Parshat Vayigash

When Joseph Feudalized Egypt (Genesis 47) - Questions by Joel Cohen

Joseph created an ingenious plan to store crops during the seven years of abundance. He did so by accepting the crops from the landowners and farmers in Egypt and then storing them in the warehouses that he set aside for the purpose.
But then the years of famine arrived, and Egypt cried out in starvation (“Give us bread; why should we die in your presence?”) So, Joseph demanded that the Egyptians bring to him, for that year, all their livestock and cattle, and in return he would provide them with bread. When the year ended and they began to hunger again in the next year, they once again begged Joseph for provisions, lest they die of starvation. Their livestock having been given over to Joseph previously they had none to give, and so they offered their land to Pharaoh and, furthermore, offered to become his serfs. Thusly, Joseph obtained all of the land that belonged to the people for Pharaoh (aside from the land that belonged to the priests). True, he did give them seed, but retained one-fifth of the harvests for Pharaoh, allowing the people to keep only four-fifths of the harvests. And most important here, the land remained Pharaoh’s.
• Joseph’s conduct seems questionable and despotic indeed. He did create an ingenious plan to save the populace in anticipating years of famine; but, in so doing, he took the landowners’ and farmers’ crops for Pharaoh’s storehouses. When the landowners and farmers, however, needed the benefits of his brilliance during the “famine years” it seems that he extorted all of their livestock, and then their land also. Are these the actions of a “righteous” man?
• If a 21st Century despot were to do to his populace what Joseph did to Egypt, we would sorely condemn him. Why do the rabbis not condemn Joseph for this conduct? Is it simply because the “victims” of Joseph’s scheme were Egyptian?

Rabbi Adam Mintz

There are many tools that have been used to help us understand the difficult sections of the Torah. While we most often turn to our traditional commentaries, it is sometimes helpful to explore the practice of the Ancient World in order to gain insight into practices described by the Torah. In answering Joel’s questions and looking at Joseph’s actions as viceroy of Egypt, I would like to examine the Egyptian culture of the time.

The Torah seems to describe a two step process as Joel mentioned. First, the people give Joseph their livestock in exchange for food and then they give Joseph their land in exchange for food. The Torah tells us that the food from the first exchange was used up “at the end of the first year”. However, we have no reference point to “the first year” of what? Was it the first year of the famine so that they still had six years of famine to deal with or maybe this passuk picks up the story in the middle and the end of the first year represents the beginning of the final year of the famine. This would mean the people made the deal to exchange land for food since they knew that this last step would see them to the end of the famine.

While both these readings are plausible, the most important aspect of this story is the understanding that Egyptian records claim that in Ancient Egypt, from about the 16th century BCE, which roughly corresponds to the period of Joseph, while people were permitted to own their own land, most of the land was the property of the king. If this is so, Joseph’s deal to acquire the rest of the property in exchange for food was not the action of an unsympathetic despot but someone who was working within the ancient system of laws and customs. Whether there is a system of ethics that transcends time and place is an important philosophical and religious issue. However, in judging the figures of the past, we must base our judgment on the traditions and practices of the culture in which they lived.

Eli Popack

There is possibly an added lesson that can be derived from this discussion. In this weeks Parsha we read about the beginning of the process that leads to the Slavery in Egypt, the arrival of Jacob and his family in Egypt. One of the curious things about the Egyptian exile is the importance attached to the material wealth that the Jewish people carried out of Egypt. In the covenant G-d made with Abraham, the Egyptian Slavery is described as follows: “Know thee that your children shall be strangers in a foreign land, [where] they will be enslaved and tortured ... and afterwards they will go out with great wealth.”

Again when G-d first approaches Moshe at the burning bush this promise is reiterated, “when you go, you will not go empty-handed. Every woman shall ask from her neighbor, and from her that dwells in her house, vessels of gold and vessels of silver and garments ... and you shall drain Egypt [of its wealth].” Prior to the Exodus, G-d again says to Moshe: “Please, speak into the ears of the people, that each man ask his [Egyptian] fellow, and each woman her fellow, for vessels of silver and gold.” What is this obsession that G-d seems to have with the wealth of Egypt?

According to Chassidic Thought Every Physical item has a spark of G-dliness that can be uplifted by using that item for a positive action or in the service of G-d. This is also what differentiates people from angels. People have the ability to uplift a physical object, episode or interaction by sanctifying that moment, by doing a mitzvah, while Angels are “relegated” to a spiritual world.

Each of us as the ability to make a marked difference in this world, a difference that even an Angel cannot accomplish and it is specifically through uplifting our physical environs. Specifically through using the "Gold and Silver of Egypt", seemingly negative items from an impure source, for good, through positive actions and deeds of Goodness and Kindness.

