head.

RaShI

“On the bed’s head”…Another interpretation: because his “bed” (the offspring which he had fathered) were whole, for there was no evil-doer among them,[3]  for behold Yoseph was a king, and furthermore he had been kidnapped and forced to live among the nations, and nevertheless he has maintained “TZIDKO” (his righteousness).

While RaShI’s comment mainly attributes to Yaakov a sense of deep satisfaction based upon his recognition of Yoseph’s having maintained his Jewish identity despite his political success in a foreign environment,[4] as evidenced by Yoseph’s obeying his father’s demand that he swear to bury Yaakov in Canaan (47:29-30),[5] he also invokes the sobriquet of “Yoseph HaTzaddik” (Yoseph, the righteous).

Not all Rabbinic approaches describe Yaakov as sanguine about Yoseph’s behavior during his reign in Egypt.

                But are all of Yoseph’s adult behaviors, in contrast to those he engages in while still an adolescent, truly worthy of the complementary and exemplary title of Tzaddik? Consider the Rabbinical discussion swirling around Yoseph’s reunion with his father after twenty-two years of separation.

Beraishit 46:29

“And Yoseph readied his chariot and went up to meet Yisrael his father towards Goshen. And he appeared before him, and he fell on his neck, and he cried on his neck exceedingly.”

Although the scene is obviously an emotional one, it is not altogether clear that both parties involved were equally personally moved. On the one hand, only singular rather than plural pronouns are used in the verse suggesting that only either the father or the son was embracing and crying, but that these overtures were not being reciprocated.[6]  Furthermore, an omission that would appear to be inconsistent with Yaakov and Yoseph’s finally meeting after so many years of separation is the absence of any reference to kissing, in contrast to the dramatic reunions described in 29:13; 33:4, 45:15 and Shemot 4:27. On the one hand, we could understand that Yoseph, who has to maintain a dignified appearance before his Egyptian subjects, cannot make his feelings public, and just as he acted privately with his brothers (45:1) he would try to wait for a private moment alone with his father. RaShI, however, suggests that it was in fact Yoseph who allowed his emotions to overpower him,[7] in contrast to Yaakov who was holding himself back in order to fulfill the of reciting the Shema,[8]  the Divine Commandment taking priority over an individual’s seeing to his/her personal matters, however pressing and emotionally powerful they may appear to be.

“…but YAAKOV did NOT fall on Yoseph’s neck and did NOT kiss him. And the Rabbis say he was reciting the Shema prayer.”

The Rabbinic tradition cited by RaShI[9]  is reminiscent of R. Akiva’s extraordinary heroism and deep faith, described in Berachot 61b when while being tortured, the martyr recites the Shema to demonstrate that his love of God was truly “with all of his soul” as he had been proclaiming twice a day throughout his life. Yaakov too, according to this Rabbinic perspective, even when he is about to embrace his long-lost son, places his devotion to God first and concludes his prayers before giving his son his full attention.

A different way of understanding Yaakov’s failure to kiss Yoseph upon their reunion.

However, a reference in one of the minor Talmudic tractates casts a darker shadow upon Yaakov’s failure to kiss Yoseph.

                Masechet Kalla 3b

Baraita: Defer your personal desires in favor of the Desires of Heaven, for we see regarding Yaakov that he did not kiss Yoseph.

Gemora: Why didn’t he kiss him? He thought, “Since he has been in exile, women were seduced by his attractiveness.[10] [11] 

It is written, (46:29) “And he appeared before him and he fell on his neck.” He (Yoseph) wanted to kiss him (Yaakov) and he (Yaakov) did not allow him (Yoseph) to do so. Therefore it is written, (Ibid.) “And he cried on his neck exceedingly” (as a result of Yaakov’s refusal to allow Yoseph to kiss him, Yoseph cried).[12]  

This is why when he (Yaakov) died, he (Yoseph) kissed him, as it is written (50:1) “And Yoseph fell upon the face of his father and he cried over him and he KISSED him.” He said, “I have been in the presence of my father for the past thirty-three years[13]  and I have not kissed him on the mouth. Now when I am about to bury him, I shouldn’t kiss him?” 

And this is parallel to what is written (48:8) “And Yisrael saw the children of Yoseph and he said, ‘Who are these?’” Is it possible that up until this point he did not know who they were? But rather he was asking their father whether they were born from a mother[14]  to whom Yoseph had given a “Ketuba” (a marriage document that is a feature of all traditional Jewish weddings.) And once he (Yaakov) saw the “Ketuba”, his mind was put at ease and he kissed them (but he continued not to kiss Yoseph!)

Said Rava: We learn from here (from Yaakov’s continued refusal to kiss Yoseph) that Yoseph was aroused by her (the wife of Potiphera—even if he did not actually engage in sexual activity with her).

Rava’s opinion, i.e., that even if Yoseph did not actually engage in a sexual liaison with his master’s wife, he was nevertheless more physically involved with her than he should have been, reflects one side of a Rabbinic argument regarding Beraishit 39:11.

And it was on a day like this, and he (Yoseph) came to his house to do his work, and there was no one there from amongst the members of the household.

Sota 36b:

“To do his work”—Rav and Shmuel (debate the meaning of this phrase, but we do not know which took which position.)

One said: His actual, literal work.

And one said: He entered to take care of his “needs”.[15]

                Consequently, according to this view, the recitation of Shema was a mere pretext for Yaakov to avoid kissing Yoseph, rather than a sign of the patriarch’s placing his responsibilities to God ahead of his feelings for his family in general and his children in particular.

                Masechet Kalla’s passing reference to Yaakov’s enquiries concerning Ephraim and Menashe are expanded in other Midrashic sources, all suggesting Yaakov’s suspicions with respect to Yoseph’s having possibly exploited his good looks and power to engage in inappropriate liaisons. Consider the following example:

Beraishit 48:8-9

And Yisrael saw the children of Yoseph and he said, “Who are these?” And Yosef said to his father, “These are my children that HaShem has Given me ‘BaZeh’ (in this).” And he (Yaakov) said, ‘Take them now to me, and I will bless them.”

Pesikta Rabbati #3:

What is meant by “BaZeh”? That he (Yoseph) brought Osnat, their mother, before his father, (as opposed to only the Ketuba) and he said to him, “Father, with your permission (bless these boys) even for the sake of this ‘TZADEKET’ (righteous woman).”[16] Yoseph began to plead and said to him, “Father, my children are TZADDIKIM! They are like me! They are my children!”[17]

While Yaakov originally loved Yosef fiercely, did something change once father and son were reunited in Egypt?

                The Midrash thus creates an amazing irony in the stories of Yaakov and Yoseph. Originally the Rabbinic tradition attributed Yoseph’s ultimate ability to resist Mrs. Potiphera’s enticements to the powerful impression that his father and his father’s values had made upon him—in Beraishit Rabba 87:7 and 98:20 R. Huna in the name of R. Matna suggest that at the last moment, just before he was going to sin, Yosef saw his father’s face, and this supplied him with the resolve or at least caused him sufficient embarrassment to refuse to go any further. Yet although Yoseph in fact remained a Tzaddik in the full sense of the word, he could never fully convince his father of this fact, and Yaakov goes to his grave unsure about what to think of his beloved son.

Objective evidence of Yoseph’s righteousness is provided only much later.

                The Midrash portrays Yoseph’s public exoneration as taking place not only after Yaakov’s death, but after Yoseph’s own passing.

Mechilta D’Rabbi Yishmael, Parshat BeShalach, the introductory portion.

The coffin of Yoseph would travel (during the forty years of wanderings in the desert) alongside the Holy Ark.

Passersby would inquire, “What is the nature of these two containers?” They would reply, “This is the coffin of someone who has died, and this is the Ark of the One Who Possesses Eternal Life.”

And they further asked them, “And what was the nature of this individual that he merits traveling alongside the Holy Ark?”

And they would say to them, “The one whose remains are in this coffin fulfilled the laws that are contained in this Holy Ark.”

The Midrash proceeds to list the Ten Commandments and the manner in which Yoseph fulfilled every one of them, including (Shemot 20:12; Devarim 5:16) “Do not engage in adultery”, where the Midrash points out that Yoseph resisted the advances of Mrs. Potiphera.

                While it is wonderful for us to think about Yoseph’s greatness and his mighty inner strength and resolve, he must have nevertheless been devastated that his father would just not accept his protestations of both innocence as well as righteousness. It is hard enough to maintain a level of Tzidkut; to be doubted after you have sacrificed so much must have been extremely difficult.

[2] See http://web1.tch.harvard.edu/cfapps/A2ZtopicDisplay.cfm?Topic=Cognitive%20Development particularly the section on “Late adolescence”.

[3] The comment is made in contrast to Avraham whose son Yishmael had to be exiled (21:10 ff.), and Yitzchak, who was aggrieved by the actions of his son Eisav (e.g., 26:35). Although ChaZaL maintain that both of these wayward sons eventually repented—see RaShI on 25:9 and Beraishit Rabba 67:13—nevertheless their descendants are not considered progenitors of the Jewish people in contrast to all of the sons of Yaakov. Although Reuven (35:22), Shimon and Levi (34:25, 30) all do things that invoke their father’s immediate ire as well as deathbed rebuke (49:3-7), they are nevertheless never disenfranchised from the Jewish people.

[4] This parallels RaShI’s interpretation on 32:5, where Yaakov tells Eisav that despite his having spent considerable time in the presence of the immoral and corrupt Eisav, he emerged spiritually and morally unscathed.

[5] See Be’er Yitzchak on 47:31. It could have been considered an insult to Egypt if the Vice Vizier refused to bury his family members in the land over which he was ruling; nevertheless Yoseph swore to his father that Yaakov would be buried in Canaan, and carries out that oath. RaShI on 50:6 suggests that Yoseph expends political capital in order to obtain permission to return Yaakov to Canaan, since the only reason why Pharoah acquiesced to Yoseph’s request was when Yoseph threatens to expose particular royal shortcomings if he is refused.

[6] The consistent use of the singular masculine pronoun, i.e., and HE fell upon HIS neck, and HE cried on HIS neck exceedingly, as opposed to the plural form that would have then read “and THEY fell upon ONE ANOTHER’S necks, and THEY cried on ONE ANOTHER’S NeckS exceedingly, suggests that whereas one of the two completely gave in to his emotions, the other did not.

[7] Yoseph’s emotionalism and difficulty with respect to self-control is suggested by the two instances of the verb “VaYitapek” in Beraishit 43:31 and 45:1.

[8] The assumption that the Forefathers and Foremothers essentially fulfilled the Commandments of the Tora, such as the twice-daily recitation of Kriyat Shema, is based in least in part upon Beraishit 26:5, as it is interpreted in Kiddushin 82a.

[9] In his critical edition of RaShI’s commentary, R. Avraham Berliner (reprinted by Feldheim, Jerusalem, 5730, p. 90) notes a number of sources that allude to this Midrash, but do not state it explicitly. These include Tshuvot HaGaonim #45 in the name of R. Yehudai Gaon, and Masechet Derech Eretz Zuta #1.

[10] The idea that Mrs. Potiphar was not the only one unduly attracted by Yoseph’s appearance is captured in the following Midrash:

Midrash Yelmadeinu, Yalkut Talmud Tora, Beraishit #161

(Beraishit 39:7) “And the mistress of his master lifted her eyes”—One time, all of the Egyptian women gathered and came to see the attractiveness of Yoseph. What did Mrs. Potiphar do? She took Etrogs and distributed them to each one, and she gave a knife to each one, and called Yoseph and set him before them. When they looked upon his attractiveness, they cut their hands. She said to them: And look how you respond after only a short time (in his presence), I, who am around him constantly, all the more so!…

[11] According to Rabbinic tradition, Yoseph’s brothers were also suspicious of his having engaged in dubious sexual activity due to his attractive appearance. Consider the following Midrash:

Beraishit Rabba 91:6

Said R. Yehuda bar Simon: Yoseph also was aware that his brothers would come to Egypt in order to purchase food. What did he do? He set up guards at all of the entrances to the country, and said to them: “Look carefully at all those who come to buy food and write down their names as well as the names of their fathers.” In the evening they would bring him the information accumulated that day.

When the sons of Yaakov came, they each used a different entrance, but their names were written and brought to Yoseph. That evening he found there was one who was called Reuven ben Yaakov, and another Shimon ben Yaakov and one Levi, etc. Each guard had the name of one of the brothers. Immediately Yoseph ordered that all the food storage houses cease operations except for one. He gave the names to the individual in charge of the single food storage house and told him that as soon as these individual come to him, he is to arrest them and bring them to Yoseph.

Three days passed, and they did not appear. Immediately Yoseph took seventy  soldiers from the palace guard and sent them to search for the brothers in the market. They went and found them in the section of the market where prostitutes could be obtained. And what were they doing in the market for prostitutes? They said: “Our brother Yoseph is exceedingly handsome. Perhaps he has been sent to a brothel. They were caught and brought before Yosef…

Although these suspicions did not attribute to Yoseph willing participation in such activities, but rather only in his capacity as a slave, nevertheless when it is discovered that he has been free for a significant period, suspicions of his personal activities in such a context would be understandable.

This Midrash suggests that Yoseph on the one hand, and the brothers on the other, were searching for one another. While the biblical text explains clearly what Yoseph’s intentions were, i.e., to test the brothers in order to establish whether their attitudes towards Rachel’s children had changed significantly over the course of twenty-two years, why they were looking for Yoseph after all this time is less clear. Did they think that perhaps they could help Yaakov out of his state of depression—but then why had they not travelled to Egypt before? Had they expressed previously an interest in journeying to Egypt to Yaakov, might this have aroused suspicions on the part of their father that there was some ulterior motive behind such an expedition? Only now, that Yaakov has himself sent them do they have sufficient “cover” to pursue their curiosity or even desire to make amends for what they had previously done? Did their respective consciences bother them only after they were imprisoned by Yoseph (42:21), or had this been bothering them from a significantly earlier time, perhaps when they saw the initial effect of Yoseph’s disappearance upon their father? 

[12] The association between crying and being wrongfully suspected of improper behavior is made by RaShI on 29:11 and 50:17. However other instances of crying are simply understood as evidence of extreme frustration and emotional turmoil.

[13] Yaakov is 130 when he comes to Egypt (47:9) and dies at 147 (Ibid. 28). Yoseph is seventeen when he is sold (37:2). It would appear that Yoseph was too young prior to his being sold for kisses to have been withheld due to suspicions of improper behavior, and once he and Yaakov are reunited, Yaakov was unprepared to truly trust him.

[14] Other fundamental questions raised by Rabbinic sources include whether Yoseph should have married an Egyptian in light of Devarim 23:9, or for that matter a non-Jewess at all. Midrash Aggada (Buber edition) 41:45 suggests that Osnat was actually the child of Dina and Shechem who was left on the doorstep of the Potiphera’s as a foundling.

[15] RaShI on 39:11, adds to the latter point of view the word “Ima” (with her), i.e., “his work with her” suggesting that Yoseph intended to fulfill his sexual needs with the woman who had been urging him to do so for some time.

[16] I.e., even if you do not consider me a Tzaddik, surely the mother of Ephraim and Menashe is a Tzaddeket, with her children therefore being deserving of your blessing.

[17] I. e., if my children are Tzaddikim why can’t you believe that I am and have been a Tzaddik as well?

Yosef, the brilliant administrator who possesses a gift for management that is glaringly apparent to all with whom he comes into contact, first manifesting itself in his being placed in charge of Potiphera’s household (Beraishit 39:4), then a whole prison (39:22) and finally an entire nation whose inhabitants he is expected to feed during seven years of harsh famine, also seems to have a clear plan with regard to where his family will live, once they come to join him in Egypt. As soon as he reveals his identity to his brothers, and attempts to assuage their guilt arising from their having sold him into slavery over two decades before, Yosef says to them to tell their father Yaakov, (45:9-11)

…God has Placed me as master over the entire land of Egypt. Come down to me; do not remain where you are. And you will dwell in the land of GOSHEN, and you will be close to me, you, your children and your grandchildren, your sheep and your cattle and all that you possess. And I will support you there…

What are some of the considerations that influenced Yosef to essentially attempt to “ghettoize” his family?

Keeping the Jewish herder culture separate from the agricultural Egyptians.

One approach assumes that Yosef was separating the Egyptians from the Jews in order to avoid possible conflicts between the two cultures. According to Atlas Da’at Mikra,[1]

(Goshen) is located near the seat of the monarchy during the period of Yosef’s rule, in the northern portion of the Nile Delta. The Biblical text emphasizes that Goshen was the (45:18; 47:6, 11) “best of the land” and that the house of Yaakov ate there (45:18) “the fat of the land”. On the other hand, it is remarkable that Goshen was a relatively uninhabited area in which there was virtually no indigenous Egyptian population. The reason for this was (46:34) “…it was an abomination for Egypt, anyone who was a shepherd,” i.e., it was the best of the land for anyone who was a herder, but not for the permanent farmers who comprised the majority of the Egyptians.

