Parshat Vayeishev 5779 - The Measure of Holiness

Parsha Paragraphs

Rabbi Naftali Moshe Kassorla

Parshat Vayeishev 5779

The Measure of Holiness

The D’var Torah for this week is dedicated anonymously by a very special person for the רפואה שלימה of:

דוד שמחה בן יהודית פנינה נ״י

If you are interested in sponsoring a D’var Torah in honor or in memory of someone, or for any occasion, please email: ParshaParagraphs@gmail.com

In this week’s parsha we learn of the tragic event of the selling of Yosef, by his brothers no less. This was spurred on by Yosef sharing his dreams with his brothers, which engendered negative feelings from them, as the brothers assumed them to be dreams of grandeur. Additionally, Yaakov gives Yosef a special coat signifying Yaakov’s love for him. Fearing Yosef to be a threat, the brothers decide to dispose of him, initially wanting to have him killed. But due to Reuven’s intervention, the brothers decide to instead sell Yosef to merchants heading down to Egypt.

Thus begins the the arduous exile of the Jewish people in the land of Egypt. Yosef is thrown into servitude in the house of Potiphar. Quickly proving himself to be capable, Yosef is appointed to a position of authority in the household. Potiphar’s wife is drawn towards him and seeks to tempt him. Yosef overcomes this test and commits no crime, but in response to the wife’s accusations, he is nevertheless imprisoned.

There is a fascinating Gemara in Sotah (36b) which contrasts this episode with another from the sedra: that of Yehuda and Tamar. Tamar cunningly leads Yehuda to father a child through her, and Yehuda openly admits to being the father. He does so despite severe embarrassment, having already sentenced Tamar to death for her actions and subsequently needing to retract his condemnation in full view of all. Thus he was given the זכות that his name יהודה contain the letters of G-d’s ineffable name, י-ה-ו-ה. The Gemara goes on to say that this differs from Yosef’s name, which only includes part of Hashem’s name: י-ה-ו (based on תהילים 81:6, where the Gemara explains that the letter ה was added to Yosef's name, spelling יהוסף). The Gemara then elaborates with great detail the story of Yosef and the wife of Potiphar, how difficult a challenge it was and the extent to which Yosef went not to succumb to temptation.

In juxtaposing this with Yehuda’s act of strength, the Gemara seems to imply that Yosef somehow fell short! As such, he was not granted a merit as high as Yehuda’s. On the other hand, the Gemara appears to be praising Yosef for his great accomplishment. How then is that an explanation for why Yosef was not as meritorious to have G-d’s name fully reflected in his name?

I would like to provide an answer to this question. In a discussion on the topic of יחוד, Rav Aharon Lopiansky שליט״א, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva of Greater Washington - Tiferes Gedaliah in Silver Spring, quoted his Rebbe the Mirrer Rosh Yeshiva Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz זצ״ל saying: When it comes to the world of עריות (licentious behavior), the measure of success is not based on whether one falls prey in the moment or not. Rather, the true test is to have the wisdom and foresight to plan accordingly to take the necessary precautions, not to put ourselves in a precarious position to begin with. Thus, says Rav Chaim, this is the depth of the prohibition of יחוד, for it guarantees that a person will not even find himself in a challenging situation in the first place. One who is careful with these halachot itself has already passed the test.

With this in mind, we can now attempt to understand Yosef Hatzadik, who is known throughout Rabbinic and Kabbalistic literature and the paragon of holiness and purity, and the Gemara’s apparent critique despite his having overcome his Yetzer Harah. For perhaps we can say (in our incredibly superficial understanding of his motives and actions) that Yosef should not have allowed himself to be in the situation to begin with. The fact that he overcame the temptation, while showing great strength and surely deserving of praise, does not exempt him from making sure he does not find himself in a place where he is tempted. A true showing of success in this area would have been the extent to which he went to avoid such circumstances.