Parshat Mikeitz

Joseph and Vengeance Questions by Joel Cohen

Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers. Despite their plan to kill him -- and later to cause his enslavement that, too, might potentially cause in his death -- Joseph overcame all of his hurdles including his imprisonment at the hands of Potiphar’s wife. Yes, Joseph did, indeed, succeed in overcoming adversity through God’s aid in interpreting the dreams of Pharaoh -- leading him to become Egypt’s viceroy. Still, one can understand his eagerness to exact revenge against his unsuspecting brothers – even tormenting them by playing the “wicked viceroy.”
But, their father Jacob was an innocent in this affair. Joseph surely knew that his father would have given Joseph up for lost or dead. He would also have known that Jacob could hardly have known that Joseph himself was the wicked viceroy who took Simon as a hostage, and demanded that Benjamin be produced to him in Egypt, possibly to imprison him or worse.
• We call Joseph, Joseph “the Zaddik” -- the righteous one. How can a “righteous” son, even one justified in seeking vengeance against his guilty brothers, be willing to let his father (and innocent brother) suffer so for the sins of the other sons?
• Putting aside the issue of Jacob and Benjamin as incidental victims, is the Torah essentially telling us that exacting vengeance can be an appropriate reaction when one is the victim of clear wrongdoing by one’s fellow man?
• How can one explain that Joseph, having succeeding in Egypt, never sent word to his aging father Jacob that he was alive and well and could be of enormous aid to the entire family likely on the verge of suffering from famine?


Rabbi Adam Mintz

Joseph’s behavior vis a vis his father and his seeming neglect of his father for the duration of his stay in Egypt has been the subject of many commentaries throughout the generations. Most of these commentators attempt to justify Joseph’s actions explaining that he went through the process of manipulating the brothers in order to allow them to do teshuva.

I would like to suggest an alternative explanation based on a comment of Thomas Mann, the great German essayist of the first half of the twentieth century. In his work Joseph and His Brothers, a retelling of the stories at the end of Genesis, Mann claimed that while Joseph was in the pit he swore that he would never speak to his father again. According to Mann, Joseph blamed his father’s favoritism of him for the hatred of the brothers and for his humiliation at their hands.

According to this view, Joseph is not to be viewed as a tzaddik in his early years in Egypt. Rather, he is an estranged son who is angry at his father and blames him for all his misfortune. Joseph’s behavior in Egypt seems to support this explanation. He marries an Egyptian woman and names his son Menashe whose root is “to forget” since Joseph sees himself as having forgotten his father’s house. In addition, when the brothers come to Joseph, they do not recognize him and don’t understand the language that he speaks. While the traditional commentators try to explain the lack of recognition based on the fact that Joseph left them without a beard and now he had a beard, it seems more plausible that Joseph had totally assimilated into Egyptian society rendering him unrecognizable by his brothers.

However, this is not the end of the story. When Joseph initially sees his brothers, his inclination is to torture them and through that torture to punish his father as well. Yet, as the story progresses, Joseph seems to soften and when Judah takes responsibility for Benjamin, Joseph’s true brother, Joseph reveals himself to his brothers with the famous question ”is my father still alive?”

Joel---you asked why Joseph is called the tzaddik even though he tortured his father. I would suggest based on this reading of the story that the description of tzaddik is the rabbis’ way of telling us that Joseph was the first baal teshuva in history. He is the first character in the Torah who become estranged from his father and the tradition he represents and then after much contemplation returns to that tradition. Now that is what a tzaddik really is all about.

Eli Popack

It says there is no joy for a father greater than seeing his children co-existing in peace. In order to understand this in the context of Joels questions, and to expand on some of Rabbi Mintz’s themes in this weeks discussion, , we need to look at 2 key occurrences:

1) The discussion between the brothers at the time that Joseph reveals his identity to them
"Joseph could not hold in his emotions," the Torah relates. He dismissed from his chamber all of his Egyptian assistants, "and he began to weep with such loud sobs that the Egyptians outside could hear him. And Joseph said to his brothers: 'I am Joseph! Is my father still alive?' His brothers were so astounded, they could not respond."
The humiliation the brothers experienced when Joseph revealed himself to them did not stem from the fact that he rebuked them for their selling him into slavery. Joseph's mere appearance to them constituted the most powerful rebuke: For the first time they realized who it was that they subjected to such horrific abuse and their hearts melted away in shame.