According to all of these indicators, as well as the testimonies of other ancient sources, Goshen was located in the eastern portion of the Nile Delta. It was a place that had sufficient water for pasture lands, but not for intense Egyptian agriculture. Furthermore, Goshen was located not all that far from Egypt’s eastern border, which was comprised of a desert area that stretches all the way to southern Canaan. Families of nomads would frequently seek shelter in Goshen during times of famine and drought. Therefore Egyptians did not enter this area of immigrants who were essentially shepherds. Yet, since Yaakov and his family were coming as long term residents, they encamped near one of the eastern most tributaries of the Nile Delta, which allowed them to benefit from the “best of the land” as was befitting to them in light of their relationship to Yosef.

Jews and animal husbandry have a long history beginning prior to Yaakov and his family.

In terms of the manner in which the family of Yaakov primarily supported itself, beginning already with Avraham, taking care of herds of animals is a, if not the, primary source of wealth and income for generation after generation. Avraham is first given significant amounts of animals as a result of his sojourn in Egypt and Pharoah’s ill-fated attempt to marry Sara (12:16). The number of animals that Avraham and Lot own becomes so considerable, that it leads to familial infighting and the ultimate parting of the ways of uncle and nephew (13:5-12). Owning herds, as opposed to engaging in agriculture, also allows Avraham to frequently relocate his encampment, as he traverses the length and breadth of Israel (13:17, 18; 20:1). Needing to take care of herds of animals also accounts for Avraham’s digging wells in a number of places (21:25—although the text states that Avraham remonstrates Avimelech regarding a single stolen well, 26:15 suggests that he made many wells during the course of his wanderings), in order to make possible watering these animals wherever they may be taken to graze. While Yitzchak’s predisposition for meat hunted by Eisav (25:28) suggests that he ordinarily did not have animals readily available to him for consumption, 26:14-15 clearly state that while Yitzchak may have begun as a farmer, he consolidated his wealth by means of the acquisition of great numbers of animals. And as for Yaakov, he serves as a shepherd for Lavan for twenty years (31:38).

The prototypical conflict between agriculture and animal shepherding.

The sharp and acrimonious dichotomy between those engaged in agriculture, in this case the Egyptians, as opposed to those who deal with domesticated animals, the Jews, is first established by the Bible by means of the ultimately fatal interaction between Kayin and Hevel (4:2). Although the Tora emphasizes the difference in quality between the sacrifices brought by each of the brothers (4:3-4), the competitive enmity between homesteaders who wish to close off their land to protect it from indiscriminate grazing by herds, and cattle and sheep ranchers who demand an open range and unlimited pasture land for their animals, is implied in this primordial story, and continues to be a classic confrontation that takes place throughout the history of human civilization. Consequently, if Egypt was primarily an agricultural society due to the regular overflowing of the Nile (Devarim 11:10), it is understandable that they would want to have as little to do as possible with a family of herders, and would be all too ready to allot to the Jews grazing land far from the center of Egyptian society.

An ideological reason for Egyptians preferring to distance themselves from those herding animals.

An additional reason that commentators suggest for why the Egyptians might be eager that Yaakov’s family take up residence in Goshen, is that domesticated animals in general, and sheep in particular, were the objects of Egyptian religious worship. Consequently, according to Egyptian beliefs, these animals should not be herded, shorn, milked, eaten, etc. Ibn Ezra on 46:33 compares Egyptian practice to what he observed in India, where he claims that everyone was vegetarian due to their worship of the types of animals commonly used for the purposes listed above. The hypothesis that since the Jews dealt with what the Egyptians considered holy animals in a manner that was sacrilegious for the native population, they had to be relegated to relatively uninhabited areas, revolves around the interpretation of the word “Toeiva” (abomination) in Beraishit 46:34. RaShI, Chizkuni and others understand the phrase “…because it is a ‘Toevia’ of Egypt- all those who shepherd sheep”, to connote that the Egyptians viewed as blasphemous the ill-treatment of their objects of worship. Consequently, since Yoseph’s family as guests and relatives of a high-ranking official, must be treated with respect, the Egyptians cannot insist that the Jews desist from shepherding; they are allowed to continue to engage in these practices as long as it is far from the centers of the Egyptian population. A parallel argument is made when Pharoah suggests to Moshe that rather than going into the desert to offer sacrifices of cows, goats and sheep to their God, the Jews should remain within Egypt proper and worship HaShem. (Shemot 8:22) “And Moshe said: It is not correct to do this, because ‘Toeiva’ of Egypt were we to sacrifice to the Lord our God. We would be offering up ‘Toeiva’ of Egypt before their eyes! Wouldn’t they stone us?”

Cultural rather than religious objections to animal herding.

Other commentators, such as RaShBaM and Da’at Zekeinim MiBa’alei HaTosaphot, approach the term “Toeiva” more literally, and attribute the Egyptian disdain for the Jews, not to any particular theological belief, but rather to gastronomic custom. While it could be contended that it is impossible to separate cultural practices from religious doctrines, this school of interpretation focuses upon the visceral response of disgust implied in the word “Toeiva”, as opposed to opposition to behaviors because of some symbolic association between the practice and one’s deeply held beliefs.  Perhaps as a result of the ease by which the Egyptians were able to grow outstanding agricultural crops, a vegetarian culture evolved that looked askance at all those who were carnivores. Principled vegetarians and certainly vegans are often opposed to taking animal life of any form based upon humanitarian and aesthetic considerations, rather than as a result of religious convictions.[2] The Divine Prohibition against the consumption of meat in the Garden of Eden is often cited as substantiation for claiming that consuming exclusively fruits, vegetables and grains constitutes a purer and more wholesome existence for all of mankind, independent of one’s faith system. Ibn Ezra explains that when Potiphera leaves Yosef in charge of his household, with the exception of “bread” (39:6), it is because the master of the house did not want his servant to contaminate the kitchen with his carnivorous tendencies. Ibn Ezra further states that Egyptian vegetarianism may account for why, when Yosef invites his brothers to dine, the Egyptians refuse to join them in the same room (43:32). Consequently, the basis for separation between the two peoples may have been a matter of social mores rather than theological disputes.

Perhaps the Egyptians just had a general animus towards animals, and, by extension, those who take care of them.

A fourth approach that parallels the first three is RaShBaM’s additional assumption that the Egyptians did not respect people who were shepherds because, in contrast to the hypothesis that they worshipped domesticated animals, they abhorred these animals and anyone who associated with them. While eating animals may have been particularly repulsive to the Egyptians, for a people to constantly be associated with animals, living with them, tending to them, feeding them, protecting them, etc. was demeaning in Egyptian eyes, and therefore they would look down upon the Jews as their inferiors if they lived in the same place.

Settlement in Goshen as a means of avoiding Yosef’s brothers causing additional disruptions.

However, most commentators do not understand the assignation of the Jews to Goshen as exclusively a means by which to avoid conflict between Jews and Egyptians; rather it is a deliberate strategy devised by Yosef to achieve various additional objectives, personal as well as national.

Chizkuni on 46:34 writes,

Yosef was worried that if the brothers would be made ministers in Pharoah’s house (see 47:6), they would attempt to lower him (Yosef)  from his position of power, since due to the “coat of many colors” (37:3, 23) they had sold him.

This commentator provides an interesting gloss on human nature in general, and the story of Yosef and his brothers in particular. Although a simple reading of the story suggests that once Yosef has tested the brothers to see whether they harbored the same enmity towards Binyamin as they had towards him (44:1 ff.), he was satisfied that they had learnt their lesson and that it was time to reunite with the entire family, Chizkuni suggests that the old enmity, at least in Yosef’s mind, continues to lie just below the surface. Over time, as the memory of their humiliation would fade, or perhaps specifically because of the humiliation that they had suffered at his hands, Yosef feared that the plotting against him would begin again and lead to further terrible results. Chizkuni’s approach calls to mind the following Talmudic debate: in

Yoma 86b

The Rabbis taught:

Transgressions which one has confessed this past Yom HaKippurim, one should not confess them on another Yom HaKippurim, unless he has repeated the sin. If one has not repeated the sin, and confesses them again on another Yom HaKippurim, concerning such a person it is said, (Mishlei 26:11) “Like a dog that returns to its excrement, so is a fool who dwells upon his  foolishness.”

R. Eliezer ben Yaakov says: (If he does this, not only is he not to be castigated, but)  he is all the more to be praised, as it is said, (Tehillim 51:5) “For my sins I know, and my transgressions are before me constantly.”

Even assuming that Yosef’s brothers felt remorse at this point in time over what they had done to Yosef and to their father twenty-two  years before, were there any guarantees that this sense of remorse will inform future choices that will confront them? On the one hand, to obsess over the past will prevent a person from moving on and involving himself in productive activities; however, not continually and directly confronting a weakness that may still potentially exist  is asking for trouble  and could lead to unfortunate repetitions of the original reprehensible behavior. An additional irony raised by Chizkuni, is that in the same manner that Yosef remains suspicious of his brothers to the end of his life, they return the favor by wondering when he would finally exact a full measure of revenge from them. See 50:15-17.

Living in Goshen out of consideration for Yaakov’s sensibilities.

RaMBaN on 45:10 understands Yosef’s plan to have his family take up residence in Goshen as a means of protecting Yaakov. “Yosef knew that his father did not wish to live in the land of Egypt proper where the capitol of the country was located.” Yaakov’s desire to live “far from the madding crowd” is perhaps implicitly reflected in his response to Pharoah’s inquiry concerning his age. (47:9) “…The days of my sojourning[3] are 130 years. Few and terrible have been the days of my life, and I have not lived as long as my forefathers during the days of their sojourning.” RaShI similarly interprets the word “VaYeshev” (And he dwelled) in 37:1 to the effect that Yaakov wished to be left alone in peace to remain in Canaan once and for all after all of the vagaries and difficulties of his life up until that point. But God Decided that this was not to be and that even more challenging times for Yaakov—the mystery of what had happened to his beloved son Yosef, and the dilemma of potentially losing more children by allowing the brothers to go to Egypt in order to purchase food—lay ahead.

Goshen as an anti-assimilation strategy.

But aside from the personal issues that Yosef and Yaakov respectively may have been facing in their lives that justified having the Jews live in Goshen rather than in Egypt proper, an additional, more profound concern was probably haunting both father and son with regard to the Jews’ impending lengthy stay in Egypt. Would a minority people, originally numbering less than seventy,[4] be able to maintain its identity in the face of a sophisticated, successful, affluent, and powerful dominant majority culture? RaShI comments on 46:28 wherein we learn that Yaakov sent Yehuda as an advance party “LeHorot” (to show, teach) before him to Goshen”, to the effect that while the simple meaning may connote serving as a guide so that the family will know where to go, the Midrash claims that it was Yehuda’s responsibility to set up a place for Jewish learning (“Beit Talmud”)[5] so that instructions could be issued to the members of the family concerning their heritage and identity. R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, on 47:33, regarding Pharoah’s inquiry as to the profession of Yaakov’s sons, understands this particular interaction and strategy to constitute yet another manifestation of the principle “Ma’asei Avot Siman LeBanim” (the deeds of the forefathers are precursors for what is to occur to their children):

In a state like Egypt, where caste prevailed, and men were completely absorbed into their trade, and men were born as artisans, workers on the land, soldiers, etc., the first question was naturally about their profession. To Pharoah’s question they were to unashamedly acknowledge this unpleasant fact, for the disgust which the Egyptians had for their calling, which they could not disguise—just as altogether the dislike of the Jews by the nations—was the first means for the preservation of that race that was destined for an isolated path through the ages. Until the spiritual moral morn dawns for the nations of the world, the barriers that the false conception which they have, have raised against the Jews, have served to protect them from being infected by the barbarism and demoralization of the people in whose midst they will have to wander for centuries. That is why here too Joseph at once brought to the fore the aspect of his brethren which was unpleasant to the Egyptians with the expressed purpose of obtaining thereby for them a separated province in which to settle.[6]

The very limited success of this plan.

While the strategy of separation to prevent intermarriage was extended according to the Mechilta of Rabbi Yishmael, Parsha 5, to not changing their names, their language, not intermarrying and not reporting upon one another to the Egyptian government, Rabbinic tradition also contends that only a small percentage of the Jews actually left Egypt. Consider the interpretation of the Mechilta of R. Shimon bar Yochai, Chapter 13 on Shemot 13:18:

Not even one fifth left, and there are those who say one fiftieth, and there are those who say one five hundredth. R. Nehorai says not one five thousandth…[7]

While the Midrash is not adverse to exaggeration, at the very least, the long term benefits of residing in Goshen as well as the other attempts at insuring Jewish identity for the masses do not appear to have worked. Rabbinic sources suggest that Jews were guilty of idolatry, had ceased practicing circumcision, and were on the brink of total assimilation had God not Taken them out when He Did. Shemot Rabba 14:14 imagines what took place between the original settling in Goshen and the eventual time of the Exodus:

Why the plague of darkness (Shemot 10:21)? Blessed is the Name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, Who shows no favoritism and He Looks into human hearts, and Inspects human emotions. Since there were transgressors among the Jews, who had Egyptian patrons, and they enjoyed in Egypt honor, and wealth, they did not wish to leave Egypt…

The Midrash proceeds to explain that in order to create the illusion that all the Jews had left, those refusing to exit Egypt were done away with under the cover of darkness. Apparently Yaakov’s and Yosef’s concerns were well-founded.

Assimilation has been the enemy of strong Jewish identity from the inception of the nation. Apparently, in the case of the Egyptian exile, physical barriers could not assure Jewish continuity without a major Divine Intervention.   There are evidently no substitutes for deep belief in HaShem, commitment to full observance of Jewish tradition and practice, love of the Jewish people and the land of Israel in order to assure continued allegiance to Judaism and the Jewish ideal.

[2] The claim is made by some that vegetarians are typically more humanistic than their carnivorous counterparts. Yet the manner in which the Egyptians eventually treated the Jews would appear to beg this question.

[3] Yaakov depicts his life as one long series of wanderings. While this could be a figure of speech that could describe anyone’s life, i.e., a poetic means of suggesting that life on earth is temporal and fleeting, Yaakov would appear to be justified were his intent literal when one considers the time that he is forced to spend in Lavan’s home, and then his need to uproot himself and his family once more in order to journey to Egypt, where he eventually dies.

[4] Although the Tora (46:27) mentions seventy as the number of people that came down together with Yaakov to Egypt, the text notes that the number includes Yosef and his two sons who were already there. Consequently, since Yosef, Ephraim and Menashe had already acclimated to Egypt, it was the rest of the family that was most at risk in terms of culture shock and assimilation.

[5] Obviously to take the term literally, would constitute an anachronism in the sense that Ravina and R. Ashi’s compendium known as the Talmud was not completed until about 500 CE. On the other hand, Rabbinic tradition contends that the Forefathers and their families observed all of the commandments. It would be reasonable to assume that at the very least, the family’s cultural and theologically monotheistic traditions would be formally passed on from one generation to the next within some sort of structured setting. A parallel assumption is made concerning the institution of the Yeshiva of Shem and Ever. See “Stealth Tora Teachers—the Yeshiva of Shem and Ever” http://text.rcarabbis.org/parashat-noach-stealth-tora-teachers-the-yeshiva-of-shem-and-ever-by-yaakov-bieler/

[6] While R. Hirsch could put a spin upon the anti-Semitism of the Germany and German culture that he so much cherished, Nechama Leibowitz, ZaTzaL considered him to have been too naïve a romantic to realize how far this anti-Semitism could go and at what cost to the Jewish people.

[7] Considering that the first census of the Jewish people taken after the Exodus from Egypt amounted to 603,550 men above the age of 20 (BaMidbar 1:46), the Midrash suggests astronomical numbers of Jews occupied Egypt, the vast majority opting not to join Moshe and their fellow countrymen.

Taking an individual who comes from humble beginnings as well as from a despised national group and transforming him into someone who others will perceive as capable of leading and ruling, is the challenge confronting Pharoah vis-à-vis Yosef in Parashat Miketz.[1] While Pharoah astutely perceives Yosef’s formidable abilities to administer Egypt during the prophetically predicted famine, he nevertheless has to overcome Yosef’s recent history of being first a Hebrew slave compounded by his then becoming a prison inmate accused and convicted of making overtures towards his master’s wife. Won’t the Egyptians quite naturally be inclined to dismiss any of Yosef’s directives or actions as those of a person who exists at best on the periphery of society and therefore not entitled to rule?

Strategies employed by Pharoah to achieve this aim

The text mentions a number of specific tactics that Pharoah adopts to supply Yosef with a new persona in order to cover-up his immediate past:

Beraishit 41:42-3, 45

1) And Pharoah removed the ring from upon his finger, and placed it on Yosef’s hand;

2) and he dressed him in linen garments;

3) and he placed a golden chain around his neck.