Perhaps this may be what the Gemara is addressing in telling us that Yosef was not meritorious as to have his name fully reflect that of G-d’s.1

It is important to reiterate that we cannot fully ascertain the true understanding of both the Gemara and Yosef's actions, but we can take this as lesson to internalize: we must not allow ourselves to be placed in precarious situations where we are likely to be tested. Post facto, if G-d forbid we have indeed succumbed, the correct course of action is not to wallow in sadness, for clearly, once in the situation, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the challenge may have been too great for us to handle. Rather, at that point the real test is to take a lesson for the future, to make the proper סייגים (precautionary measures) to ensure that it will not happen again.

This message is surely timely with the myriad of accusations of inappropriate behavior in the news daily by supposedly “prominent” public figures. This should spur us to both strengthen our behavior and increase our respect the clairvoyance of our Chazal. May Hashem grant us the strength to resist any negative temptations that come our way, and may we all have the wisdom to always put ourselves in places that will be conducive to growth, happiness and greater avodat Hashem.

Shabbat Shalom

---

Notes:

1. In fact, the Gemara [ibid.] quotes an opinion that interprets the verse: …ויהי כהיום הזה ויבא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו “And it was on that day that he entered the house to do his work” (39:11) – he went to fulfill his “needs” with her, i.e. to have relations with her. Meaning that he indeed went with the intention of sinning. Even according to the alternate opinion, that he went to do actual work, he still should not have been alone, having known Potiphar's wife had tried to seduce him in the past. However according the above, one could ask: Yehuda himself also should not have put himself into the situation with Tamar! So what is the great praise of Yehuda, in comparison to Yosef? Seemingly, Yosef is even more praiseworthy, for he didn't succumb to temptation, while Yehuda did in fact “give in” in being with Tamar. Perhaps we then need to take into consideration the explanation of Yehuda’s actions according to the Midrash and the דעת זקנים, which says that an Angel forced Yehuda to pursue Tamar, thus by removing his free-will, he is not held accountable. The great act of strength we are highlighting about Yehudah is not whether he gave in to temptation of עריות, but rather the fact that he later admitted to his sin, and for that he is rewarded.

Parshat Vayeitzei 5779 - Two Letters, One Word, and a World of Difference

Parsha Paragraphs

Rabbi Naftali Kassorla

Parshat Vayeitzei 5779

Two Letters, One Word, and a World of Difference

The D’var Torah for this week is dedicated in the memory of:

ר׳ אלחנן יעקב זצ״ל בן מורי וחמי ר׳ שמואל פנחס

If you are interested in sponsoring a D’var Torah in honor of a loved one, or for any occasion, please email: ParshaParagraphs@gmail.com

In this week's parsha we learn about Yaakov leaving his family, the work he did for Lavan, and the children his wives bore – building the future nation of the Jewish People. 

Yaakov, fulfilling the command of his father and mother, finally reaches Lavan. Lavan excitedly runs out to greet Yaakov, for he recalls how when Eliezer visited the family on his mission, he arrived with a wealth of gifts. Lavan expects that Yaakov will follow suit.

However, as the Midrash tells us, Yaakov gave all his money to Eisav’s son Eliphaz. Eliphaz pursued Yaakov because he had been commanded by his father to kill Yaakov, but Yaakov was wisely able to convince Eliphaz to instead rob him of all his money, since a poor man is likened to a dead man (Nedarim 64b), and therefore fulfilling his father's directive. Thus Yaakov, upon his arrival to Charan, comes with nothing.

Yaakov recounts all this to Lavan, who was apparently dismayed to learn that Yaakov indeed had no gifts for him. Still, he welcomes Yaakov into his home saying: ״אך עצמי ובשרי״ – “Nevertheless, you are my bone and flesh” (Bereishit 29:14). Both the statement and the act are seemingly a great חסד on the part of Lavan – taking a destitute man into his home is no small feat, and receiving nothing for it in return. And Lavan doesn’t just invite him in arbitrarily; he does so on the account of familial ties, displaying a sense of love and brotherhood.