As an aside the Talmud employs the relationship of Joseph and his brothers (According to Rabbi Elazer) as a metaphor of the relationship between the soul of a person in this world and the service of its creator. There are times epiphanies when our soul shines so strongly that we feel the closeness to G-d that a mitzvah brings, and G—d forbid the opposite is true. There are times when we realize that by neglecting our soul we have missed the point.

2) The second key interaction is the discussion between the brothers after Jacob , their father, passes away

Now Joseph's brothers saw that their father had died, and they said, "Perhaps Joseph will hate us and return to us all the evil that we did to him." 16. So they commanded [messengers to go] to Joseph, to say, "Your father commanded [us] before his death, saying, 17. 'So shall you say to Joseph, "Please, forgive now your brothers' transgression and their sin, for they did evil to you. Now please forgive the transgression of the servants of the God of your father." ' " Joseph wept when they spoke to him. 18. His brothers also went and fell before him, and they said, "Behold, we are your slaves." 19. But Joseph said to them, "Don't be afraid, for am I instead of God? 20. Indeed, you intended evil against me, [but] God designed it for good, in order to bring about what is at present to keep a great populace alive.21. So now do not fear. I will sustain you and your small children." And he comforted them and spoke to their hearts.



Based on the above it would in fact seem that Joseph does earn his stripes, so to speak, earning the title Tzaddik, for instead of acquiescing to his personal desires and urges he controls himself. When he reveals himself to his brothers he demands it be done in privacy, rashi explains that he does not want his brothers to be embarrassed. Then again when Jacob passes away instead of giving into the human feelings of revenge against those who he felt had harmed and wronged him, he recognizes G-ds master plan in the journey of his life. This is a part of the process of Teshuva – Returning, and in fact gives credence to the entire rekindled relationship of the brothers that eventually withstands the test of Jacobs death.

VAYEISHEV

When Judah Cavorted
Question by: Joel Cohen

After Joseph was sold into slavery, Judah was separated from his brothers, purportedly blamed for their wrongdoing. He later married, and his wife bore him three sons, Er, Onan and Shelah. Er later married Tamar, but because Er was evil in God’s eyes, God caused him to die. Consistent with the-then practice, Judah told Onan to enter a levarite marriage with Tamar in order to have children in his late brother’s name. But knowing that the seed would not be his, Onan refused and dropped his seed on the ground. Appalled by his sinfulness, God caused Onan, too, to die. Judah thereupon told Tamar to live in her father’s house “until my son Shulah grows up” -- desperately concerned that Shelah would die like his brothers. Tamar did as Judah directed her.
Long after, when Judah’s wife died and he finally became consoled, he went to oversee his shepherds. Learning that Judah was coming to her town, and mourning her still-barren state, Tamar removed her widow’s garb, masquerade herself in a veil and sat by the road. She fully knew that, by now, Shelah had grown but she had not been given to him as a wife.
But Judah mistook her for a harlot, and he beckoned that she allow him to consort with her as such. She, inexchange for her favors, demanded a pledge, to which he agreed, that he would later send her a kid from his flock. Unbeknowst to Judah, Tamar conceived from the encounter.
Later, intending to make good on his pledge to the nameless prostitute he was told, instead, that “your daughter in law has committed harlotry, and morever, she conceived by harlotry.” Horrified, but not knowing thast it was he himself who had impregnated Tamar, Judah said, “Take her out and let her be burned!” Confronted with what had occurred, and that he was indeed the the putative father, Judah acknowledged Tamar’s righteousness in her actions, given that he had denied her Shelah.
• What lesson should we learn from this incident?
• Judah is considered, in tradition, the deserving forebear of the Messiah, but yet he seems so very much at ease cavorting with a harlot. He doesn’t do penitenance for having intended to patronize a “harlot,” but seems quite willing to condemn Tamar, not a harlot, as the sinner -- that is, until he learns that he was the party of the other part. How can such a man, a man who willingly engaged in such conduct, be so revered by us?
• And are we to understand that it is perfectly acceptable or appropriate for a man -- one suspects, assuming he is not married – to cavort with a prostitute, but unacceptable for a woman to be a prostitute (and simply deserving of death by burning)? Does the Bible enable a double standard?

Rabbi Adam Mintz
The story of Judah and Tamar is one of the most difficult and, at the same time, most important stories in the Chumash. The great medieval Spanish commentator Ramban provides insight that will help us understand the story in a contemporary light. Ramban explains that in the ancient world, if a woman was married to a man and the man died, the woman had the right to have a child with the closest male relative of the deceased husband. This practice was limited by the Torah to marrying the brother of the dead husband. However, in the time of the forefathers, this right extended to all male relatives. This being the case, Tamar dressed up as a prostitute to seduce Judah who was her husband’s closest relative since she knew that she would never get the chance to marry the third brother Shelah. According to this understanding, Tamar was not intent on performing an indecent act of prostitution. Rather, she was trying to get what she deserved by right---a child from her deceased husband’s closest relative.