4) And he (Pharoah) caused him (Yosef) to mount the chariot of the second-in-command that he possessed;[2]

5) and they called out before him “Avrech”[3] and he was placed in charge of the entire land of Egypt…

6) And he called Yosef’s name “Tsofnat Pane’ach”;

7) and he gave him Osnat, daughter of Poti Phera, Priest of Ohn for a wife, and Yosef went out over the land of Egypt.

While most of the changes imposed by Pharoah upon Yoseph are essentially external, i.e., matters of dress, ornamentation, public proclamation and transportation, the final two alterations mentioned in the verses cited above focusing upon Yosef’s name and marital status, appear more substantial and existential.

The implications of a name change

Jewish tradition views name changes whereby an individual decides[4] that either he or someone else is to be referred to differently going forward from how he has been known in the past, as extremely meaningful. According to the following Midrash, whether one preserves his name or not is indicative of the degree that one is loyal to his past and to family and cultural tradition, and rejects opportunities to assimilate into the majority society.

VaYikra Rabba 32:5

R. Huna said in the name of R. Kappara: Because of four things were the Jewish people redeemed from Egypt:

1)  They did not change their names,

2)  their language,

3)  they did not speak badly of one another,

and   4)  there was not found among them an individual who engaged insexual immorality.

“They did not change their names”–

Reuven (Beraishit 29:32) and Shimon (Ibid. 33) were their given names, and Reuven  (Shemot 6:14) and Shimon (Ibid. 15) were the names with which they left Egypt.

They did not call Yehuda “Rofeh” (doctor?),[5]^,[6]

Nor did they call Reuven “Luliani”

Nor Yosef “Lastis”

Nor Binyamin “Aleksandri”…

Whereas VaYikra Rabba emphasizes the positive aspects of preserving one’s given name, the Talmud discusses a context in which changing one’s name reflects positively upon one’s spiritual growth, and the rejection of a life associated with transgression.

Rosh HaShana 16b

R. Yitzchak said: Four things cancel the evil decree against a person (i.e., punishment for his/her iniquities):

1) Charity;

2) Crying out (prayer);

3) Changing one’s name;[7]^,[8]

and    4) Changing one’s actions.

There are also those who say:

5) Changing one’s location/environment.

In another historical instance related by the Talmud, people cease referring to an individual by his given name as a result of his embarking on a life of iniquity.

Chagiga 14b-15a

The Rabbis taught: Four men entered the “Pardes” (lit. orchard/garden):[9] Ben Azai, Ben Zoma, “Acher” (lit. “the other”, a reference to Elisha ben Avuya who had formerly been a colleague of the other three) and R. Akiva…

Ben Azai looked and died…

Ben Zoma looked and became demented…

“Acher” uprooted the “shoots growing from the ground” (a metaphor for detaching himself from Jewish tradition in some fundamental manner).

R. Akiva departed (the Pardes) unscathed…

What does it refer to (i.e., what happened to “Acher”)? He saw that permission was granted to Matatron[10] to sit[11] and write down the merits of Israel.[12]

He (“Acher”) said: It is taught as a tradition that in Heaven there is no sitting, no competition,[13] no back,[14] and no weariness (hence, no need for sitting).[15] Perhaps, God Forbid, there are two deities,[16] as it were…

A “Bat Kol” (a Voice from Heaven) Issued forth and declared: (Yirmiyahu 3:22) “Return, you sinning children—with the exception of ‘Acher!’”[17]

Thereupon he said: Since I have lost the World to Come, let me enjoy the World of the Here-and-Now.

So “Acher” went out and engaged in sin.

He went out, found a prostitute and inquired regarding her services.

She said to him: Are you not Elisha ben Avuya?

But when he tore a radish out of the ground on Shabbat[18] and gave it to her, she said: “This is ‘Acher’ (lit. another, someone else).”

One could suggest that when Pharoah renames Yosef, he is attempting to achieve similar objectives to those reflected in these three sources, i.e., a) he wished to give Yosef either a new name or at least an official title that would obliterate any traces of his Hebrew name associated with his lowly past and his ethnic origins,[19] b) that such a new name would serve to prevent people from dredging up memories of the crime that he had been accused of by Mrs. Potiphar,[20] and c) perhaps such a name/title  would allow him easy entrée into the Egyptian lifestyle that certainly was less restrictive morally and ritually than the manner in which he had lived until this point.

Enhancing Yosef’s status via marriage

Just as significant as Yosef’s name change, is his arranged marriage to Osnat. What was Pharoah hoping additionally to accomplish by means of this act? One relevant issue to Pharoah’s thinking revolves around a debate among Biblical commentators as to whether Osnat’s father, “Poti Phera” (45:41), is identical to “Potiphar”, Yosef’s original master when he first arrives in Egypt (39:1 ff.) Aside from the difference in the form of the name—it first appears as a single word, and later as two words)—the difference in profession, he is first identified as the Head of the Butchers/Executioners, and now as the Priest of Ohn, has to be accounted for if the contention is to be made that they are one and the same individual. RaMBaN suggests the most creative approach to resolving this apparent inconsistency, when he writes that just as Mrs. Potiphar was attracted to Yosef due to his exceptional physical appearance, Mr. Potiphar also made homosexual advances towards him. Rabbinic tradition in Sota 13b and Beraishit Rabba #86 maintains that it was because of these overtures that Potiphar became a “Saris” (impotent)[21]^,[22]—see 39:1—due to Divine Intervention in order that Yosef would not be attacked.[23]^,[24] Potiphar was so mortified over what he had attempted to do, that he renounced his former life, including his wife, and became a Priest, in effect his name change constituting another example of the passage in Rosh HaShana listed above, where the penitent identifies himself going forward as “someone else”.

Accepting the premise that Yosef’s first master eventually becomes his father-in-law, why would Pharoah think that this will help solidify Yosef’s ruling position? Chizkuni and Da’at Zekeinim MiBa’alei HaTosafot maintain that by marrying Potiphar’s daughter, Yosef silences a potential critic. (They obviously would not accept RaMBaN’s contention that Potiphar had become a penitent.) Had Yosef married someone else, either his first master or his master’s wife could have at any time brought up the earlier scandal and undercut Yosef’s authority significantly. However, now that they had the welfare of their daughter to think about they would be far more reticent about revisiting the past. Furthermore, by marrying Osnat, Yosef is tacitly demonstrating that he was innocent of the charges leveled against him by Mrs. Potiphar, who would most certainly not have allowed him to marry her daughter had he actually tried to make advances towards the mother.

However, even if we maintain that Potiphar and Poti Phera are two different people, marrying Osnat is still a shrewd move in terms of helping Yosef in his new political position. Abravanel, a reliable source for gaining insight into how a king might think in light of his extensive experience actually dealing with the likes of the royal houses of Spain, Portugal and Italy, suggests that by marrying Yosef off to an important, high-ranking Egyptian family, his wife’s relatives could be relied upon to give Yosef advice and assistance regarding how to effect the directives that he wished to institute. R. Hirsch, rather than focusing upon the “Protektsia” issue, reflects upon Yosef being married altogether and the effects that such a state will have in terms of his properly ruling, in contrast to his having remained single.

R. S.R. Hirsch on 41:45

…Even today the public are somewhat shy of placing their confidence in a bachelor. Added to this, the task which was to be entrusted to Yosef would be furthered if he himself had a wife and family. If the people agreed to restrict themselves wisely during the seven years of plenty there could be enough for thirty-five years. If senseless squandering took place, death from famine would ensue. Yosef was to exercise this wholesome and necessary control. He would have the most beneficial influence if he, the first in the land, set the example of simple living in his house and family life. But for that a wife and family were necessary. A single man without wife and family is not felt to be so intimately together with the general public at times of stress and anxious worry, but with wife and children, even if he is prince or king, he participates in the trouble of the people.[25]

Changing Yosef’s outwards appearance but not his inner soul and existential identity

It is interesting to reflect upon how one can alter his/her identity by techniques represented in the story of Yosef. Pharoah was obviously successful in helping Yosef gain credibility and authority to the point where he was able to guide Egypt through difficult times, while at the same time furthering HaShem’s Grand Plan for Jewish history and the redemption of His People. Perhaps the most telling phrase of this entire section of the story of Yosef is the end of 41:45, where after all that takes place and the changes that are made, in the final analysis, “…VaYetzei Yosef Al Eretz Mitzrayim”, or as RaShI puts it in his comment to Shemot 1:5, “And all of Yaakov’s offspring were 70 souls and Yosef was in Egypt”—“…This is to make known the righteousness of Yosef; he is Yosef who shepherded his father’s flocks; he is Yosef who was in Egypt, was made king and maintained his righteousness throughout.” Yosef may have looked different and he may have traveled in different circles, but in the final analysis, Yosef remained the same.

Ibn Ezra on Shemot 2:3

…And the plans of HaShem Run deep, and who is able to discern their Foundations?
And He Alone Directs His Plans. Perhaps HaShem Made it come about that Moshe would be raised in the palace of Pharoah, in order that his soul would rise to a high level for educational purposes and accustoming him to the outlook of royalty, and avoiding his being lowly and accustomed to servitude. Consider that he killed the Egyptian when Moshe perceived that he was engaged in immoral violence. He also saved the Moabite shepherdesses from the shepherds who were treating them violently, while they were attempting to water their flocks with the water that they had drawn. Furthermore, if he had grown up among his brethren, and they would have been familiar with him from his youth, they would not have feared him, because they would have considered him one of them.

[2] The components of Yosef’s external appearance very much parallel what Achashveirosh does on behalf of Mordechai when the king decides to reward his subject for having saved his life from the hands of two assassins:

Esther 6:8-9

1) (clothing) Let there be brought royal garments that the king has worn;

2) (transportation) And a horse that the king has ridden upon;

3) (ornamentation) And let a royal crown be placed upon his head…

4) (proclamation)…And let there be called before him, “This is what is done on behalf of a person whom the king wishes to honor.”

[3] The term is difficult to understand. The general connotation is a summons for obeisance. Among the hypotheses for its particular meaning are: a) father to the king; b) a father in wisdom but soft/young in years; c) someone to whom everyone must feel subjugated; d) an expression calling upon all those present to bow down; e) an individual bringing blessing into the midst of the land.

[4] Obviously when HaShem Changes someone’s name, as in the cases of Avraham (Beraishit 17:5), Sara (Ibid. 15) and Yaakov (Ibid. 32:29; 35:10), there is profound significance. This essay is more concerned about name changes that come about purely by human choice.

[5] This specific example suggests that not only an actual name change, but even when a person insists upon being known by a particular title, could constitute a denial of the origins of one’s identity. However most commentaries understand this word as a Latin translation of the Hebrew name, in keeping with the other examples that are given in the Midrash. See the next footnote.

[6] While some commentators on the Midrash suggest connections between Yehuda and “Rofeh” and Reuven and “Luliani”, Eitz Yosef reverses these two examples, i.e., Reuven is connected with “Rofeh” or “Rufus”, and Yehuda with “Lulianus”. The commentator speculates that “Rofeh” might be a shortened version of Reuven, or, in my opinion more interestingly, the Latin term based upon the color of the precious stone in the High Priest’s breastplate representing this particular tribe—a RUBY (perhaps the Midrash’s example should then be read “Ropeh”? ) (See Shemot 28:17; 39:10). If the latter is the case, then the nickname that is given is quite sophisticated Jewishly, but nevertheless an obliteration of the original Hebrew given name which in turn could lead to loss of Jewish identity and assimilation. Several examples that exchange Hebrew for Yiddish are still extent, as “Dov Baer”, “Zev Volf” and “Tzvi Hirsch”. However, since both names are often used together, and Yiddish is clearly a Jewish language, the same concerns are probably not relevant. The commentator adds in a similar vein that “Lulianus” is Latin for lion, a reference to the tribe of Yehuda’s association with lions in Yaakov’s blessing to the tribe’s progenitor in Beraishit 49:9.

[7] It is interesting to note that when the Talmud quotes R. Yitzchak’s proof text for the efficaciousness of changing one’s name in terms of the process of repentance, it is Beraishit 17:15—“As for Sarai your wife, you shall no longer call her Sarai, but Sara will be her name. And I will Bless her and cause her to conceive a child with you.” While it could be argued that just as the change in Sara’s name indicates a change in her status, going from one who objectively would remain childless to one who had the ability to conceive, nevertheless, such a verse implies a certain supernatural aspect to the name change, i.e., without God Standing behind such a change, it would not reflect anything different about the individual. R. Yitzchak’s overall comment appears to emphasize that which is incumbent upon an individual in order to repent, as opposed to what will be Divinely Done to someone in order to catalyze a change in his/her status. Should one conclude that R. Yitzchak is subtly suggesting that repentance can only take place with Divine Assistance, as indicated by Yoma 38b:

Resh Lakish said: What is the meaning of: (Mishlei 3:34) “If it concerneth the scorners He Scorneth them, but unto the humble He Giveth grace”? i.e., if a man comes to defile himself, the doors are opened to him, but if he comes to purify himself, he is helped. In the school of R. Ishmael it was taught: It is as when a man sells naphtha and balm : If [a purchaser] comes to measure naphtha, he [the shopkeeper] says to him: Measure it out for yourself; but to one who would measure out balm he says: Wait, till I measure together with you, so that both I and you, may become perfumed.

[8] RITVA explains why a name change is important to being a “Ba’al Teshuva” (a penitent):

Changing one’s name reflects that he is no longer the individual who regularly committed transgressions in order that people will not remember him  for evil (thinking of this person’s name should not automatically cause people to curse or recall his misdeeds). Furthermore, the individual by means of the name change, is able to free himself from the horoscope that was associated with his past, as in the case of Avraham (the name changes of Avraham and Sara symbolized that they were no longer limited by being childless, as the astrological readings for Avram and Sarai had seemed to indicate).

[9] Clearly “Pardes” is a metaphor. However, it is unclear as to what it truly means. Some claim they explored mystical ideas; others ideas in philosophy and theology.

[10] The chief angel of God, Given maximum responsibility of all of the Heavenly Hosts. An Aggadic view cited in Bava Batra 121b is that Matatron originally was Chanoch, who rather than dying, was “Taken” by God—see Beraishit 5:24.

[11] Angels are always depicted as standing. Therefore, if Matatron is sitting, he must have been Given some extraordinary status vis-à-vis HaShem, or he must be something comparable to God Himself, if that were possible. This latter conclusion was the one drawn by “Acher”, leading to his apostasy.

[12] This is a reference to what Rosh HaShana 32b states takes place each Rosh HaShana, when the Books of Life and Death are open, and each person is inscribed in one or the other for the coming year.

[13] All angels should be given the same privileges and abilities. If one angel stands out from the rest,
Acher” questions whether he may be more than a mere angel.

[14] One should only be able to see the faces of the angels, not their backs. Seeing Matatron’s back again leads “Acher” to the conclusion that he was inappropriately greater than the rest of the angels. See for e.g., Shemot 34:33.

[15] If sitting is unnecessary in terms of relieving a tired feeling because the Heavenly Host was never supposed to tire, then this type of body language is symbolic of status, and places the sitter in a superior position as compared to those who are required to stand, similar to a king who sits on a throne, while his subjects are made to stand out of deference to him.

[16] When considering the historical context during which “Acher” lived, i.e., the Roman occupation of Palestine and the cruel persecution of Jews and Judaism, one can understand how he might have employed the belief in dualism to address the most difficult of theological problems, namely theodicy or “Tzaddik VeRa Lo” (why do bad things happen to a righteous person?)

[17] I have always wondered whether there actually was such a “Bat Kol”, or whether this was a figment of “Acher”’s imagination, arising from either his conviction that he could not resume his traditional beliefs once again, or a justification for not attempting to do so.

[18] Thereby deliberately violating the Primary Category of “Melacha” (physical creative activity) of “Kotzer” (harvesting), and demonstrating that he is not observant of Jewish law.