Yet, surprisingly, when we look towards our great Sages to give color and meaning to the interactions and motives of our forefathers, we see this episode in an entirely different light.

Rashi, quoting the Midrash Rabbah, tells us what was really going on beneath Lavan’s words: “‘I have no reason to bring you into the house since you have nothing in your hand, אך (nevertheless), because we are family, I will care for you a month of days.’ And so he [Lavan] did, but even that was not without charge, for Yaakov would graze [Lavan’s] flocks”.

This Chazal is truly astounding. In adding depth to what Lavan said, it changes the entire tone and intention of what was, on the surface, a good deed! How did Chazal extract this interpretation out of what Lavan said? What is it that they saw in Lavan’s words which altered the content so drastically?

The Mizrachi (one of the preeminent commentaries on Rashi) points to Lavan’s use of אך – a word which indicates an exclusion i.e. that Lavan “limite” his offer to take Yaakov in. He was really limiting the chesed, saying that because he was receiving nothing, he had no reason to care for Yaakov. Rather only because Yaakov was family would Lavan care for him.

All Lavan really needed to say when welcoming Yaakov in was: אתה עצמי ובשרי - For your are my family. This would have connoted to Yaakov that despite his having nothing, the ties of family obligated Lavan to care for him. Yet Lavan doesn't do that;  he adds אך. Two letters – one word – that changed the meaning of everything. Lavan, by adding אך intended set up a scenario where he could “get something” out of Yaakov. He sent Yaakov a message: “You owe me.” He wanted to make Yaakov feel guilty for taking from him.

Two letters, one word, small enough to slip right in, but big enough to destroy any semblance of a good deed. Lavan needed to make Yaakov feel guilty for not bringing anything, to make him feel like a burden, and create a debt that should be repaid. This is the antithesis of חסד; it is an evil act dressed up in a pretty bow, and Chazal picked up on this subtle piece which made all the difference.

Though Lavan is known as the epitome of treachery, as we say in the Haggadah ובקש לבן לעקור את הכל. Nonetheless, it would be foolish to think that this type of act is limited solely to Lavan. For how often do we respond the same way – adding in a word, a pause, or something as subtle as a change in tone when we agree to do something? When asked for a favor or an errand, do we hesitantly reply: “Oy...yeah sure… I’ll do it”? How often do we recall to our friends the great act of חסד we did for them, telling them how hard or how expensive it was, supposedly without asking for anything in return? “You don’t even realize what I went through to…” Sure, we’d like to justify these statements as a showing of how much we care for the other person and the great lengths to which we would go to make them happy...but we all know that this is שקר; because deep down we want recognition for what we did. Just like Lavan, in our small way we too are looking for our “payment.”

Through further introspection, a person of sensitivity can objectively realize that all this serves to accomplish is making the recipient feel guilty for not just taking, but for even asking in the first place. As givers, we should do for others without creating any feeling of guilt or debt, and that will be the greatest gift we can give – a true חסד.

Nobody wants to feel like they are a burden, and because of that, it is incumbent upon us to give in way that not only strengthens, but also eases the feelings of the receiver.

My friend Rabbi Tuvia Epstein Shlit”a pointed out to me an incredible הערה: this low level act of “kindness” of Lavan is amazingly contrasted with what we have seen in the previous parshiot. Avraham welcomed in the travelling Angels posing as men, offering them only water and bread, yet provided them with a full meal. But even more so, he was self-effacing when inviting them: ויאמר אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך אל נא תעבור מעל עבדיך (And he said, ‘My Lord, if I find favor in your eyes, please pass not away from your servant’). Note how Avraham places the focus on their presence as a kindness to him, that it is his honor and pleasure to service them, in no way making the travellers feel that Avraham was doing them a favor!

This is how chesed should be done, not with guilting, not by self aggrandizement, rather simply focusing on others, their needs, their feelings, and their comfort. And the more focused we are on this goal, the more we can be aware of the subtle messages we are sending, and be sensitive to avoid any action which will detract from the great opportunity to do a complete chesed. We should be blessed in our endeavors in attempting to inculcate this lesson.