Judah, on the other hand, thought that she was indeed a prostitute and slept with her in that context. We see that he makes sure to pay her for her services. So, at the end of the day, Tamar is doing the correct thing while Judah is acting inappropriately. And, then the story turns. Tamar informs Judah of her identity and Judah immediately exclaims, “You are more righteous than I.” Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik explains that at the moment that Judah admitted his guilt for abandoning Tamar, he became worthy to be the ancestor of the kings of Israel and ultimately the messiah. He explains that in Jewish life, leadership is not an automatic right. It is a responsibility and an honor that must be earned, often through overcoming flaws. Judah earned the mantle of leadership because he was forced to struggle with his inner failings and was great enough not only to recognize those failings but also to admit them.

The story of Judah and Tamar is one that bridges the practices of the ancient world with the expressions of humility and guilt that have created the fabric of the Jewish people for all time. It is those qualities that Judah learned and that stand as an important lesson for all of us.


Eli Popack (in Kenya en route - will Post Asap)

Parshat Vayishlach

Wrestling With A “Man” - Questions By: Joel Cohen

Fearful, having learned from angels, that his brother was coming after him to kill him and his family for his having stolen his father’s Blessing of the First Born, Jacob took his family, crossed the ford of Jabbok, and sent across all of his possessions. Left alone that night, a “man” wrestled with Jacob throughout the night. When the man realized he could not defeat Jacob, he struck the socket of Jacob’s hip and dislocated it. Still, Jacob seemed in control, and so the man begged Jacob to let him go, “for dawn has broken.”
Unwilling to do so without gaining something, Jacob said “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” And so the man did, saying “No longer will it be said that your name is Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with the Divine and with man and have overcome.” And so, Jacob was blessed with the great blessing that he sought.
• Assuming the “man” Jacob fought was an angel of God, as many authorities argue, how worthwhile can a blessing be to a human being who has gained it, essentially, at the edge of a knife? What are such blessings worth?
• And, didn’t the acquisition of blessings become far too important for Jacob? For here, again, even after wrestling with an angel who needed to escape by daybreak, or even after wrestling with a man, he was willing to gain a blessing this time, not through good behavior, but through mere physical prowess.
• What lesson can there be is such an incident?

Rabbi Adam Mintz

The battle between Jacob and the angel, who is interpreted by the rabbis as referring to the “angel of Esav” has been a matter of debate and controversy among Jewish commentaries for centuries. This story is especially significant as it is seen as the prototype of the battle between the Jews and the forces of evil that seek to destroy us. I would like to focus on three specific issues within this story:
1. Jacob seeks a blessing from this angel. Whether Jacob realized the angelic nature of this being is a matter of conjecture. Yet, Jacob, having grown up in the house of Isaac, clearly knew that this was no ordinary struggle. At the conclusion of the struggle, Jacob demands a blessing from this angel. I believe that Jacob did learn a lesson from his earlier experience with Esav and that lesson was the fact that blessings are important and they are worth fighting for. The promise to Abraham was transmitted through a blessing from God as was the guarantee that Isaac would continue the chain of Abraham. Jacob had received several blessings both from God and from his father. However, this blessing from the “angel of Esav” represents recognition on the part of the “opposition” that Jacob will struggle with opponents and he may be injured in the encounter but he will always survive. In many ways, it was the most valuable of all of Jacob’s blessings.
2. The “angel of Esav” renames Jacob, Israel. The name Israel has two possible derivations. The Rashbam understands the root of the word to mean “to fight or to struggle”. Jacob gains his name because he has fought with God and with man. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, the champion of Orthodoxy in nineteenth century Germany, explains the root of the name from the word “sar” meaning to rule. Jacob was given his name because he had been victorious in his battle. Jacob’s name is changed as a result of the struggle with the “angle of Esav”. The commentaries dispute what aspect of the struggle should be emphasized; the battle or the victory. Was Jacob’s personality identified by his ability and willingness to fight for what he believed or was it the fact that he was able to survive against all odds. And, it is no accident that the name of the Jewish people is Israel reflecting this same question.
3. In this episode in which names are so critical, it is noteworthy that when Jacob asks the angel for his name, the angel replies, “Why should you ask for my name and he blessed him.” The passuk seems to be describing a relationship between lack of name and the ability to bless. Rabbi Hirsch explains that names identify people but they also limit people. We are only one person living at one time in one place. The angel refuses to divulge his name in order to make the blessing to Jacob a universal one, one that would apply to Jacob and to his descendants for all times.