[19] There is a significant dispute among the Biblical commentators regarding whether “Tzophnat Pa’aneach” is Hebrew or Egyptian. While the Targumim, RaShI, RaMBaN, Ibn Kaspi and NeTzIV maintain that the term was Hebrew, RaShBaM, Bechor Shor, Abrabanel, Chatam Sopher, ShaDaL and R. Hirsch insist that it is Egyptian. (ShaDaL claims that it means “Hieronymus, savior of the world”!) Naturally from the point of view of giving Yosef a “new identity”, it would make more sense for him to now be referred to in Egyptian. Chatam Sofer even mentions that had Yosef been given a Hebrew title, this would have aroused the suspicions of his brothers when they first come to Egypt, and the entire trial to which they are subjected could never have been administered. Consequently, it was “Min HaShamayim” (lit. from Heaven, i.e., by Divine Decree) that Pharoah would choose to refer to his new second-in-command in Egyptian. RaMBaN takes a counter view when he contends that it would be that much more honor for Yosef for him to be known by a Hebrew title, indicating his acceptance into the ruling Egyptian classes, despite his Hebrew origins. Ibn Ezra reflects a historical dilemma when he states that if the term is a translation of the Egyptian into Hebrew, we don’t know what Yosef was actually called by Pharoah, and if these words are in fact Egyptian, then we don’t really know what they mean, since we cannot expect that ancient Egyptian and Hebrew would necessarily share cognates. Perhaps this is why Da’at Zekeinim MiBa’alei Tosafot resorts to looking at these two words as an acronym (“Tzadik Pitpeit Neged Ta’avato Potiphar Ina Nafsho Chinam” [a righteous individual successfully struggles against his Evil Inclination; Potiphar afflicted him for no reason]) while Ba’al HaTurim approaches their meaning via “Gimatria” (“Tzadee”=90; “Peh”=80; “Nun”=50; “Taf”=400; “Peh”=80; “Ayin”=70; “Nun”=50; “Chet”=8 = 828 which is equivalent to “Megaleh Nistarim” [who reveals that which is hidden] “Mem”=40; “Gimel”=3; “Lamed”=30; “Heh”=5; “Nun”=50; “Samech”=60; “Taf”=400; “Reish”=200; “Mem”=40 = 828. [Purists will object to the latter computation “working” only when the word “Nistarim” is written “Chaser”, i.e., in a reduced form, lacking a “Yud” that would ordinarily come between the “Reish” and the “MeM” and would then add another 10 to the total.])

A similar problem exists with respect to Moshe’s name in Shemot 2:10, i.e., although the Bible offers an interpretation for the name that makes sense in Hebrew—“Min HaMayim Mishiteihu” (from the water I drew him out), there are many commentators who claim that the name is actually an Egyptian one, and that the Bible is simply making a pun when it interprets “Moshe” through a Hebrew lense. On the one hand, Pharoah’s daughter, realizing that he was a Jewish child may have wanted to honor his origins by actually giving him a Hebrew name, in terms of his being able to pass relatively unnoticed growing up in the royal palace until the day that he goes out and kills the Egyptian taskmaster, it would make more sense that he had an actual Egyptian name. Of course, a middle course could maintain that Bat Pharoah’s name for the foundling was one that she used with him privately, and that in public he had an actual Egyptian name.

[20] As opposed to only covering up past shortcomings, MaLBIM on 41:45 suggests that Pharoah was positively advertising to all that Yosef was a “man of God” and therefore either guiltless of the accusations or a true penitent:

“…He (Yosef) reveals hidden secrets (“Tzophnat”—that which is “Tzaphun”, hidden; “Pa’aneach”—to decode, reveal) by means of the Spirit of God which is upon him. He has within him a Divine Spirit. For this reason he gave to him the daughter of the High Priest (Osnat bat Potiphar Kohen Ohn) because in this manner everyone would believe that he is a man of God…”

[21] The term “Saris” can also be interpreted as meaning a servant/courtier. It is likely that in royal courts where there were extensive harems, a requirement for a man to serve in such an environment was that he would undergo treatment or an operation that would render him impotent. However, it is not necessary to assume that this was always the case.

[22] If Potiphar and Poti Phera are one and the same, and if “Saris” suggests impotence, then in order for Osnat to actually be his biological daughter—naturally if she were adopted as maintained by some sources in ChaZaL, there is no problem—he came to this state later in life.

The assumption that Osnat in fact was a foundling left on the doorstep of Mr. and Mrs. Potiphar, is utilized by ChaZaL in order to avoid another issue, i.e., did Yoseph marry an Egyptian woman? Were Osnat in fact the daughter of Dina and Shechem who was abandoned in Egypt, then Yosef does in fact marry someone other than a Canaanite or Egyptian. Although in two earlier essays on Parashat VaYeishev (http://www.kmsynagogue.org/RabbiSpeeches/5764/VaYeshev.html http://www.kmsynagogue.org/RabbiSpeeches/5766/VaYeshev2.html ) the difficulty of Yaakov’s sons apparently marrying Canaanite women was discussed, there may have been greater objections to someone marrying an Egyptian instead of a Canaanite (although according to those who claim that Sara gave Hagar to Avraham as an actual wife, as well as the view that Ketura was Hagar, Avraham marries an Egyptian!) Or perhaps because of Yosef’s being known as “Yosef HaTzaddik” (Yosef the righteous)—see http://text.rcarabbis.org/parashat-vayeishev-a-powerful-adolescent-commitment-to-righteousness-by-yaakov-bieler/ –a higher level of conduct is expected of him than of the rest of the brothers.

[23] The paradigm for such an assertion is what happens to Pharoah and Avimelech when they attempt to be intimate with Sara in Beraishit 12:17 and 20:4, 7, 17, 18.

[24] It is clear that Yosef spending time in prison is part of the Divine Plan, in order that he is eventually noticed by Pharoah and given the opportunity to prepare Egypt for the arrival of the rest of his family. Perhaps the reason why Yosef’s incarceration comes as a result of his resisting Mrs. Potiphar’s advances, rather than those of her husband, is because Mr. Potiphar was embarrassed to publicly discuss this matter in light of his having brought Yosef into his home, whereas Mrs. Potiphar could more virtuously maintain that she was an innocent victim of an unprovoked attack.

[25] See RaShI on 41:50, based upon Ta’anit 11a. R. Hirsch’s commentary can also be used to explain the Halacha of the requirement for a “Shliach Tzibur” (the individual who leads prayers) during the “Yomim Noraim” (the days of Awe, i.e., Rosh HaShana and Yom HaKippurim) appearing in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 581:1.

Traditionally, the Haftora for Parshat VaYeshev is taken from chapters 2 and 3 of the book of Amos.[1] While the historical origin for reading the Haftarot as part of the Shabbat, Yom Tov and fast day services is not certain, the Avudharam speculates that this practice was begun during the persecutions of Antiochus that led to the revolt of the Chashmanaim marked by the festival of Chanuka.[2] As a response to the prohibition against public Tora reading which comprised a portion of the Syrian-Greek attempt to Hellenize the Jewish population, readings from the Prophets paralleling a particular day’s Tora portion were substituted by the Jewish leadership. The practice of reading from the Prophets was then preserved even once the Tora reading itself became once again permitted.[3]

Hypothesizing re the connection between the Tora reading and Haftora for Parashat VaYeishev

Assuming that the Prophetic readings have some connection to the Tora reading which they were designed to replace, it is often challenging to try to deduce what particular parallelism or association inspired the Rabbis to designate a passage from the Nevi’im for this purpose. It would seem that the only link between Amos 2-3, VaYeshev’s Haftora and Parashat VaYeshev itself, is the first verse of the Haftora, 2:6.[4] “Thus said the Lord: For three transgressions of Israel, for four, I will not Overlook the need for punishment: Because they have sold for silver a ‘Tzaddik’ (a righteous individual), and the poor for a pair of shoes.” Although the standard commentaries, e.g., RaShI, Ibn Ezra, RaDaK, etc., on Amos do not mention any connection between this verse and Yosef,[5] Rabbinic sources understand that the “Tzaddik” being referred to is Yaakov’s favorite son, and that his brothers received in exchange for him money with which they purchased shoes. Here, for example, is Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 38.

And they (the brothers) sold him to the Yishmaelim for twenty pieces of silver, each of the brothers[6] (6) then receiving two pieces of silver in order to purchase shoes for their feet, as it is stated, (Amos 2:6) “Because they have sold for silver a ‘Tzaddik’…”

This additional detail regarding what was obtained by the brothers when Yosef was sold into servitude that does not appear in the Tora’s account, has nevertheless been inserted into the liturgical prayers on Yom HaKippurim, when during the course of the tragic poem, “Eileh Ezkara” (lit. These I will remember) in which the deaths of the Ten Martyrs are chillingly described, we read the following:

These I will remember, and concerning them I will pour out my soul,

Because the evildoers have wolfed us down as if we were baked delicacies,

For once the reign of the governor began, the Ten who were killed by royal decree, did not have long to live.

When he studied the Tora with one who was sly in his explanations and parables,

And understood and inferred from the written religious laws and principles,

And he began with “Eileh HaMishpatim” (and these are the laws) and thought only of wickedness,

“And one who kidnaps a person and sells him, and he is found guilty, and he will surely die.”

He was arrogant regarding great men, and he commanded that his palace be filled with SHOES.

And he summoned the great scholars, those who understood religious practices along with their reasons by means of their engaging in precise logical deduction,

“Judge this judgment properly! And do not pervert the judgment with lies. But rather bring its true verdict to light in truth. What is the law when someone is found to have kidnapped a fellow Jew, and did wrongly with him and sold him?”[7]

They proclaimed at once, “That kidnapper must die.”[8]

He said, “Where are your brethren who sold their brother? To a caravan of Yishmaelim they dealt him as merchandise. For SHOES they gave him to them. And you must accept upon yourselves Heaven’s Judgment in their stead.”[9]

Amos’ description of Yosef’s moral and spiritual standing

While the assertion that Yosef’s sale involved purchasing shoes is an evocative detail of the story,[10] the more profound contribution of Amos 2:6 to our understanding of Yosef, is attributing to him the status of “Tzaddik”. Indeed, in numerous Rabbinic sources, when referring to this son of Yaakov and Rachel, the term “Yosef HaTzaddik” is invoked.[11] Yosef is the only Biblical figure[12] who is referred to in Rabbinic literature in this manner, paralleling the additions to the names Avraham “Avinu” (our father) and Moshe “Rabbeinu” (our teacher). R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch provides a working definition of a “Tzaddik” when he discusses the first individual whom the Tora describes in this manner, Noach (Beraishit 6:9).

The “Tzaddik” looks at everything objectively, at nothing from the standpoint of his own interest, but everything from the point of view of what is right. It is primarily social justice and hence it is preferably construed with expressions of deeds, e.g., “Peulat Tzaddik” (the act of a Tzaddik); “Aseh Tzedaka” (perform righteousness)…

That Noach was an “Ish Tzaddik” (a righteous man) had its roots in his moral purity and this moral purity had its roots in the “Hithalech” (see 6:9) (causing himself to walk), in allowing himself to be led by God’s Hand. (The reference is to the phrase “Et HaElokim Hithalech Noach” [with God did Noach cause himself to walk].) Whereas of the great men of later times it says that they went through life BEFORE God,[13] as His Messengers; of Noach it says WITH God. That he paid no attention to the jeers and gibes of his contemporaries, and held fast to God and just thereby became “Noach”…

Considering Yosef’s actions while a young man through the lense of “Tzidkut”

Applying such an understanding of the term “Tzaddik” to Yosef in particular, sheds new and positive light on several incidents in which he was involved, and which generally are considered to reflect immature character flaws rather than virtues. If in fact we remember that he is seventeen (37:2) when this series of events begins, the high standards for consistency and the idealistic devotion to what he deems to be holy and just, even to the point of placing himself in considerable peril, are in fact typical adolescent behaviors,[14]

a)  Whereas RaShI on 37:2 suggests that the reason why Yosef associated with the sons of the handmaidens Bilha and Zilpa was because his other siblings would have nothing to do with him as a result of their jealousy, isn’t it also possible that Yosef felt that Dan, Naftali, Gad and Asher were being treated by the others as second-class citizens, and not being able to watch such injustice, he wished to build up their self-esteem by paying attention to them.

b)   As for his bringing negative reports of his brothers’ behavior to their father (Ibid.), rather than assuming that Yosef was simply trying to alienate his father’s affections from the rest of his children, why not understand these actions as Yosef’s attempts to enlist his father’s assistance in correcting his brothers so that they will act appropriately and in a manner consistent with the spirit of the traditions of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov?

c)   Certainly Yosef’s relating the two dreams to his brothers (37:5-7; 9-10) evoked anger and further hostility; but couldn’t his intentions have been to attempt to get his siblings to mend their ways? Perhaps the dreams were representing what was currently the situation, i.e., that Yosef was more spiritual and holy than the others; however, if the brothers would take Yosef’s words to heart, they would realize that they were masters of their own fates, and that the dreams suggesting their future subservience to their brother do not have to come true. It is Yosef’s very “Tzidkut” (righteousness) that compels him to deliver the Divine Message to the brothers, without being concerned about their possible negative response. And as happens down through the ages to God’s Messengers, i.e., His Prophets, rather than taking the message to heart, particularly when it is given in the spirit of rebuke and criticism, those to whom the words are directed opt instead to “kill the messenger” literally or figuratively.

d)   Yosef’s readiness to carry out Yaakov’s directive to seek out his brothers who were away shepherding the family’s herds (37:13 ff.), despite their quite apparent resentment of him and the special treatment that they perceive Yosef receives from their father, is another example of Yosef’s attitude of “let the chips fall where they may”; I have a duty to fulfill—to my father directly, and indirectly to God Who Commands me to obey my father.

e)   Yosef’s greatest moral challenge involves his resisting the repeated enticements of his master’s wife to enter into a sexual liaison with her (39:7 ff.) While the Tora text is typically quite laconic with regard to her obsession with the young slave and the manner in which Mrs. Potiphera attempted to force Yosef to comply with her wishes, Midrashim supply a vivid portrait of what Yosef experienced leading up to his condemnation and imprisonment. Midrash Yelamdeinu[15] contends that the mistress of the house shared her lustful feelings and fantasies with a number of her friends.

One time the Egyptian women gathered together and came to see the attractiveness of Yosef. What did Mrs. Potiphera do? She served each of the women Etrogs and knives with which to cut them. She then called to Yosef and stood him before them. When they looked upon his attractiveness, they cut their hands! She said to them, “Imagine! If you are so powerfully affected by him when you look upon him only once for such a short time, what am I to do when I have to be around him constantly?” Every day she attempted to seduce him, but he was steadfast and resisted his inclinations.

Pesikta D’Rav Kahana, Parsha 3, recounts how she attempted to intimidate Yosef invoking the power of her superior social position, so that he would comply with her immoral wishes.

They say regarding Yosef HaTzaddik when Mrs. Potiphera said to him, “Lie with me” and he refused…

She said to him, “(If you refuse) I will throw you in prison!” He said to her, (Tehillim 146:8) “God frees the prisoners.”

She said to him, “I will take out your eyes!” He said to her, “God Restores sight to the blind.”

She said to him, “I will tie you up and make you bend over!” He said to her, “God Helps the bent to stand erect.”

She said to him, “I will turn you into an apostate!” He said to her, “God Watches over the sojourners.”

Yosef’s repeated refusals are even symbolized by the cantillation of the word representing his turning Mrs. Potiphera down—in 39:8 the note on the first word of the verse is known as a “Shalshelet” (lit. a chain) whose singing causes the word to be exceedingly drawn out by means of three rising and falling undulations, as compared to the notes for any other word comprising the Tora reading.

One can make the case that it truly is Yosef’s “Tzidkut” as R. Hirsch defines this quality, that sees him through this difficult trial, since his final word to Mrs. Potiphera as to why he cannot agree to her overtures is, (39:9), “and I will have sinned against ‘Elokim’—the same Name for HaShem that appears in connection with the description of Noach in 6:9.

f)   An earlier curious aspect of Yosef’s behavior might also be explained in terms of his single-minded commitment to following what he believes to be God’s Will. Elie Wiesel[16] is intrigued by the usually loquacious Yosef’s silence in the face of his brothers’ brutality to him (37:23 ff.)[17]

One imagines their (the brothers’) discussions; one sees them hurling him into the snake pit. They wanted to kill him; they were about to kill him. And Yoseph was silent. Face to face with his brothers, who shout their hate; face to face with the “sons of servants” whom he had befriended and who now have turned against him, like the others. Looking into their murderous eyes, he became mute. At the most critical moment of his life he let them deliberate, decide his fate, without uttering a word.

While Wiesel is correct with respect to no mention being made by the Tora of any response on the part of Yosef to his treatment by the brothers in Chapter 39, this contemporary commentator does not attempt to account for an opposite impression given in 42:21. After having been incarcerated by Yosef for several days as a result of their being accused of espionage against Egypt, the brothers conclude that their current troubles can be directly traced to what happened more than two decades earlier,[18] “We are guilty regarding our brother because we saw the anguish of his soul when he PLEADED with us, and we didn’t LISTEN to him…” RaMBaN on 42:21offers three explanations for why no mention is made of Yosef’s pleadings in Chapter 37.

1—The Tora did not have to mention this because it is obvious that someone who is afraid for his life is going to cry out and beg that his life be spared;

2—by originally mentioning the brothers’ indifference to Yosef’s cries would have cast them in even a worse light than was already apparent and the Tora wished to deemphasize their callousness, at least slightly;[19]

3—this is another instance where the words of Tora are detailed in one place, and sparse in another. In order to avoid undo superfluity, the reader is expected to develop the entire picture by piecing together disparate accounts that appear in different parts of the same book or even in different books, without expecting to be given a complete rendition of a story in any one place.