Shabbat Shalom

Parshat Toldot 5779 - In Father’s Footsteps

Parsha Paragraphs

Rabbi Naftali Moshe Kassorla

Parshat Toldot 5779

In Father’s Footsteps

The D’var Torah for this week is dedicated in memory of:

ר׳ אלחנן יעקב זצ״ל בן מורי וחמי ר׳ שמואל פנחס

If you are interested in sponsoring a D’var Torah in honor or in memory of someone, or for any occasion, please email: ParshaParagraphs@gmail.com

When we attempt to glean insight into our great forefather Yitzchak Avinu, we are faced with an insurmountable wall, not just because of our own limitations in being able to fully grasp his (and the other אבות’s) spiritual greatness. But also because the Torah does not give us much material to work with.

Yitzchak’s life seems to jump from birth, to the Akeidah, to his marriage, an episode with Avimelech, and then his impending death and his desire to pass on the blessings of Avraham. This pales in comparison to the detail the Torah records for Avraham, and is doubled by the episodes of Yaakov.

Yet, when we look deeper into the Torah, we can parse out a common theme, which can perhaps be a window into the essence of Yitzchak and his life’s mission.

The parsha begins:

 ואלה תולדת יצחק בן אברהם אברהם הוליד את יצחק

These are the תולדות of Yitzchak. Avraham begot Yitzchak (Bereishit 25:19)

The Torah, rather than delineate Yitzchak’s children, instead points out that Yitzchak was born to Avraham.

The word תולדות in Biblical Hebrew can have a dual meaning, and the context in which it is used often presents a challenge to the commentators to explain its usage. Literally תולדות means “the progeny” or children. Thus, if used accordingly, the next logical line would be a list of the descendants of that person. Yet, we have also seen the word תולדות used in its other form – to convey a message regarding that person or tell his history. Thus we saw previously that the Torah used תולדות in reference to Noach, only to list off his qualities – because the Torah was making a statement about his essence.

I would like to suggest that here as well, the Torah is making a statement about the character of Yitzchak and that is: Yitzchak was, both in lineage but also in ideology “בן אברהם” – the son of Avraham Avinu. He viewed himself in this capacity as the torchbearer of Avraham’s legacy. Once we establish this theme, it becomes more evident that this was the essence of Yitzchak’s life.

We see this in later in the parsha, when a famine strikes the Land:

ויהי רעב בארץ מלבד הרעב הראשון אשר היה בימי אברהם וילך יצחק אל אבימלך מלך פלשתים גררה. וירא אליו יהוה ויאמר אל תרד מצרימה שכן בארץ אשר אמר אליך.

There was a famine in the land—aside from the previous famine that had occurred in the days of Avraham—and Yitzchak went to Avimelech, king of the Plishtim, in Gerar. Hashem had appeared to him and said, “Do not go down to Egypt; stay in the land which I point out to you.” (Ibid. 26:1-2)

Why does Hashem deem it necessary to tell him not to go down? Does the Torah mention anything about him intending to go? The answer is clear: Because Yitzchak was emulating his father, and just like Avraham went down to Egypt, so too Yitzchak intended to go. Thus Hashem had to preempt by explicitly prohibiting Yitzchak from going.

We read further on:

וישב יצחק ויחפר את־בארת המים אשר חפרו בימי אברהם אביו ויסתמום פלשתים אחרי מות אברהם ויקרא להן שמות כשמת אשר־קרא להן אביו

Yitzchak dug anew the wells which had been dug in the days of his father Avraham and which the Plishtim had blocked after Avraham’s death; and he gave them the same names that his father had given them. (Ibid. 18)

Yitzchak goes back to the wells that Avraham dug and re-digs them, but not just that; he gives them the exact same names, just as his father had done. Again we see this common thread – Yitzchak was the consummate son – emulating his father in all his deeds.