Eli Popack

Joels questions this week are fascinating and while I will be focusing on the final question I would like to make a remark about blessings. It says " al tihiyeh birchas hedyot kal beeinecho." (The blessing of a simple person should not be mundane in your eyes) how much more so the blessing of a worthy adversary, an angel.

One of the strangest laws we have seems to be the prohibition against eating the area around the sciatic nerve in an animal, because 4,000 years ago one of our ancestors had a hip dislocated, we need to forgo a good rump steak.

The Rashbam, comments that. The story of Jacob and the angel occurred just prior to Jacob's impending encounter with his estranged twin brother. Esau was coming with four hundred armed men, and Jacob was actually planning to escape from Esau. That was when the angel attacked him. According to Rashbam, the reason for the angel wrestling with Jacob was so that he would be forced to stand his ground and not escape via a back route. Jacob was compelled to confront the enemy and overcome him. Only then would he witness the fulfillment of G-d's promise to protect him from harm.

It seems that Jacob developing a pattern of escaping. He ran from Beer-Sheva when Esau threatened to kill him. He ran from Laban in Charan. And now he was preparing to run from Esau yet again.

Apparently, G-d wanted Jacob to learn that a philosophy of escaping is not the Jewish way. So the angel dislocated his hip, preventing him from running. Now Jacob had no choice but to fight. In the end, he defeated the angel and was blessed with the name "Israel," for he fought with man and the divine and overcame.

This is a lesson to us all. When we stop running away from our problems and face our fears we become transported from the level of Jacob who sought to escape, to avoid confrontation to the level of Israel the "sar" or ruler as Rabbi Mintz writes. If we can overcome our urge to run when we are faced with a flight vs fight situation and engage our fears and master them, as Jacob was forced to do we are then worthy of demanding a blessing, and the tale of the dislocated hip, is more than a story but a perpetual reminder of our ability to overcome.

Parshat Vayetze

VAYETZE Questions by Joel Cohen
The Duping of Jacob (Genesis 29:13-28)
By the time he met his uncle Laban, brother of Rebecca, Jacob had showed that he was no shrinking violet.
For instance, when his brother Esau had returned from the field famished, he demanded his brother’s birthright in return for a simple bowl of lentil soup. And when his mother told him to steal the blessing of the firstborn from his brother by masquerading as Esau to their blind -- arguably senile – father, Isaac, Jacob’s concern was not about the evident wrongfulness of the conduct but, rather, that he would be caught and made the “mocker” – leading to his being cursed rather than blessed.
But his encounter with Laban showed something altogether different in his personality. Or did it? Introduced to his cousin Rachel by the shepherds he was promptly smitten by her; he kissed her and openly wept. She was obviously the love of his life. Also, her father, Laban, it seemed, sought to make his home Jacob’s home as well – and he asked Jacob what wages he expected. Loving Rachel, Laban’s younger daughter, he said he would work for Laban for seven years in return for her hand. Laban agreed. For Jacob the seven years seemed but a passing moment, because he loved her so.
But Laban tricked Jacob; when the wedding feast was over and nightime arrived for their initial marital encounter, Laban substituted Leah, the elder – not too pretty – sister for Rachel. Thunderstruck when the sun arose, Jacob demanded to know why Laban had tricked him. Laban’s weak retort: “Such is not done in our place, to give the younger before the elder.”
And so Jacob, simply accepted Laban’s word for it as to the local custom (which surprisingly he didn’t know about after living in the land for seven years), and dutifully worked another seven years to gain Rachel’s hand. And the story is generally understood to underscore the great love that Jacob had for Rachel that he was willing to endure Laban’s mistreatment of him. What?
• Is this a new Jacob – a man, a sophisticated man at that, by this time in his life flatly willing to accept the word of a scoundrel, that he would work another seven years for the woman whose hand he had already earned (and, indeed, accept the marriage to a woman ((Leah)) that he simply didn’t want)?
• Or, is this something else altogether? Lay aside the purported justifications that the rabbis give for why Jacob’s earlier conduct against his brother and father wasn’t wrongful at all, but indeed quite acceptable, even preferable -- isn’t this a simply case of “the world is round,” or “what goes around . . . “?
• Simply put, maybe Jacob simply “had it coming.” Isn’t it possible that God, too, saw it that way, and “Divine Justice” sought to punish Jacob and used Laban as the instrumentality of His punishing hand?