But following Wiesel’s general approach and perhaps even suggesting that what the brothers recall from so long ago might have been due to their reconstruction of the event, rather than what actually took place, Yosef’s silence was an indication of his being perhaps engaged in “Tzidduk HaDin” (justifying the Divine Decree). When an individual has an intense belief in God and sees the world and all that occurs within it as resulting from God’s Decrees, then s/he is called upon to accept difficulties and crises as appropriate and necessary. Wiesel himself posits[20] that Yosef underwent an “Akeida” (binding) in the sense of the “binding of Yitzchak” (see Beraishit 22), following his father’s commandment to find the other sons, despite recognizing the dangers associated with such a mission. Just as Yitzchak silently submits to the Divine Command to be a sacrifice upon the altar, Yosef acts in a similar vein with respect to his being placed in the pit (37:24). When at first he cannot locate his brothers, although this would have constituted an excellent excuse to return home, he persists and with the aid of a mysterious stranger (see the essay “Who Was that Man and What did He Say?: Anonymous Figures in Sefer Beraishit”—Miketz 5764 http://text.rcarabbis.org/author/jack-bieler/page/5/ ) finally arrives at their encampment. And when his worst fears are realized and his brothers treat him horribly, Yosef resolutely accepts his situation, and waits to see how everything will eventually play out.[21]

Yosef’s actions as one form of the adolescent search for self

In the examples of Dina and Shimon and Levi on the one hand (see the essay “Adolescent Risky Behavior: Biblical and Contemporary Challenges”—VaYishlach 5765),[22] and Yosef on the other, we encounter Biblical paradigms of adolescent behavior. The identity crisis that takes place during the teen years that Eric Erikson has explored so eloquently and insightfully—see for example Identity and the Life Cycle,  Childhood and Society, and Identity: Youth and Crisis—can manifest itself in the exploration and experimentation undertaken by Dina, the violence, short-temperedness and shortsightedness of Shimon and Levi, as well as the single-minded idealism and devotion of Yosef. It is easy to see how these tendencies can lead to both positive and negative outcomes. What sort of adult will emerge from the chrysalis of adolescence will ultimately depend upon the quality and quantity of outside guidance provided, as well as the individual’s own readiness and ability to learn from others and from his/her own experiences.

Tzidkut as an aspiration

Several months ago, while hosting a family for Shabbat, I asked a young boy how he was finding school. He replied, “I am trying to be a Tzaddik, but it is very hard work.” Whether due to his parents, his teachers, or even himself, this child expressed a wonderful aspiration, which I hope he will continue to harbor throughout his school experience and beyond. Hopefully Yosef’s Tzidkut was not exclusively a function of his adolescence, but was a personality trait that he could carry with him throughout his life. Aspiring to be “Tzaddikim” is a worthy endeavor for all of us. And the more adolescents are surrounded by models of “Tzidkut”, the greater the likelihood that they will strive to emulate those examples. Yosef shows the way; do we have what it takes to follow?

[2] Encyclopedia Judaica CD-ROM edition, “Haftarah”.

[3] It is interesting to speculate why the practice of reading the Haftarot was continued once this proposed immediate reason for it being originally instituted, i.e., the inability to publicly read the Tora, no longer applied. On the one hand, preserving widely established custom is a powerful value in a traditional religion and society. While it could be argued that the principle of “Tircha D’Tzibbura” (lit. trouble of the congregation, i.e., the Rabbis are enjoined from legislating practices that will cause the congregation to become restless or impatient) would justify elimination of this practice, the fact that reading the Haftora constitutes additional public Tora study probably mitigates the concern of causing consternation to the community. There could also be an intent via the preservation of the custom to read Haftarot to institute something parallel to “Zecher LeChurban” (a commemoration for the destruction of the Temples), in this case a remembrance of the times when Tora reading was banned. In addition to commemorating the destructions in Jerusalem by means of the fasts Shiva Asar B’Tammuz, Tisha B’Av, Tzom Gedalya and Asara BeTevet, as well as the Three Weeks between Shiva Asar B’Tammuz and Tisha B’Av, the mourning during the Sefirat HaOmer period is associated with the suffering inflicted upon the Jewish community during the Crusades. Yom HaShoa, designed to make us reflect annually upon the horrors of the Holocaust contains a similar theme. Consequently it would not be surprising if other tragic aspects of Jewish history are similarly commemorated, albeit in this case it is not so much a single day or period of the year dedicated to the commemoration, but rather a weekly ritual.

[4] The particular connection discussed is the author’s opinion. Since these matters are codified in various books of customs and practices only in terms of what verses are to be recited, rather than why these have been specifically chosen, in addition to researching what others have written with respect to possible connections between the Kriyat HaTora and the Haftora assigned for that Tora reading, a student is free to offer his/her own speculations regarding the nature of the shared idea(s) or language of the Tora and Prophetic passages in question.

[5] When commentators such as these do not even refer to the Midrashic approach in passing, let alone as the main explanation for the verse in question, one gets a sense of just how imaginative the Derash most probably is.

[6] Bi’ur HaRaDaL notes that there is a dispute among commentators as to the extent to which Reuven was aware of what precisely happened to Yosef. If we insist that ten brothers split the 20 Shekalim, then one would have to assume that Reuven was a participant in the plan to sell Yosef. However, from 37:22, 29-30, it could be maintained that Reuven intended to return Yosef to his father, and that the sale took place when he was not present and without his agreement. 42:22 also leads one to think that Reuven thinks that the sin against Yosef did not include selling him, since he does not mention this when he recalls the brothers’ heartlessness towards Yosef. But of course the perspective maintaining that Reuven DID participate in the plot to sell Yosef, could explain the verses in question in the following manner:

27:22—Reuven merely was against killing Yosef, and only wanted eventually to return Yosef to his father, but this could be after a period of servitude. Or it could be that just as Reuven had dissuaded them from killing Yosef, his next presentation to the brothers would have been why they have to return Yosef to Yaakov, Reuven gradually revealing his true opinion on the matter in order to reasonably give the brothers a chance to come around to his point of view.

37:29, 30—37:28 can be interpreted that while the brothers intended to sell Yosef to Yishmaelim, this was pre-empted by the Midianim coming and getting to Yosef first. In that case, Reuven did not have the opportunity to further attempt to dissuade the brothers from giving up on Yosef at all, since he was unclear about when everything was transpiring in the encampment.

42:22—Although the verse emphasizes the brothers’ turning a deaf ear to Yosef’s importuning, whether these pleas were made under the threat of death or slavery is unclear, and perhaps unimportant.

[7] Shemot 21:16.

[8] Devarim 24:7.

[9] The liturgical poet recognized that if Amos was indeed referring to Yosef, then there is an implication in the verse that the Jews will be punished for this incident long after it had been concluded.

[10] Bi’ur HaRaDaL suggests that by purchasing shoes, the brothers were further disparaging Yosef and his dreams, demonstrating that they would tread upon him and that he would have to wallow, at least symbolically, in the dust.

[11] See e.g., Avot D’Rabbi Natan, Chapt. 7, 16; Yoma 35b; Beraishit Rabba 93:7, 11; 95:4; Kohelet Rabba 9:2; Pesikta D’Rav Kahana, Parsha 3; Midrash Tanchuma, Parshat VaYetze #7; Midrash Tehillim, Mizmor 3; Yalkut Shimoni, Parshat MiKetz #148; Shmuel Beit #165.

[12] Shimon “HaTzaddik”, who is quoted, among other places, in Avot 1:2,  is a High Priest from the Second Temple period, an individual who lived well after the last important Biblical figures, i.e., Esther, Mordechai, Ezra, Nechemia, Chagai, Zacharia and Malachi.

[13] See Beraishit 24:40 with respect to Avraham.

[14] Howard Kirschenbaum (100 Ways to Enhance Values and Morality in Schools and Youth Settings, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1995, p. 139) writes,

Most of us are…basically good, caring people, but human with instances of blindness. Sometimes we do not see our own inconsistencies, contradictions, and even hypocrisy, when we are not at our best. The problem is that young people have incredibly fine-tuned antennae for contradiction and hypocrisy. And their judgments are merciless. Their pronouncements about what is hypocritical and inconsistent are not always accurate; but they make them anyway, with a good deal of self-righteousness.

[15] Cited in Tora Shleima, ed. R. Menachem Kasher, “VaYeshev”, pp. 1489-90.

[16] Messengers of God: Biblical Portraits and Legends, “Joseph, or the Education of a Tzaddik”, Pocket Books, New York, p. 175.

[17] As in so much of his writing, Wiesel alludes by his particular depiction of this Biblical scene to the silence of the Jews in the face of their tormentors during the Holocaust.

[18] Yosef is seventeen when he is sold (37:2); thirty when he is appointed as Egypt’s second-in-command (41:46); and it is eight years later when his interactions with his family begin again (41:47, 53-54; the first visit of the brothers looking for food takes place most probably in the year immediately following the seven years of plenty, during which famine in the entire region had begun in earnest.)

[19] RaShI on 37:25 criticizes them heavily for being able to calmly sit and eat after treating Yosef in the manner that they did.

[20] Messengers, p. 176.

[21] The one time that Yosef, in the view of the Rabbis, seems not to give himself up to God’s Greater Plan, but rather tries to make the process proceed according to his own schedule, is when (40:14) he asks the butler to remember him and thereby hopefully get out of prison more quickly. RaShI interprets the emphasis in 40:23 upon how the butler forgot about Yosef as a punishment since Yosef was supposed to remain in prison for another two years before being released.

[22] http://www.kmsynagogue.org/RabbiSpeeches/5765/VaYishlach1.html

Each of the Parshiot of Beraishit focuses upon specific individuals and the fateful choices that they make which have ultimately contributed to the evolution of the Jewish people. Parashat VaYishlach is no different in this regard, and over the course of the Parasha (Beraishit 32:3-36:43), we empathize with Yaakov’s fears prior to his reunion with his brother Eisav who has every reason to be vengeful (32:3-18), the family has to respond to the rape of their daughter and sister Dina (34:1-31), Rachel dies while giving birth to Binyamin (32:16-21), and Reuven acts inappropriately towards Rachel’s handmaiden, Bilha (32:22).

A significant “minor” character in the Parasha.

However, in addition to considering the major protagonists in the events recorded in Beraishit, the “minor” characters that appear in these stories play intriguing roles as well. One such individual, mentioned in only two verses in the entire book of Beraishit, is Devora, the nursemaid of Rivka.

Beraishit 35:8

And Devora, Rivka’s nursemaid, died, and she was buried below Beit El, under an oak; and the name of it was called “Alon BaChut” (the oak of the cryings).

Commentaries attempt to answer two basic questions about this woman:

a)  Why at this point is she traveling with Yaakov and his family?

b)  What is the significance of mentioning her death, funeral, and place of interment?

The first time that Rivka’s nursemaid  comes to our attention

With regard to the first question, it is necessary to consider the only other verse that may mention Devora,[1] albeit indirectly, in Parashat Chaye Sara.

Beraishit 24:59

And they sent forth Rivka their sister and her nursemaid and the servant of Avraham (Eliezer) and his men.

On the one hand, the fact that Rivka is accompanied by her nursemaid when she leaves her family in order to marry, lends some support to the shocking[2] Rabbinic view that she was only three years old at the time that she agrees to become Yitzchak’s wife. Ibn Ezra on 24:59 neatly sidesteps the issue of Rivka possibly being exceedingly young at this juncture, when he modifies “nursemaid” with the phrase “in days gone by”, i.e., Rivka had long outgrown needing Devora to serve her in her original capacity, but rather took her servant along as perhaps a chaperon, confidant, or even as someone who Rivka would count on to raise her own children, once she bore them.

When did Devora join Yaakov’s entourage?

24:59 establishes how Devora traveled from Lavan’s home in Charan, where she had originally taken care of Rivka, to the encampment of Avraham in Canaan, where her charge marries the scion of the family. However, at the time of her death, she was once again traveling, this time with Yaakov and his wives and children. Apparently she had not remained in Canaan, but had returned to Charan at some point, only to later take advantage of Yaakov’s departure from Lavan’s home to try to once again visit Canaan, perhaps to see Rivka one last time.

But when did Devora’s comings and goings take place? It is in this regard that commentators have little biblical text to go on, and therefore are able to be ingenious and imaginative with regard to their respective hypotheses.[3] RaMBaN offers four possibilities, one of which he rejects out of hand:

RaMBaN on 35:8

1)  And Devora was with Yaakov, because once she had accompanied Rivka (in 24:59), she returned to her land.[4] And now she comes with Yaakov to see her mistress.

2)  Or, she took on the responsibilities of raising Yaakov’s children out of honor for Rivka and love for her, and for this reason she was in Yaakov’s home.

3)  It is also possible that she (Devora) is not the same nursemaid concerning whom it had been stated (24:59) “And they sent forth Rivka their sister and her nursemaid…”, but rather she was a different nursemaid who had remained in the home of Betuel and Lavan, and now Yaakov was bringing her with him to support her in her old age in order to show honor to his mother, for it is common for important people to have a number of nursemaids.

4)  But it is highly unlikely that this old woman was the messenger that his mother had sent to Yaakov, according to the words of R. Moshe HaDarshan.

While RaMBaN dismisses R. Moshe HaDarshan’s explanation for Devora’s presence as too fantastical, RaShI and Chizkuni depend upon this theory as their sole explanation for why the nursemaid was traveling with Yaakov at the time of her death.

RaShI on 35:8

“And Devora died”—What is Devora doing in the house of Yaakov?

But because Rivka had said to Yaakov, (27:43-5) “And now my son, listen to my voice and rise and flee to Lavan, my brother, to Charan. And you will dwell with him a few days until the anger of your brother dissipates. Until the time that the fury of your brother abates from you, and he forgets what you have done to him, and I will send for you and I will take you from there…”

She sent Devora to Padan Aram[5] that he should go out from there, and she died on the way (back).

Chizkuni on 35:8

RaShI asked, “What is Devora doing in the house of Yaakov”, i.e., how could Devora have been part of Yaakov’s household? Behold, he (Yaakov) stated, (32:11) “I am too insignificant/undeserving of all of the kindnesses and the true justice that You (HaShem) have Done on behalf of your servant (Yaakov), because with (only) my staff did I cross this Jordan (on my way out of Canaan, while traveling to Charan, I had nothing, including the company of Rivka’s nursemaid Devora) and now I am two encampments (Yaakov is marveling at the rapid growth of his family and possessions over the course of the twenty years that he spent with Lavan).”[6] But rather it is to teach that Rivka sent Devora after Yaakov to bring him back…

And he did not wish to return, causing Devora to remain with Yaakov in Lavan’s house, and she died on the way while still with Yaakov…

According to RaShI, it is possible that as soon as Devora arrived and delivered Rivka’s message, Yaakov began planning to leave Lavan’s home. Perhaps Devora’s coming to Charan coincided with HaShem’s Instructions to Yaakov in 31:3, and Yaakov therefore should not be accused of any undo delay with respect to his return to his parents in Canaan. Chizkuni, on the other hand, insists that Devora and the message that she carried were essentially ignored by Yaakov—“And he did not wish to return”. Rather than any specific message from his mother, the biblical text implies that there were two distinct catalysts for Yaakov’s decision to leave: a) (31:1-2) Overheard mutterings on the parts of Lavan’s sons as well as Lavan himself suggesting not only no love lost for Yaakov, but inordinate jealousy of the material success he had achieved, and b) (31:3) God’s Commandment to return to Canaan.[7]

How long may Yaakov have delayed Devora’s return?

Chizkuni’s assumption leads us to wonder about just how long did Yaakov force Devora to wait, before acting upon her message?  From a legal and moral point of view, the earliest Yaakov could have left was after fourteen years, since he had agreed to such a term of servitude in exchange for the privilege of marrying Leah and Rachel (29:18, 20, 27-8).[8] And indeed once the fourteen years had been completed, marked by the birth of Rachel’s first child Yosef, Yaakov requested permission from Lavan to leave (see RaShBaM on 30:25). Chizkuni’s assertion that Yaakov ignored Rivka’s plea to return must therefore assume that Devora arrived at some point during the ensuing six years (Yaakov emphatically states to Lavan that he had worked for him faithfully and honestly for a total of twenty years in 31:41), when Yaakov was willingly[9] engaged in acquiring for himself great herds of speckled, spotted and brown sheep and goats.