Yet, with all this in mind, we have to ask a fundamental question: Each of the אבות had their own unique qualities, and infused the world and their descendants with those qualities for generations to come. It seems however, that Yitzchak was almost a carbon copy of Avraham Avinu, acting exactly as his father did. What was Yitzchak’s unique quality and what did he bring forth to the world? 

As developed here in previous parshiot, we have pointed out that the greatness of Avraham Avinu was his strength in making drastic decisions which would impact him and his family for generations to come, in the pursuit of the truth. Avraham is the archetypal iconoclast¹ – unafraid to stand out from the world around him, a word steeped in degenerate idol worship².

Professor Gregory Berns, a neuroscientist and professor at Emory University and author of the book “Iconoclast: A Neuroscientist Reveals How to Think Differently” explains that human behavior is largely dictated (if unchecked) by fear. But Professor Berns explains “the ability of the successful iconoclast is to overcome those fears and actually persevere and perform under those circumstances.” He explains that a natural iconoclast is someone who isn’t deterred by the fear to be different and the natural blowback it invites.

Yet, being an iconoclast is a double-edged sword. Inasmuch as a person can stand out and be different, it is then a challenge for the iconoclast to remain the same! For some, there is a pleasure in being different and standing out. Perhaps for the special attention it illicits; it feeds into a feeling of uniqueness, even of superiority that they are more knowledgeable, more elite than the mainstream. But upon reflection, there is no value unto itself to want be different – for the sake of being different. Rather the value is to be willing to be different for the sake of the truth.

Thus, if one is constantly “going against the grain,” not due to deeply thought-out principles, then what happens when everyone is like them?  The faux iconoclast inevitably feels uncomfortable and needs to change – again! Why? Because his initial change wasn’t rooted in truth, it was rooted in the simple desire to be different.

Perhaps Avraham was willing to be a renegade and set himself apart because he was a natural dissident? Who is to say that his future progeny, would not do the same! They may simply not have a fear to break away and be different, and then would perhaps act differently from Avraham himself!

The ability to maintain what Avraham accomplished is what Yitzchak brought to the table. Yitzchak, the son of the iconoclast was being the consummate son – attempting to replicate his father in all his actions. But how did he do this? Not by being different; rather by being the same, by sticking with the truth and the message that Avraham gifted the world. 

With this understanding, we also gain a deeper appreciation for the choices and nature of Avraham Avinu. The fact that Yitzchak was sincere in his actions proves that Avraham did not act for the sake of being different. Rather, his choices were borne out of a discovery of truth. It is that truth which him to be different.

The challenge now was to continue to have the גבורה, the strength and will to stick to this truth. This perhaps is an aspect of the גבורת יצחק³ – to remain true to the message of Avraham and not change for the sake of change, but change for the sake of truth.

Shabbat Shalom

1. Ironically the historical definition of an Iconoclast is: “destroyer of images used in religious worship, in particular” (Derived from Greek for "breaker of icons" wittier in Medieval Greek as εἰκονοκλάστης). Avraham Avinu was literally the first breaker of Idols, the supreme iconoclast.
   
2. Perhaps we really don’t stop to fully appreciate what it meant in those days to totally disconnect oneself from his land, his tribe, and direct family members. Outside of losing the general hierarchy and position within your tribe, and the economic shared benefits that nomadic tribes had established for themselves, it also meant possibly being killed as a traitor. Leaving the ingroup was tantamount to rebelling the old order. No wonder לך לך is counted among the Ten trials that Avraham had to endure. See Eichler, Barry L, ‘Nuzi and the Bible: A Retrospective’ in: Dumu-e-dub-ba-a: Studies in Honor of Ake W. Sjoberg, ed. Hermann Behrens, Darlene Loding, and Martha T Roth, pp. 107-19, Philadelphia: University Museum, 1989 for further reading.
   
3. עיין בזוהר חדש פרשת יתרו דף נה: ״יומא תניינא יצחק, דדרגיה גבורה, לקבליה יומא חמישאה, דאיהו הוד, דרגא דדוד״