Rabbi Adam Mintz

The parsha of Vayetze begins with an encounter between Jacob and the angels as he runs away from his brother Esav. The parsha concludes with another encounter between Jacob and angels as he returns to Israel once again to confront his brother. In between these two encounters Jacob builds a large and prosperous family; four wives, thirteen children and substantial wealth. The story of how this fugitive from his brother’s wrath was able to build this empire has become the model for Jewish continuity and success throughout the ages.

At first glance it seems surprising that Jacob, who had been so cunning in his ability to receive the blessing from Isaac, would be outsmarted by Laban. Was it really only Rebecca’s genius that allowed Jacob to receive the blessing? To make things even more frustrating for Jacob, when he complains to Laban about the fact that Leah has replaced Rachel, Laban responded “Such a thing is not done in our place, to give the younger before the older.” In this short verse, Laban seems to be poking fun at Jacob---you may have been able to trick your brother at home, but we are much smarter here.

However, the story of Jacob is not the story of the temporary setbacks that he suffers at the hands of his new father-in-law. The emphasis of this story is Jacob’s resilience and ability to adapt to new and difficult situations. Laban tricks Jacob and replaces Leah for Rachel but Jacob is not deterred and works additional time for the right to marry Rachel. When he is creating his family, the Torah hints at jealousy and competition between the wives. Yet, Jacob seems able to maneuver through the mine field of human emotions and create a family that at least at this point in the story returns as one unified unit to the Land of Israel. Finally, when Jacob feels that Laban is not paying him appropriately for his work in the field, Jacob invents a plan that miraculously provides him with what he deserves.

When we compare the stories of our three Patriarchs, we are struck that each of them is faced with significant challenges in creating their families and their lineage. Who can imagine choosing between two beloved sons as both Abraham and Isaac were forced to do? Yet, in both those cases, the problems were internal, the result of calculations and miscalculations made by each of the forefathers and their wives. In the case of Jacob, his problems are the result of a man whose name means “white” but who is anything but squeaky clean. Jacob is the first of the Patriarchs to deal with a hostile environment for which he was not to blame. It is one thing to correct your own mistakes but it is much more difficult to right the path when it is being controlled by someone who is interested only in his own well being and success. Jacob successfully outmaneuvers and outsmarts Laban. Yet, this process must be viewed over the entire parsha and not at each individual step of the way. Laban presented a different kind of challenge for Jacob than Esav did, and Jacob understood that the response needed to be more gradual and more deliberate.

The angel that met Jacob as he escaped from his brother guarded him during his difficult time in the house of Laban. It was the second angel who greeted the family of Jacob as he reentered the Land of Israel who would protect Jacob as he worked to create the foundations of the Jewish nation.

Eli Popack

As Rabbi Mintz points out the journey of Jacobs life and the process by which he overcomes adversity is key. The Lubavitcher Rebbe notes that Jacob's 147 years can be divided into three general periods: The first 77 years of his life were spent in the Holy Land, secluded in "the tents of study" and sheltered from material life. Followed by 20 years in Charan in the employ of Lavan, during which Jacob married, fathered 12 of his 13 children, and amassed a fortune. Following a further period in the Holy Land, Jacob "descended" to Egypt, where he lived for the last 17 years of his life.

When discussing the bringing of the First Fruits in Deuteronomy 26:5 it says, “You should [hold the basket and] say out loud before G‑d, your G‑d: "[Lavan the] Aramean [wanted to] destroy my father [Jacob. And his sorrows did not stop there, because] he went down to Egypt and lived there in a small [family] group [of seventy souls]. But he became a great, powerful, and populous nation there.”

What is the connection between Jacob's difficulties with Lavan and the
bringing of first-fruits?

The Torah Temima says “One brings first-fruits to thank G‑d for His kindness
in giving the Land of Israel to the Jewish people. ....”

Why does this declaration only mentions two events in the history of the Jewish people:

Lavan's attempt to destroy Jacob, and the Egyptian exile.

If we are searching for miracles we could pick from a grab-bag of options, the manna in the desert or the splitting of the sea for example.

The Jewish people were only obligated to bring first-fruits after the Land of Israel had been divided among the Tribes . Consequently, this mitzvah is not a thanksgiving merely for acquiring the actual land, but for its complete settlement, since only at that point could one truly "rejoice with all the good" Therefore the only events mentioned in the declaration are times when G‑d helped the Jewish people while they were settled:

Those two times are the salvation of Jacob from Lavan, since Jacob lived with Lavan for
twenty years, and, the period in Egypt, which lasted 210 years, since these were both times when our ancestors benefited from acts of G‑d's kindness during long-term settlements. And this resembles G‑d's kindness in helping a person to be settled in his homeland, and bring first-fruits.