Yaakov’s existential dilemma

If such a line of reasoning is substantiated, then we can understand that Yaakov found himself confronting a difficult dilemma: On the one hand, assuming that he believed that Devora was telling the truth regarding his mother’s request that he now return to Canaan, there is the consideration of “Kibud Eim” (respecting one’s mother) either exclusively in religious terms, or with respect to the special emotional connection that the text attests existed between Yaakov and Rivka (25:28). However, the desire to comply with Rivka’s message to return to Canaan is powerfully countered by the urge to make himself independently wealthy, perhaps justifying such a desire by thinking that this was the means by which Yaakov was meant to achieve the fulfillment of Yitzchak’s blessing to him in 28:4! Prior to Yaakov leaving for Charan, Yitzchak had stated that the Blessing that HaShem originally Conferred upon Avraham, should now pass to Yaakov. According to RaShI on 12:2, Avraham’s original Blessing contained three provisions:

Beraishit 12:2

1) And I will Make you into a great nation,

2) and I will Bless you,

3) and I will Make your name great

and you will be a blessing.[10]

RaShI on 12:2

Because traveling (HaShem had Commanded Avraham in 12:1 to leave his birthplace and take up residence in Canaan) causes three (negative) things: it interferes with having children, it imposes limitations upon one’s acquiring wealth, and it diminishes the ability of one to make a name for him/herself. Therefore Avraham was in need of these three Blessings (to counteract the detrimental aspects of what HaShem Wishes him to do). He Promises him concerning offspring, acquiring possessions and the proliferation of his name and reputation.

“VaAvorechecha” (And I will Bless you)—with wealth.

Just as Rivka found herself in possession of a Divine Prophecy (25:23) regarding the future interrelationship of her twin sons, Yaakov and Eisav, and decided to take matters into her own hands and attempt to assure the prophecy’s fulfillment (27:5-17), perhaps Yaakov too had to decide whether or not remaining with Lavan was the long-awaited opportunity to not only marry and have children, but also to position himself in order for the Divine Blessing that his father gave him to begin to take effect. Assuming that one is not supposed to completely passively await the fulfillment of a Prophecy or Blessing, in the spirit of “Ein Somchin Al HaNeis” (one must not rely exclusively on the performance of a miracle), but rather to do one’s part so that such a Divine Pronouncement can be fulfilled, doubts always arise regarding when one is not doing enough, countered by when one might either be doing too much or choosing the wrong course of action in order to help along HaShem’s “Hashgacha Pratit” (Personal Intervention). Could Yaakov’s decision to put Devora’s message “on hold” have been based upon such a spiritual conflict? Or should we assume a less prophetic and more material temptation driving Yaakov’s decision, i.e., now that he had such a large family, he needs to be able to support them, and wishes to accumulate enough wealth in order that he could meet his domestic obligations. By the Tora’s avoidance of describing the internal thoughts and feelings of the individuals whose actions are recorded, we are left to try to sort out such motivations for ourselves.

The marked manner in which Devora is mourned

Turning to Devora’s death and funeral in 35:8, while some commentators opine that the Tora is emphasizing how appreciative we must be to those who raise and educate us during even our most formative years, e.g.,

ShaDaL on 35:8

…Certainly the moral of this story is to teach us the positive attribute to honor even the nursemaid who exerts great effort in order to raise the nursling, even once the child grows up. This is especially true in this case (Devora) who left her homeland and the house of her father in order to go with Rivka.

Ta’am VaDa’at on 35:8

…It would appear that the intent of the Tora is to emphasize the importance of upbringing/education from the very beginning, and so we heard regarding the Vilna Gaon, ZaTzaL, that even once he had grown older and risen in prestige, he never forgot his teacher who taught him from his earliest years, and who established the basic foundations of his education…

most sources adopt the Rabbinic tradition that the mourning ostensibly shown for Devora’s passing in fact reflected the grief that resulted from having learned that her mistress, Rivka had also died at this time. Such a position is bolstered by the Tora mentioning that when Yaakov returned to Canaan, he saw only his father, Yitzchak.

Beraishit 35:27

And Yaakov came to Yitzchak, his father, to Mamre, to the city of Arba, which is Chevron, where Avraham and Yitchak had lived.

Given the aforecited special relationship between mother and son, it would have been expected that some reference to a reuniting of the two would have been recorded, if it had indeed taken place; hence the conclusion that it never came about due to Rivka’s earlier death.[11]^,[12] If Chizkuni’s assumption about Yaakov’s ignoring his mother’s message being delivered by her nursemaid, is correct, then one can understand the incredibly devastating effect that the news of Rivka’s death finally has upon Yaakov. As children so often do, he was under the impression that his parents would live forever, and that there would always be time to see them. Fearing Eisav’s possible wrath probably also contributed to his rationalizations and justifications to stay away. But when faced with the realization that he could have and should have returned earlier, and now he would never be reunited with Rivka, Yaakov has to deal with the guilt arising from his procrastinations and self-absorption for all of these many  years. Not only might Yaakov have been crying for Devora to whom he did not listen, and for Rivka, whom he never again saw, but also for himself and the errors of his ways.

[2] Although this view is fairly widely cited by various Rabbinic sources, nevertheless to assume that Rivka was not only precocious enough at three to assert that she wanted to go with Eliezer in order to marry Yitzchak (24:58), but that she also would have been allowed to water her flock by herself (24:15) and was physically capable of filling her pitchers with water and offering the servant and his camels water to drink, begs credulity in terms of our experience with the cognitive and physical maturity of three year olds. Even if the verses in the Bible force us to grant that longevity in Beraishit runs far in excess of current life expectancy, does this necessarily mean that concurrently, maturity was achieved at an earlier point by most people of the time? Or is it necessary to assume that Rivka was an exception and simply preternaturally more developed than the average person both now and then? Of course there is also the position adopted by Tosafot in Yevamot 61b:

(Talmud: Concerning the following verse—[VaYikra 21:14] “A widow, or a divorced woman, or a ‘Chalala’ [the daughter of a Kohen and a woman who is prohibited for him to marry, e.g., a divorcee], or a prostitute he [a Kohen Gadol] cannot marry. But he shall marry a ‘Betula’ [a virgin] of his own people as a wife,”

it is taught: A “Betula”—the only meaning is a “Na’ara” [a girl between the ages of 12 and 12 ½]. And so it is stated in the Bible, [Beraishit 24:16] “And the ‘Na’ara’ was very fair to look upon, a ‘Betula’. [This proof text is referring to Rivka when Eliezer meets her for the first time. Consequently if we are describing Rivka as a “Na’ara”, she cannot by definition be three years old! Tosafot’s question concerns the reconciliation of the interpretation in the Talmud with the Rabbinic tradition of Rivka being much younger at this time.])

Tosafot: It is a question, that here (in Yevamot) it implies that Rivka was a “Na’ara”, and in Seder Olam, Chapt. 1 (a Rabbinic text that provides a chronology for the major events in Jewish tradition and history) we learn explicitly that she was three when she married Yitzchak. And it is impossible to simply correct/change the text (in Seder Olam) because it is taught there:

Our father Yitzchak was 37 at the time of the “Akeida” (when Avraham bound him as a sacrifice in Beraishit 22. This is derived by the following calculation—the text states immediately after the “Akeida” that Sara was 127 at the time of her death (Beraishit 23:1), and it had been previously stated that she was ninety when she gave birth to Yitzchak (17:17). Assuming that her death coincided with the “Akeida” (see RaShI on 23:2), that results in Yitzchak being 37 at the time of the “Akeida”),  and it is at that very time that Rivka was born (Rivka’s birth is recorded in the verses immediately following the “Akeida”, in 22:23, leading to the conclusion that her birth coincided with Yitzchak’s being 37). Furthermore, it is written (25:20) “And Yitzchak was 40 when he married Rivka…” This results in the conclusion that she was 3 at the time of her marriage.

And Rabbi Shmuel HeChasid of Spires proves that she was 14, since it is taught in Siphre Devarim 357:7,

There were six pairs who achieved the same age: 1) Rivka and Kehat, 2) Levi and Amram, 3) Yosef and Yehoshua, 4) Shmuel and Shlomo, 5) Moshe and Hillel HaZaken, and 6) R. Akiva and R. Yochanan ben Zakai.

And Kehat lived to the age of 133, as it is stated in the biblical text (Shemot 6:18), and if Rivka was 14 at the time of her marriage, then the calculation is substantiated, since when Yaakov was born, she was 34 (Beraishit 25:26 states that Yitzchak was 60, i.e., 20 years older than he had been at the time of his marriage, when the twins were born. Consequently, if it is assumed that Rivka was 14 when she married, she was 34 when she gave birth). Yaakov was 99 when Rivka died, i.e., when she was 133. This can be demonstrated by the following: When Yaakov received Yitzchak’s blessing (Beraishit 27), he was 63, since it was at that time that Yishmael died (this is assumed due to superfluous language in 28:9, where after stating that Eisav when to Yishmael in order to marry one of his daughters, the text identifies the daughter as “Machalat bat Yishmael”. RaShI quotes the Talmud Megilla as understanding the extra language as revealing that Yishmael died after the engagement but before the wedding. Since Eisav goes to Yishmael immediately after Yaakov leaves to find a wife of his own, it is concluded that Yishmael’s death coincides with the time of Yaakov’s departure.) Yishmael was 137 at the time of his death (25:17), and since we know that Yishmael was 14 years older than Yitzchak (the year before Yitzchak is born, Yishmael is 13 in 17:25), and that Yitzchak was 60 when the twins were born, making Yishmael 74 at that time, Yaakov is therefore 63 years old at the time that he leaves home and Yishmael dies. According to Megilla 17a, Yaakov spends 14 years in the Yeshiva of Shem and Eiver, before continuing on to Lavan where he spends 20 years (31:41), travels another 2 years (see RaShI on 33:17), when Rivka dies as is interpreted in Kohelet Rabba on the verse 35:8 “An oak of crying”—two causes for crying, crying for Rivka as well as for her nursemaid, Yaakov’s age therefore adding up to 99.

And (in light of the two traditions of Rivka either being 3 or 14 at the time of her wedding) it is necessary to say that these are Midrashim that are at odds with one another (i.e., it is impossible to reconcile these two traditions).

[3] R. S.R. Hirsch apparently feels that the paucity of text does not allow for advancing one point of view in favor of another:

R. S.R. Hirsch on 35:8

How this old lady (Devora) who in any case must have been very advanced in years, found herself in Yaakov’s company, is not told. Whether she, as some suppose, had been sent by Rivka with a message, or had gone with him from Lavan’s house in order to see her former nursling, as RaMBaN suggests, are only suggestions…

R. Hirsch’s refusal to take a position with regard to this matter is intriguing. Since he had the option to state that both of the possibilities cited by others could simultaneously have been correct, i.e., she originally went on a mission for her mistress and now was attempting to return to her, suggests that R. Hirsch thinks neither to be particularly convincing. Perhaps R. Hirsch agrees with RaMBaN’s last point listed above, i.e., that a person so advanced in years would hardly have been entrusted to bring a message to Yaakov, and that once she would have returned to Charan, given her age, she would not have been able to make yet another arduous trip to Canaan, no matter how much she would have wished to see Rivka again.

[4] Such an assumption parallels what might have taken place with regard to Yitro. Once Moshe’s father-in-law reunites his daughter and grandsons with their husband and father in Shemot 19, it is unclear what he does subsequently. In BaMidbar 10:29-32, a conversation is recorded between Moshe and his father-in-law “Chovav”. (The Midrash Tanchuma, Shemot 11:11 states, for example, that Yitro, in addition to his given name, had a number of descriptive names, which could account for this apparent inconsistency.) Chovav/Yitro apparently desires to return to Midyan his homeland, and Moshe tries to convince him to stay with the Jewish nation. While Moshe has the last word in verse 32, it is unclear whether Chovav/Yitro’s silence indicates consent or refusal to listen. Short of an individual choosing to accept the Jewish way of life, it is understandable why people such as Devora and Yitro would have preferred to eventually resume living in the lands in which they grew up and were most familiar.

[5] The following argument could be made for Rivka sending Devora to Yaakov, regardless of her advanced age: If Devora had remained with Rivka from the time that her mistress had traveled to Canaan in order to marry Yitzchak, Yaakov would have been quite familiar with her, realize that she was his mother’s closest ally, and that the message that she brought must be genuine. Without this type of reassurance, one could imagine that Yaakov’s fears of retribution by his brother Eisav, clearly evidenced at the beginning of VaYishlach, would have in themselves made him suspicious of any type of message that was said to originate from his mother, and therefore dismissive of such ostensible communication. It probably was not lost upon Yaakov that Eisav was a hunter, and therefore would be ready to employ his cunning in order to entrap his brother.

[6] Chizkuni is demonstrating that Devora did not come with him from Canaan to Charan when he originally left home, even though he was returning to her land of origin. The only conclusion left, therefore, according to this commentator, is that Devora joined Yaakov at some later point, at the behest of his mother.

[7] While Yaakov could justify being suspicious of any message delivered by way of a human being, even someone like Devora, he could not sanguinely dismiss an objective, Divine Order. And if Eisav had not actually made peace with the past, then it was God’s Will that the two brothers confront one another nevertheless.

[8] It is possible that Yaakov could have justified walking out on Lavan before the fourteen years had passed because of the dishonest manner in which Lavan treated him. Switching Leah for Rachel (29:23) was an incredibly egregious thing to do; perhaps Yaakov felt that in order to eventually be permitted to marry Rachel, he would have to allow himself to be victimized by his father-in-law. However, the “Geneivat Da’at” (lit. stealing one’s mind; see http://www.kmsynagogue.org/VaYetze2.html) that Yaakov     perpetrates upon Lavan in 31:20 certainly has its roots in how Lavan approaches Yaakov early on. In addition to being forced into a marriage with Leah, Yaakov, in 31:7, 41 suggests that Lavan had arbitrarily and unfairly changed the terms of Yaakov’s employment, outlined in 30:31-42, a number of times. RaMBaN on 31:8 suggests that each year of the additional six that Yaakov remained with Lavan, Lavan kept changing the terms, one year agreeing that Yaakov should keep the new-born spotted and speckled animals; the next year, after seeing Yaakov’s success with respect to how many of the newborns fell into the category of those belonging to Yaakov, insisting upon his son-in-law’s retaining only the solid-colored sheep and goats. Some commentators note that Yaakov’s apparent manipulation of using notched sticks to inspire certain colorations in the newborns (30:37-9, 41), which he attributes to a Divine Revelation (31:10-12), would not have been necessary had Lavan not kept trying to gain an unfair advantage within the arrangement. Nevertheless, attempting to maintain one’s own sense of integrity and morality in the face of ongoing exploitation and dishonesty is a severe challenge which Yaakov, at least for the most part, seems to successfully achieve during his twenty year tenure. Yaakov attests to his honest approach to Lavan despite all that was done to him in 31:38-40. This is also the sense of RaShI’s famous comment on 32:5, wherein Yaakov catches up Eisav regarding what he has been doing these past twenty years:

RaShI on 32:5

“Im Lavan Garti” (With Lavan I have sojourned)–…Another interpretation: “Garti”’s numerical value (“Gimel” = 3; “Reish” = 200; “Taf” = 400; “Yud” = 10, = 613) is 613, as if to say, “With the evil Lavan I have sojourned and (nevertheless) the 613 Commandments I have observed. I have not “learned” (internalized, made my own) from his evil deeds.

[9] No one forces Yaakov to accept Lavan’s offer in 30:28. In fact, Yaakov sets initial terms himself, and Lavan agrees. Although as is indicated in fn. 8 Lavan does his best to undermine the agreement, it would appear that Yaakov willingly enters into it.

[10] The last phrase is understood as an assurance that the three aspects of the Divine Blessing will be so obvious and profound, that others, when wishing to bless someone, will use Avraham as their prototype of a blessed individual. This is the same sentiment contained in 48:20.

[11] It is strange to note that the Tora is uneven in terms of describing the deaths of the matriarchs: Sara’s death, mourning and burial is described extensively at the beginning of Parshat Chaye Sara (23:1-20). While Rachel’s death is not given the same detailed treatment, nevertheless, it plays a prominent role in the story of Yaakov (35:16-20). In contrast, we are told nothing about the deaths of Rivka, Leah, Bilha and Zilpa. Only in passing, as part of the instructions concerning his own burial just before he himself dies, does Yaakov mention that both Rivka and Leah were buried in the Ma’arat HaMachpeila that contains the remains of Avraham, Sara and Yitzchak as well (49:31). It could be maintained that in contrast to the demises of Rivka, Leah and the two handmaidens, the deaths of Sara and Rachel played significant parts in the overall story of Beraishit—the acquisition of a burial place for the entire family, and the burial of a Matriarch in a place other than Chevron due to her premature death during the birth of Binyamin. However, given that Yaakov had such a close relationship with his mother, one can understand why we would have expected some type of description of his reaction to her passing, just as we are stymied why Yitzchak, who had clearly been championed by his mother Sara, is nowhere to be found during Sara’s mourning period and burial—see Beraishit 23.

[12] The standard Midrashic explanation for why Rivka’s death is not discussed directly in the Tora text, has to do with the low-key nature of her funeral.

Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Tetze, Chapt. 4

What is the implication of (Tehillim 58:4) “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they are estranged from birth, speaking lies”?

…and the Rabbis say that he (Eisav) caused her coffin not to be given a public procession.