Beer-Sheba represented peace and tranquility. Charan stood for violence and immorality--it was the hub of evil, home of Lavan, the mobster. Yet,it was, in Charan, where Jacob raised his family, where the twelve tribes of Israel were born.

This is possibly the reason why it was possible that Lavan was able to trick Jacob, or rather that Jacob needed to be tricked by Lavan when he was removed from the shelter of the Yeshiva and forced to put all his theoretical knowledge into practice without the safe harbor of his parents home. Nevertheless as a result of this experience Jacob proves himself and flourishes. He continues to be the righteous Tzaddik he was. As it says in Rashi "Im lavan Garti Vtaryag miyzvos shmarti" (I lived with Lavan and nevertheless I kept all of G-ds' commandments) Jacob was able to settle and establish himself, both physicaly and spiritually, he then receives the blessing in the Torah: "G-d will bless you in all your endeavors," and we therefore use this as the example of solid, stable growth when giving the first fruits.

Welcome

This week we are introducing a blog entitled "A Chassid and a Modern Orthodox Rabbi Answer a Litigator: What Does the Parsha Mean to Us?" on our website. As we study the parsha each week, we are often faced with difficult and often religiously problematic issues. Yet, where can we turn for a serious and thoughtful consideration of these issues. The answers can now be found in our blog. Each week Joel Cohen, an attorney who has written fictional accounts on a few challenging religious texts, will pose questions about the parsha. These questions will be addressed by Rabbi Adam Mintz, Modern Orthodox rabbi and one of the founders of Kehilat Rayim Ahuvim on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and Eli Popack, spiritual leader of the Beach Minyan in Westhampton Beach and son of the Chabad shliach in Cape Town, South Africa. We encourage your reactions and comments.

Parshat Toldot

TOLDOTH

Esau’s Birthright - Questions by Joel Cohen

The Bible tells us that when Rebecca was pregnant with Esau and Jacob, the two struggled even in her womb. Esau, though, was the elder, having emerged first. The two were born to be different. Esau, loved by his father, to whom he brought game, was a hunter, a man of the field; Jacob, loved by his mother, was a softer man who “abided in tents,” -- interpreted as studying God’s law.

One day, as Jacob cooked a stew, the famished Esau returned from the field. He beckoned Jacob to share some with him. In response, Jacob demanded, in exchange, that Esau sell him, that very day, Esau’s “birthright,” to which Esau was entitled by virtue of his elder status. Esau, recognizing the dangerousness of the life that he led as a hunter, quickly yielded: “Look, I am going to die, so of what use to me is this birthright?” Armed with Esau’s frivolous response, Jacob asked that Esau swear to it. In the Torah’s verbiage -- “Vayeevez” -- Esau spurned his birthright.

· Accepting, as we do, that Esau did indeed eschew the birthright -- that he was a man unwilling to accept the “responsibility” that a birthright represented -- is it not too easy to find Esau the only villain in this story? Otherwise put, didn’t Jacob, too, behave poorly?

· Didn’t Jacob, as a revered Patriarch, have the coordinate “responsibility” to explain to his brother that “the birthright” was far too important to so cavalierly relinquish for a simple bowl of lentil soup?

· Why didn’t a patriarch – indeed, the grandson of a man known for his exquisite graciousness even to strangers -- simply “insist” on serving his famished brother a bowl of soup, rather than extort from him, as it were, the “birthright” inheritance from their father in exchange for it?

Rabbi Adam Mintz

As the stories of our forefathers are read and reread every year, in many ways the story of Jacob is the most troubling. The rabbis, following their general inclination to view the figures in the Bible as being either totally good or totally bad, view Jacob in a completely positive light. They do not even consider the fact that Jacob might have acted differently in his handling of the purchase of the birthright. However, to the twenty-first century mind, this story raises the issues that have been presented and require an answer that addresses the sensibilities of our times while attempting to imagine the complexities of the situation in Ancient Israel over 3,400 years ago.

So what should Jacob have done---his brother comes home after a long day in the field exhausted and hungry. We might look for a brother to offer the soup to his sibling with graciousness and appreciation for the hard day that he had just experienced. Did Jacob even consider such a response---we will never know. What we do know is that his reaction was to barter the soup for the birthright---the highest payment in history for a bowl of red lentil soup.

I think the rationale that Jacob used in justifying his action can be found in the manner in which the Torah presents the story. It is a clear case of barter with no emotion expressed by either party. Esav comes home hungry from the field and asks for soup. Jacob responds that he will give him soup in exchange for the birthright. Jacob asks Esav to swear to the deal and then he gives him the soup which Esav immediately devours. A direct story with little feeling and no ambivalence on the part of either one of the participants.

Yet, there are two verses that provide some vital information about Esav. In verse 32, Esav says, “Look I am going to die, so of what use is the birthright to me.” This is an odd response on Esav’s part. We know that in ancient times the birthright gave rights not only to the first born but also to his descendants. Furthermore, in the Book of Breishit, the birthright is the ticket to continuing the family line that would evolve into the Jewish nation that would receive the Torah at Mt. Sinai. Of what relevance is the fact that Esav is about to die?

I believe that the explanation, at least in Jacob’s eyes, as to why he was justified in insisting on the sale of the birthright in exchange for the soup, is explained in Esav’s reaction. The Torah is telling us that Esav did not appreciate the value and importance of the birthright. If this is so, one might argue, that Jacob was not only justified in insisting that he and not Esav carry the birthright, he had a moral responsibility to strip Esav of this birthright. The birthright as experienced by Jacob’s father Isaac carried with it responsibilities and acceptances of challenges that Esav was clearly unwilling to accept. Jacob was the proper heir to this birthright and therefore was justified, in the eyes of the Torah, in arranging for its sale.

Esav’s personality is once again highlighted after he purchases the lentil soup in what is one of the most dramatic verses in the Torah. Verse 34 reads “And, Jacob gave Esav bread and lentil soup and he ate and drank, got up and left; thus, Esav spurned the birthright.” Here too there is no emotion, no hesitation expressed on the part of Esav. He has just given away the right to follow his father Isaac and his grandfather Abraham and we are presented with a string of verbs describing Esav’s thoughtless devouring of the soup and his exit to relax one on the ancient version of an easy chair in the den. The Torah expresses Esav’s actions in this string of verbs to teach us that the continuity of the Jewish people must be given to someone who understands that there is more to life than satisfying one’s hunger and then going to relax. The forefathers required a sense of commitment and purpose, recognition that life involved challenges as well as opportunities. Esav was not the man. Jacob had purchased the birthright from his undeserving brother. His challenge to prove that he was the rightful heir to the birthright is the story that encompasses the remainder of the Book of Breishit.

Eli Popack:

We read how one day, when Esau returns from the hunt, exhausted and starving, he finds Jacob cooking a pot of lentils. Esau wants the beans; Jacob offers to give him the stew in return for Esau's birthright. As the first-born twin, Esau would have been the one chosen to minister in G-d's temple. Esau accepts the offer and the deal is done.

Two hundred and seventy five years pass and in the Book of Exodus (4:22), G-d is sending Moses to Pharaoh to redeem His people. He describes them as B'ni bechori Yisrael -- "My son, My first born, Israel." Rashi, comments: "Here the Holy One Blessed is He affixed His seal to the sale of the birthright which Jacob purchased from Esau."

Why does it take G-d so long to recognize the sale of the birthright?

A possible explanation may be, that while the transaction occurs in this weeks Torah portion, it is merely the contract. The closing occurs when G-d recognizes the sale in Exodus after all those long years. Indicative that
while it is easy to do the paperwork so to speak, the acceptance of the birthright comes with a responsibility, and after the Jewish people have proven themselves by enduring Egypt and nevertheless remaining true to the birthright and G-d. At that point G-d Affixes his sacred seal and we are called " My Son, My Firstborn, Israel."

The Kabbalah teaches that the story of Esau and Jacob is not just a tale of two brothers who fought with each other; Esau and Jacob -- represent two conflicting forces in our lives. The drama unfolding between Jacob and Esau is a timeless tale continuously occurring in each of our hearts and lives. Their story is not only a physical one that occurred at a specific moment in history; it can also be seen as a mirror reflecting our lives.

The first soul (Esau) , is called the "animal soul." This soul is the physical drive in life and it focuses on the self. Its every action, thought and word is motivated by the quest for self-gratification. The target of this soul is physical entitlement. The second soul (Jacob), or the "holy soul", is defined as the spiritual soul. This soul cleaves to its divine source, constantly attempting to connect to spirituity. The target of this soul is spiritual enlightenment.

As they both use the same physical body as their vehicle for expression, there is a constant tug - of war: the struggle between selfishness and selflessness, between idealism and self-centeredness, between our animal impulses and our spiritual hopes.

This constant rivalry for dominance between Jacob and Esau, both physically and spiritually, in history and personally are the very fabric of our discussion. The lesson we learn is that Esau can renounce his birthright in a split second but to truly earn it takes dedication and persistance. While we are all G-d's children if we persist G-d blesses us with the title of his first born son.