You find that when Rivka died, they said, “Who will walk before the body? Avraham has died; Yitzchak sits at home because he cannot see; Yaakov went to Padan Aram; should Eisav the evil one walk before her bier? Everyone will say, ‘Cursed is this one’s (Rivka’s) existence. This one (Eisav) she nursed?’” (i.e., rather than the funeral being a celebration of Rivka’s life and accomplishments, it would be the cause for her being derided and criticized.) What did they do? They conducted the procession at night so that Eisav would not go before her (it is implied that they buried Rivka without Eisav’s knowledge. Otherwise, what difference would it have made to him whether the funeral was at night or during the day?) This was to avoid people saying, “Cursed are the breasts that nursed this evildoer!”

Said R. Yose BeRav Chanina: Because they took out her coffin at night, for this reason the verses did not explicitly refer to her death, but rather only in an oblique manner, as it is said, (35:8) “And Devora, Rivka’s nursemaid died…and they called the place ‘the Oak of Cryings’,” that they engaged in two “cryings” (acts of mourning). At the very time that Yaakov was engaged in mourning and guarding the remains of her (Rivka’s) nursemaid, news of his mother’s death reached him, as it is said, (35:9) “And HaShem Appeared to Yaakov while he was on his way, coming from Padan Aram and He Blessed him.” What blessing did He Bless him with? The Blessing said to mourners. Therefore it is written, (Tehillim 109:14) “…And let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.” Said the Holy One, Blessed Be He, “His father, he treated him badly; his mother, he treated her badly (see 26:34-5 where both Yitzchak and Rivka are upset at Eisav choices for wives); his brother, he treated badly (27:41); his grandfather, he treated badly (this is a reference to Avraham’s life being shortened by five years in order that he not witness Eisav’s immoral, murderous and idolatrous behavior—see RaShI on 25:30); you, he has treated badly (a reference to the attacks upon the Jewish people following the Exodus in Shemot 17:8-16. I will Treat him badly since his descendants (Edom, the Romans) destroyed My House (the Temple). I and you will Avenge Ourselves upon him, as it is said, (Ovadia 1:1) “…Arise and let us go up against her (Edom) in battle.” Israel said, “Master of the Universe! We cannot defeat him.” The Holy One, Blessed Be He Said to them, “You continue to remember his name below, and I will Obliterate his name above, as it is said, (Tehillim 109:15) “Let them be before HaShem continually, and He will Cut off the memory of them”…

Yaakov, upon awaking from his prophetic dream at the outset of Parashat VaYetze (Beraishit 28:12-15), realizes HaShem’s Closeness to him, and as a result is beset by a powerful emotion.

Beraishit 28:16-17

…And he said, ‘Surely God is in this place, I did not know it.’ And he was afraid and he said, ‘How awesome is this place. This is nothing other than the House of God and this is the Gate of Heaven.’

Yaakov recognizes that while God by definition is Omnipresent and therefore His Presence should be able to be detected and experienced everywhere, nevertheless certain geographical locations are apparently more conducive to such encounters than others. Yaakov therefore sets about marking the place in which he had his dream (28:18), vowing to return to it and God’s intensified Presence in order to express thanksgiving to HaShem upon what he hopes to be the successful completion of his journey (28:22).

In terms of experiencing fear of God, Yaakov was following in the footsteps of his predecessors.

The marked fear experienced by Yaakov as a result of his first close encounter with HaShem parallels the manner in which his forefathers, Avraham and Yitzchak, also approached God. Following the war with the kings during which, despite facing superior military odds, Avraham manages to rescue his nephew Lot, God Appears to him and offers the following guidance, (15:1) “…Do not be AFRAID, Avram, I will Protect you…” Although it is understandable for someone to be frightened while engaged in the actual fighting of a war,[1] one would think that after the war is concluded, the victor in particular would feel exhilarated and relieved. Beraishit Rabba 44: 4 suggests that Avraham’s apparent concern stems from the possibility that during the course of the conflict, even though he had had the moral right to defend his own life and attempt to save Lot’s, he may have killed some righteous individuals. In contrast to Beraishit Rabba’s positing a cause-and-effect relationship between the war described in Beraishit 14, and Avraham’s fear noted by God at the beginning of Beraishit 15, Tana D’vai Eliyahu Rabba , Chapt. 23[2] suggests that the sensibility of “God-fearing-ness” is a general quality that distinguishes Avraham from his contemporaries.

We learn from Avraham our father, that the foundation of his actions is his fear from before the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is said, ‘Do not be AFRAID Avram…’ God only Says, ‘Do not be afraid’ to someone who is profoundly God-fearing.”

This Midrash suggests that experiencing “Yirat Elokim” (the fear of God) was a general condition that Avraham felt day-to-day and hour-to-hour, rather than an attitude that was precipitated by extreme events only on rare occasions. While undergoing a life-threatening situation may make one more aware of one’s fears than when one goes about his/her daily routines[3] —Avraham tells Avimelech that the reason why he lied about his relationship with Sara was that he intuitively felt[4] that (20:11) “Ein Yirat Elokim BaMakom HaZeh VeHaraguni Al Devar Ishti” (there is no FEAR of God in this place, and they will KILL me concerning the matter of my wife)—this does not mean that only under such conditions can s/he be categorized as a “Yareh Elokim” (a fearer of God).

The same source in Tana D’vai Eliyahu Rabba that insists that Avraham experienced continual fear of HaShem, suggests that Yitzchak too was God-fearing. Although there is no Biblical text, as in the cases of Avraham and Yaakov, that directly states or indirectly implies that Yitzchak himself shared this particular religious sensibility of his father and his son,[5] the Midrash imagines that the motivation for God’s Blessing Yitzchak in Beraishit 25:11 was to reassure him of HaShem’s Involvement in his life, despite the recent passing of Avraham.

We have learned from Yitzchak that from the very beginning of his actions, he feared HaShem. Yitzchak was 75 when his father passed away.[6] He said, “Woe is me that I have not accomplished the sort of good deeds that my father engaged in. What will become of me when I stand before HaShem?” Immediately the compassion of God arose and He Spoke with him that very night, as it says (25:11) “And it was (as if it is written IMMEDIATELY) after the death of Avraham, and Hashem Blessed Yitzchak his son…”

As in the case of Avraham’s going to war, the Midrash suggests that a specific incident triggered Yitzchak’s awareness of his spiritual inadequacy and fears before HaShem, i.e., the death of his father. Although Yitzchak continues to be very much alive, his universe has irreversibly been altered by the passing of his role model and mentor, and one imagines that once Sara died (23:2), the individual exclusively responsible for maintaining the religious tone for the entire household had been Avraham. While it had always been taken for granted that Yitzchak would be expected to continue Avraham’s legacy—the banishing of Yishmael (21:14) as well as the sending away of Ketura’s children (25:6) constitute clear indications of whom Avraham’s intended successor was to be—the magnitude of the role that he was expected to fill did not truly dawn upon him until his father’s death. However, to assume that Yitzchak was always God-fearing and deferential to His Will is easy to imagine. Certainly his readiness to allow himself to be sacrificed by his father (22:9) reflects such a religious sensibility.

But did Yaakov always feel this way towards God?

Although the same Midrashic source cited twice above, Tana D’Vai Eliyahu Rabba, views Yaakov in a similar vein as his forefathers, by stating when commenting on 28:17, “we learn from Yaakov that from the beginning of his actions he feared the Holy One, Blessed Be He, when the Tora says, ‘And he was afraid, and he said, ‘How awesome is this place’”, one could easily take issue with the assumption that “from the beginning” Yaakov evidenced such a religious attitude. Granted that the Tora first describes him as (25:27) “Ish Tam Yoshev Ohalim” (a simple man sitting in tents); nevertheless, the two seminal incidents in terms of his dealing with his twin brother Eisav, i.e., (25:31) bartering a bowl of lentils for Eisav’s “birthright”, and (27:18 ff.)  deliberate subterfuges designed to gain for him the blessing intended for Eisav, hardly reflect an attitude of “God-fearing-ness”.[7] Would Avraham, who rebuked Avimelech for what he considered the atmosphere of immorality pervasive in Gerar, and Yitzchak, who also complained to Avimelech about how he had been treated while sojourning in Gerar (26:27), have countenanced Yaakov’s treatment of his own brother? A close reading of 28:17 suggests not that Yaakov at this point felt a sense of “Yirat Elokim” from within, but rather only as a result of outside stimuli, namely a combination between the Revelatory Dream that he had just experienced and the special place in which he finds himself.

Paradoxically, assuming that Yaakov underwent a “learning curve” with respect to Yirat Elokim, makes him a much more accessible model for the average individual in general, and generates interesting implications about self-consciously searching for inspiring environments.

Following such a line of reasoning results in projecting Yaakov as someone that we can reasonably aspire to emulate to a much greater extent than either Avraham or Yitzchak. If the “Yirat Elokim” that informed the lives of Avraham and Yitzchak were inner qualities that were inherent within their particular personalities, then we might reasonably contend that either you are endowed with such spirituality or you are not. Yaakov, on the other hand, was someone who might have started out as someone who was not particularly sensitive to the personal quality of “Yirat Elokim”, but consequently found himself in a place that inspired special thoughts and experiences, leading to the initiation of the development of this type of sensibility. Consequently, our seeking out such places constitutes a true strategy for all times, places and individuals searching for Divine Inspiration and heightened awareness of God.

The relationship between place and spiritual refinement.

How might the phenomenon of a particular place causing one to engage in more intensive spiritual thoughts be understood psychologically? R. Jonathan Sacks, in his weekly essay on the Parsha,[8] cites an interpretation by Panim Yafot (R. Pinchas Horowitz) on the phrase in (28:16) “Surely God is in this place, ‘VeAnochi Lo Yadati’ (I did not know it).” The Chassidic commentator notes an apparent redundancy since the same sentiment could have been conveyed by Yaakov simply saying “Lo Yadati”, omitting the first person pronoun “VeAnochi”. The commentator therefore explains that we come to “know God” when we deemphasize, don’t know the “I”, i.e., ourselves. When Yaakov was in his parental home, his focus was upon self-advancement, upon one-upping his twin Eisav. But when he is finally alone and exiled, his decreased self-absorption combined with greater humility makes room within his soul for reflecting upon HaShem and the manner in which he should strive to worship Him. Yaakov may have been sitting in “Ohalim” (tents) (25:27). But he was too comfortable, too concerned with himself  to be able to truly appreciate what God Expected of him. He had to leave the comfort of the environment that he knew well and go elsewhere to attain the proper perspective.

In this regard, Yaakov was following in the footsteps of his mother Rivka, according to the commentary of RaMBaN. When she needed some insight into what was happening to her in terms of her difficult pregnancy, she did not ask her husband Yitzchak, or simply remain in her family tent and prayed, but rather (25:22) “VaTelech LiDrosh Et HaShem” (she went to inquire of HaShem). RaShI suggests that she went to the legendary Yeshiva of Shem VeEver[9] in order to receive a Revelation from the two Roshei Yeshiva (the heads of the Yeshiva) concerning the two nation builders struggling in her womb (25:23). Gil Student[10] notes that RaMBaN disagrees with RaShI and insists that rather than inquiring of a prophet, Rivka was seeking out an appropriate place to pray. While prayer can be offered anywhere, once again, some places are simply more inspiring than others. Such an understanding additionally confirms the Halachic position cited below in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 90:18, that prayers offered in a public Beit Midrash are more likely to be effective than those recited even in a large congregational synagogue.

Translating an aspect of biblical stories into contemporary courses of action.

But where might we find such places today as the site of Yaakov’s dream and the Yeshiva to which Rivka went? Traditional commentaries, based upon Yaakov’s utterances in (28:16) “HaShem BaMakom HaZeh”; (28:17, 22) “Beit Elokim”; and (28:17) “Sha’ar HaShamayim”, posit that Yaakov dreamt his dream in the place where the Beit HaMikdash would eventually be constructed.[11] Not only does such an interpretation promote offering prayers today as close to Har HaBayit (the Temple Mount) in Jerusalem, as possible,[12] but in the event that one only rarely, if ever, is able to pray at that holy site, the approach suggests how important it is to pray in a synagogue or Beit Midrash, referred to in Megilla 29a, based upon Yechezkel 11:16, as “Mikdash Me’at” (a lesser manifestation of the Temple). The premise entails assuming that not only do these buildings constitute manifestations of the Temple, but that the ground upon which they stand is holy as well.[13]

Incorporating holy places into our day-to-day existences.

The importance of praying in a holy place is formulated Halachically in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 90:9, 18.

An individual should strive to pray in a synagogue with the “Tzibbur” (congregation). And if he is under duress and cannot come to the synagogue, then he should try to pray at the same time as when the “Tzibbur” is praying. Similarly if he is under duress and cannot pray at the time when the “Tzibbur” is praying, and he is praying by himself, nevertheless he should pray in a SYNAGOGUE.

Mishna Berura #33.

Because it is a place that permanently is associated with holiness, and his prayer will be accepted more readily when offered in such a place…

A permanent Beit Midrash (place for Tora study) is more holy than a synagogue. Consequently it is a greater religious fulfillment to pray in such a location than in a synagogue. This is assuming that he can pray with at least ten other people.

Mishna Berura #54

…This assumes that the Beit Midrash is the place in which the person praying always studies, and having to go to a synagogue, even if there are more people there, and the principle (Mishlei 14:28) “BeRov Am Hadrat Melech” (the greater the number of people engaged in honoring the King, the more honor accrues to Him), would cause a disruption in his learning. However, if this is not the case, then “BeRov Am Hadrat Melech” is the dominant principle that should determine where an individual prays. (Mishna Berura goes on to state that if the Beit Midrash has in it a Minyan of people who are constantly learning Tora, then this place becomes more holy than even a synagogue that has within it large numbers of worshippers.)

The unique spiritual interaction between Beit Kenesset and worshipper is encapsulated in one of the verses that is traditionally recited just as one walks into shul before he begins to pray. (Tehillim 5:8) “And I, as a result of Your great Mercy, come into Your House; I bow down towards Your Holy Sanctuary Be’Yiratecha (in Your Fear/in fear of You).”[14] A series of Kabalistic glosses on the verse, understand the lives of the three forefathers as being alluded to in the verse’s tri-part phrases: “Your great Mercy”—a reference to Avraham, a man of mercy and great kindness; “Your Holy Sanctuary”—a reference to Yitzchak who was bound on the alter in the Holy Place (the Akeida was to have taken place on Har HaBayit as well—see 22:14); “In fear of You”—this is a reference to Yaakov, who said, “How awesome is this place.” There is an implicit assumption that as soon as one walks into a synagogue’s sanctuary or a Beit Midrash, that a feeling of Yirat HaShem will come over him, that one is sobered by beginning to think of his relationship with God before he even utters a single word, that even when one returns to one’s home, profession, social interactions, and/or recreational activities, that having spent time in God’s Precincts, in a holy place associated with Him, that the awareness of His Presence, Concern, and High Standards, will inspire us to live lives that justify His having Chosen us to serve as his (Shemot 19:5-6) “Am Segula” and “Mamlechet Kohanim” (treasured people and kingdom of priests).

[2] When this Midrash is quoted in Tora Shleima (ed. R. Menachem Kasher, p. 629) Chapt. 25 rather than Chapt. 23 is given as an alternate origin of the Midrash.

[3] RaShI, interpreting Devarim 20:8 in light of the Mishna in Sota 44a, cites two interpretations for the phrase, “HaYareh VeRach HaLeivav”: R. Akiva contends that the Tora is literally describing an individual who is frightened by violence and potential bodily harm and even death; R. Yosi HaGalili insists that this fourth category is concerned with a person who has a guilty conscience, FEARING that within the context of a war, God will Mete out punishments to him arising from past malfeasance, i.e., “Yirat Elokim”!

[4] RaShI claims that Avraham reached this conclusion due to the questions that he was asked upon his first arriving in Gerar. While it could be claimed that this constitutes more objective evidence than a mere “feeling”, nevertheless, the questions were obviously interpreted by Avraham from a particular point of view and expectations regarding how a newly-arrived visitor deserves to be treated.

[5] In 31:42, while Yaakov is berating Lavan for having unduly mistreated him, he refers to HaShem as “Pachad Yitzchak” (the terror of Yitzchak). Should we assume that a son’s perspective of a father’s faith is objective to the point that it can be relied upon as objective fact?

[6] According to 21:5 and 25:7, Avraham was 100 at Yitzchak’s birth and 175 at his death, making Yitzchak 75 at the time of his father’s demise.

[7] While it could be claimed that Yaakov’s perception of his twin as being someone who did not deserve the special privileges associated neither with the status of being a first-born (until the sin of the Golden Calf, first-born sons were to fill the rolls of Priests—see e.g., RaShI on BaMidbar 3:12), or being blessed by his father  emanated from a sense of his own God-fearingness as opposed to a lack thereof in Eisav, a sensitivity to avoid Mitzva HaBa’a B’Aveira (A Commandment being fulfilled by means of a sin) would also seem to be strongly associated with the attitude of Yirat Shamayim. Did Yaakov believe that his case against Esav allowed him to act as if the ends justified the means?

[8] http://www.shulinthewood.com/index.htm?home.htm

[9] http://text.rcarabbis.org/parashat-noach-stealth-tora-teachers-the-yeshiva-of-shem-and-ever-by-yaakov-bieler/

[10] http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/toledos.pdf

[11] RaMBaN, who wrote his commentary on the Tora in Israel after having been exiled from Spain as a result of his polemical debate with Pablo Christiani, and therefore was far more familiar with the actual places in the land than his medieval contemporaries, strives to reconcile the geographical problems that such an interpretation raises in his notes on 28:17.

[12] Although realizing that the both the First and Second Temples have been destroyed could serve to suggest that praying in such a place will serve to depress rather than inspire spiritual feelings, on the one hand it is appropriate to confront the shortcomings that led to the Temples’ destruction at the time of prayer in order to assume the proper posture towards HaShem, the object of our prayers (i.e., if we have not attempted to alleviate our own “Sinat Chinam” [needless hatred]—the cause for the destruction of the Second Temple according to Yoma 9b—and, on the other, Yaakov was inspired by a place that only in the FUTURE would be the site of the Temples, suggesting that the place itself independent of any structure built upon it, is the catalyst for spirituality. Furthermore, in light of the Divine Promise to Restore the Temple when Jews have atoned for their sins, the Temple Mount is the future site of the Third Temple!

[13] Megilla 28b, by stating that synagogues outside of Israel are built “Al T’nai” (conditionally) and therefore once they are destroyed, people need not treat the sites with the type of dignity necessitated when the structures were standing, could still be interpreted to mean that when the synagogues are standing, there is not only holiness as a result of the building, but the site as well. The difference between Israel and Chutz LaAretz (outside of Israel) is when the synagogue has been unfortunately destroyed: in Israel, the site retains holiness, which is not the case in Chutz LaAretz.

[14] See my essay on Fear of Heaven and prayer at http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/728737/Rabbi_Jack_Bieler/Fear_of_God_and_Prayer

Just prior to the destruction of the cities Sodom and Amora (Beraishit 19:24-25), Lot, Avraham’s nephew (see 11:31), and at least a portion of his family[1] manage to escape. However, one member of the group that originally leaves Sodom, never reaches safety, and instead, becomes a perpetual monument[2] to the destruction that takes place in this once prosperous and fertile area.[3] Despite an explicit directive to Lot from one of the angels [4] for everyone in his family to run for their lives and not look back at what is befalling Sodom and Amora (19:17), Lot’s wife, Idit/Irit,[5] cannot resist taking one more look, and as a result, is turned into a pillar of salt (19:26).[6]

The symbolism of Mrs. Lot’s being encased in salt.

On a literal level, it can be maintained that since sulfur and salt are components of both the destruction and its aftermath,[7] for Mrs. Lot to end up being encased in at least one of these materials is hardly surprising.

Yet most traditional commentators understand her fate to constitute an embodiment of poetic justice, the Divine Symmetry of “Mida KeNeged Mida” (lit. a measure for a measure, i.e., one receives treatment in accordance with how one has conducted himself or paralleling what one has meted out to others).[8] RaShI on 19:26 references a theme that is recounted in ever-greater detail in several Midrashei Aggada (Midrash explicating the story- [as opposed to the legal-] portion of the Tora).

By salt she sinned, and by salt she was stricken.

He (Lot) said to her, “Give a little salt to these guests.”

She said to him, “Even this evil practice you have come to institute in this place?”

By citing this particular Midrashic account of why salt is chosen as the appropriate medium for Mrs. Lot’s punishment, RaShI implies that she was a native Sodomite, someone who regularly objected to what she perceived were her husband’s “dangerous, alien” practices of dealing kindly with those in need,[9] which he had obviously developed while in the company of Avraham whose model he was trying to emulate.[10] By looking back, she demonstrates that to the very end, she identifies more with those who die in Sodom than with her husband and their two daughters who end up escaping unscathed.

Identifying the basis for casting Mrs. Lot in such a negative light.

Imagining that Mrs. Lot would speak to her husband in such a blatantly unsympathetic manner regarding offering salt to Lot’s guests, may be fueled by 19:9, in which we learn what the Sodomites, intent upon wresting the three guests away from Lot’s protection, say regarding their host’s stalling tactics, “…One (Lot) comes to (merely) sojourn with us, and he presumes to judge us and our intentions…?” As a result, some of the Rabbis attempt to cast Lot into the role of a social reformer in Sodom, interpreting 19:1, i.e., Lot’s sitting in the gateway of the city, not that he was on the lookout for guests in the manner of Avraham, but rather that he had just been appointed a judge, based upon the assumption that the municipal court is usually located in the gateway of the city. Paralleling the critique placed in the mouth of Lot’s wife, from the comment in 19:9 it would appear that the native population was prepared to accept Lot, the outsider, only as long as he did not openly oppose their vices and perversions.

Attributing to Mrs. Lot’s turning into a pillar of salt to other, similar transgressions.

Instead of casting the issue of offering salt to guests as a point of contention between Lot and his wife, Beraishit Rabba 51:5, omits mention of such a conversation, and instead portrays “Idit/Irit”[11] as blatantly asking her neighbors for salt in order to indicate to them that guests had come into her house,  thereby holding  her directly responsible for the eventual attempt to rape the three guests that had accepted Lot’s offer of hospitality (19:4-5).

R. Yitzchak said: She sinned with salt. On the very night that the angels had come to Lot, what did she do? She went to all of her neighbors and said to them, “Give me some salt because we have guests.”  Her intent was to alert everyone to their presence.

Midrash Sechel Tov on Beraishit 19 suggests that among Sodomites, asking for salt was actually a previously-agreed-upon code indicating that visitors had come to the asker’s home and that an “invitation” was now being extended for others to come and harass the unsuspecting guests.

More prosaically, but echoing a similar theme, Rabbeinu Bachaye maintains that at least on one occasion, a mendicant had come to Mrs. Lot’s door requesting salt, and she refused to give him any, thereby identifying the medium for her eventual punishment.

A commentator’s alternative approaches to account for Mrs. Lot being turned into a pillar of salt.

At the beginning of RaMBaN’s commentary on 19:17, although not explaining why Mrs. Lot was turned into a pillar of salt, the medieval commentator contends that the reason for the instruction to Lot’s family not to turn back and watch Sodom and Amora’s destruction, is due to their not really deserving being saved in the first place. The Tora goes out of its way to state in 19:29, “And it was when HaShem Destroyed the cities of the valley, and HaShem Remembered AVRAHAM, and He Sent Lot from the midst of the destruction, when He Destroyed the cities in which Lot resided”, clearly indicating that Lot was saved by the merit of Avraham, rather than because of his own noble acts and spiritual nature.[12] Consequently, RaMBaN continues, for Lot and his family to watch from a distance the intense devastation in which they themselves deserved to be included, was deemed insensitive and inappropriate. While such an approach does not single out any particular sin committed on the part of any member of Lot’s family, including his wife, nevertheless they could be found guilty “by association”, i.e., the fact that the family continued to live in these environs, despite their recognition of how the members of this society conducted themselves, suggests that if Lot’s family wasn’t actively complicit in the criminality of the place, they apparently weren’t scandalized by such an environment either.

RaMBaN then proceeds to present  two other hypotheses regarding the prohibition against Lot’s family watching Sodom and Amora being destroyed, the first of which  accounts for why she was reduced to a mound of salt. On the one hand, the medieval commentator invokes the belief that if one sees, smells, or even thinks about forms of destruction, these sicknesses and even death will end up engulfing the onlooker. Consequently, when one watches everything else die upon being covered in salt, he becomes at risk for the same fate. While it would appear that RaMBaN understands such a process to operate metaphysically, we can appreciate the approach in psychological terms. When an individual watches terrible things take place, he can become scarred for life, and even lose the will to live on. While it may be important to recall what has happened to you and your people at regular intervals, to have to serve as a lifetime eye-witness to indescribable horrors may be more than an individual is able to withstand.

A third proposal by RaMBaN advances the extreme opposite idea that the danger posed by looking back at Sodom and Amora while they were being destroyed, had nothing to do with members of Lot’s family being sinful, but rather the scene was simply too holy for mere mortals to watch. Much like Moshe is told when he asks to be allowed to see God’s Essence, (33:20) “…‘You are unable to see My Face, because no human can see Me and live’”, so too to watch the Destroying Angel or even God’s Presence[13] engaged in carrying out this massive and brutal destruction, was not for human eyes to see, and should someone see what they were not authorized to, punishment would come swiftly and irreversibly.

An explanation for Mrs. Lot’s transformation based upon her humanity rather than some evil nature.

But the most poignant depiction of the catalyst for Mrs. Lot’s fatal looking back appears in Midrash Aggada (Bober) on Beraishit 19:26, as well as Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer #25.

After the angel said to her, “Do not look behind you” her soul was pained regarding her daughters that remained in Sodom.[14]

Irit, the wife of Lot, was overcome with compassion for her married daughters, and she looked behind her to see if they were or weren’t coming behind her, and she then saw the Back of the Divine Presence, and was turned into a pillar of salt.[15]

By shifting the emphasis concerning Lot’s wife, from her sinfulness due to a LACK of compassion for guests, wayfarers, and even her husband, to her EXCESSIVE compassion for two children that she feared she would never see again, an entirely different impression is left upon the reader regarding this woman. And realizing that both sides of the argument, i.e., those who say she was evil and those who are not ready to go that far, are basing themselves on no more than Rabbinic Aggadic texts, would seem to suggest that it is equally possible to view her either way, or perhaps both ways simultaneously. If she saw her offspring as projections of herself, then the same negative attitude towards strangers might make her devotion that much greater to “her own.” For the purpose of highlighting moral choices and preferred behavior, it is convenient to portray Biblical characters in “black-and-white” terms, when there is an incorporation of “real-life” experience with the Biblical texts, the tendency should be in the direction of recognizing and acknowledging the complexities rather than the simplicities of the major and minor personalities described in our Holy Scriptures. Is it as possible to say that Idit/Irit possessed both senses of compassion—none for guests and everything for children—simultaneously, as it is to say that both qualities cannot reside in the same person at the same time? So much of the Tora is devoted to external actions, rather than emotions or thoughts. While it is intriguing to speculate what someone like Mrs. Lot is thinking during the time that she appears in the Biblical narrative, to be able to conclude with any sort of certainly what sort of person she was, will always remain a mystery. What do you think?

[2] Berachot 54a-b lists eight places that when one visits them, a blessing should be offered to HaShem for having performed a miracle during the course of Jewish history. One of the eight is the pillar of salt which Lot’s wife becomes. Yalkut Shimoni BeShalach #256, based upon Tehillim 111:4 (“A commemoration He Makes for His Miracles), views Lot’s wife becoming a pillar of salt not so much as a punishment, but rather a means to precipitate recollections about what transpired in this place during this time.

[3] When Lot is given the choice by his uncle to pick a place so that he can take up residence away from Avraham’s encampment and avoid the conflicts that engendered ill-feeling between their shepherds (13:6-7), the Tora in 13:10 describes the area of Sodom and Amora as “completely fertile…like a garden of God, like the land of Egypt…” The Garden of Eden is certainly a paradigm for fertility, as is Egypt, the latter being regularly irrigated by the overflow of the Nile—see Devarim 11:10.

[4] Commentators point out that while three “guests” visit Avraham’s tent at the beginning of Parashat VaYera (18:2), only two proceed to Sodom (19:1). RaShI on 18:2, following the principle that every angel is assigned a specific task unique from those of his colleagues, lists the roles that each of the three original angels were appointed to fulfill: one to inform Sara of the impending birth of a son (18:10, 13-15) (this angel, once fulfilling his mission, does not continue on to Sodom since there is nothing comparable for him to accomplish there), one to destroy Sodom and Amora (19:24-25) and one to both heal Avraham following his circumcision, and to save Lot (19:17), with the understanding that healing and saving from death constitute a single rather than multiple functions. It would then further follow that the angel who instructs the refugees not to look back at the scene of destruction and devastation (19:17) is the same one who is charged with saving them, since looking back would endanger their ability to be saved.

[5] Various sources list Mrs. Lot’s name as either “Irit”—Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer Chapt. 25, Rabbeinu Bachaye on 19:17; or “Idit”—Yalkut Shimoni #84, Midrash Tanchuma Parshat VaYera #8.

[6] A less dramatic reading of the verse is offered by Bechor Shor who understands that Mrs. Lot was simply covered with salt as was the rest of the area to which sulfur and salt were indiginous—19:4 mentions sulfur, and Devarim 29:22 associates sulfur and salt as chemicals that will render a once fertile land infertile—rain down upon it. However, most commentators understand that at least at the outset, Mrs. Lot’s form could be discerned from among the vast area that had been covered with these chemicals.

[7] See fn. 5.

[8] Other examples of “Mida KeNeged Mida” include: RaMBaN on Beraishit 11:2; RaShI on Beraishit 28:9; RaMBaN on Shemot 6:13; RaShI on BaMidbar 14:37.

[9] The basis for the general cultural attitude of hostility to guests in Sodom, to which Mrs. Lot as well as the unruly mob surrounding her house, are apparently being faithful, is discussed in Sanhedrin 109a.

Our Rabbis taught: The people of Sodom waxed haughty only on account of the good which the Holy One, Blessed be He, had lavished upon them. What is written concerning them? (Iyov 28:5-8) “As for the earth, out of it comes bread, and under it, it is burned up as if it were fire. The stones of it are the place of sapphires, and it has dust of gold…” They say: Since bread comes forth out of our earth, and it has the dust of gold, why should we tolerate wayfarers, who come to us ONLY TO DEPLETE OUR WEALTH? Come, let us abolish the practice of traveling in our land, as it is written, (Iyov 28:4) “The flood breaks out from the inhabitants; they are forgotten of the foot, they are dried up, they have gone away from men.”

The Talmud goes on to illustrate how policies originally intended to discourage new immigrants or visitors attempting to avail themselves of Sodom’s comforts and wealth, eventually cause Sodomites to turn on one another, and erode the possibilities for even poor Sodomites, to receive financial assistance from those more wealthy. Not only would the natives not share with outsiders, but they would withhold help even from their fellow citizens, as reflected in the comment in Avot 5:10, “…A person who says, ‘Mine is mine and yours is yours’…there are those who say that this is the policy prevalent in Sodom…”

[10] In many respects, Parashat VaYera provides us with a stark contrast between uncle Avraham  and nephew Lot and their respective wives, regarding the welcoming and entertaining of guests.

a.   18:2 Avraham is sitting in the doorway of his tent, and RUNS to meet his three visitors, bowing to them.

b.   Ibid., 3-5 Avraham insists upon their accepting his hospitality instead of carrying on with their journey, and IMMEDIATELY encourages them to wash themselves, cool off  in the shade, and have a small amount to eat, yet never actually invites them into his tent (is there implied a modesty issue, if Sara was within?).

c.     Ibid., 6-8 Avraham RUNS to ask SARA to bake CAKES and then RUNS to prepare CHOICE MEAT and other REFINED FOODS, additionally enlisting a YOUTH to assist. He also PERSONALLY serves them and makes sure that all of their needs are taken care of.

a`.   19:1 Lot too sits in the gateway of Sodom (= the doorway of a tent). But he   is   described as only RISING before his visitors, although he does bow down (as did Avraham).

b`.   Ibid., 2 Lot invites his guests first to come into his house, and only then to spend the night and wash. He suggests that they be on their way after rising early in the morning. In contrast to Avraham, Lot’s visitors initially refuse to accept his hospitality.

c`.    They finally agree to come into Lot’s abode. No mention is made of anyone other than Lot preparing and giving food to the visitors. Furthermore, there is a stark contrast between the cakes that Avraham ordered for his guests, as compared to Lot’s only making Matzot.

[11] Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer #25 identifies Mrs. Lot’s name as either Irit or Idit.

[12] Yalkut Shimoni Parshat VaYera #85 makes the case that at least Lot deserved to be saved on his own merit. The incident that is cited is when Avraham, fleeing to Egypt in the face of a famine that beset Egypt, originally represented Sara as his sister, Lot was silent and did not contradict the false representation made by his uncle and aunt. The compensation for this meritorious act was his being saved from the destruction of Sodom and Amora..

[13] See Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer, Chapt. 25.

[14] See fn. 1.

[15] This latter approach to understanding Mrs. Lot’s motivation for turning back to look is borne out by Berachot 54b, in which it is stated that the blessing that should be made when confronting the pillar of salt that once was Irit/Idit, is “Baruch Dayan HaEmet” (Blessed be He, the true Judge.) The concept of applying “Tzidduk HaDin” (justifying the judgment, however unpalatable it appears) to the final resting place of an evil woman would not be logical, leading to the conclusion that Lot’s wife was not to be viewed in this manner, at least according to this Talmudic passage in Berachot.