The Israel Koschitzky
Virtual Beit MidrashThe Israel Koschitzky
Virtual Beit Midrash
Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat
Har Etzion
PARASHAT VAYECHI
By Rav David Silverberg
The haftara for Parashat Vayechi is taken from Sefer Melakhim I (chapter 2) and records the final words spoken by King David before his death to his son and successor, the young Shelomo. Many writers have noted the peculiar nature of this last testament, which begins with an exhortation to follow the Torah – which we would clearly expect – but also emphasizes the need for Shelomo to punish two men – Yoav and and Shimi ben Geira – for their respective crimes. Yoav, who had served as David's general until after the battle against David's rebellious son Avshalom, had assassinated two generals that had previously fought against David: Avner and Amasa. Avner had served under Ishboshet, a son of Shaul who contested David's kingship after Shaul's death, and Amasa served as Avshalom's general during his uprising against David. Both Avner and Amasa were ultimately invited by David to join his side, but in both instances Yoav killed the general: he killed Avner to avenge the death of his brother, Asa'el, and he killed Amasa seemingly in a jealous rage, as David had appointed Amasa in Yoav's place.
Shim'i ben Geira had stoned and cursed David as he fled
Why was the retribution for these crimes of such grave importance, that it occupied much of David's final admonition to his son before his death? Was David indeed so passionately driven to "settle his accounts" with these men before his death?
Rav Mendel Hirsch, in his commentary to the haftarot, suggests a logical explanation for the critical importance of punishing Yoav and Shim'i as Shelomo begins solidifying his hold on the throne. With regard to Yoav, the urgency stemmed from the stain that his crimes left on David's kingship. It was all too easy for the cynics of the nation to accuse David of conspiring with Yoav in the murder of Avner and Amasa. As mentioned, both Avner and Amasa had supported David's bitter rivals, and it is likely that conspiracy theories abounded regarding David's role in the assassination of these two generals. Although David succeeded in overcoming these tragedies and solidifying his reign in spite of these rumors, he understandably feared that these killings would return to haunt his young, inexperienced son once he assumed the throne. As Rav Mendel writes:
The worry never left him, that, sooner or later, under the reign of his youthful successor, the culpable deed of Joab could be misrepresented as bring a crime committed by the founder of the dynasty, and misused for the breaking up of the kingdom, and for the fall of a throne which had been won by an alleged treacherous murder.
Exacting retribution against Yoav was therefore necessary as a demonstration of Shelomo's outright rejection of Yoav's crimes against David's former adversaries. Rav Mendel explains that even those who all along suspected David of conspiring with Yoav, and dismissed his clear demonstrations of mourning and grief after the deaths of Avner and Amasa, could not question David's sincerity as harshly condemned Yoav's violence during his dying moments.
As for Shim'i ben Geira, many commentators claim that after Avshalom's defeat he joined David's ranks, and even served as Shelomo's mentor. Indeed, as Rav Mendel notes, David begins his remarks about Shim'i by saying to Shelomo, "See, you have Shim'i with you…" "With you" suggests that a close relationship, an alliance of sorts, had been forged between the young Shelomo and his father's conniving nemesis. Rav Mendel writes:
David did not allow himself to be taken in as to what the real feelings of Shim'i were, and surely it was not with David's concurrence that Solomon had drawn him into his immediate entourage. What cunning he must have used, with what complete dexterity must he have understood to adopt the mask of an honorable gentleman towards the young prince! Was not the youthful Solomon threatened by a similar danger?
Quite understandably, then, David saw it as a matter of extreme urgency to eliminate Shim'i, to ensure that he would not take advantage of Shelomo's youth, innocence and loyalty to him to undermine his authority.
******
The fast of Asara Be'Tevet commemorates the Babylonian siege of
The word of the Lord came to me in the ninth year [of King Tzidkiyahu's reign – Rashi], in the tenth month [Tevet], on the tenth of the month, saying: O mortal, record for yourself the date, this very day, on which the Babylonian king encamped upon Jerusalem, on this very day…
God's
repeated emphasis on "this very day" reflects the severity of this event and the
importance of this date as a watershed moment in Jewish history. At first glance, however, the onset of
the siege does not quite deserve such emphasis and importance, as it did not
yield any immediate, catastrophic consequences. As mentioned, the siege lasted nearly a
year-and-a-half, until the fall of
The events
of Asara Be'Tevet, however, do not appear to have been as immediately
consequential as those of the other three fast days. It would seem that if we commemorate the
siege of
Dr. Jeffrey
Woolf of
The siege of
the
******
We read in Parashat Vayechi of the death of Yaakov and his burial in the
Tosefot (Gittin 55b) note that this account appears to contradict a comment in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Gittin 5:6, Ketubot 1:5) that it was Yehuda, and not Chushim, who killed Esav. In this vein the Yerushalmi interprets Yaakov's prophecy on his deathbed concerning Yehuda, "your hand is on the neck of your foes" (49:8) as a reference to his slaying of his uncle Esav. Tosefot suggest reconciling the two accounts by claiming that Chushim's blow maimed Esav but did not succeed in killing him, and it was Yehuda who dealt the final blow. However, as several writers noted, the aforementioned passage in Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer states explicitly that Chushim beheaded Esav (hitiz et rosho), making Tosefot's reading difficult to sustain.
Furthermore, the Hagahot Ben Aryeh (which appears in the back of standard editions of the Talmud) in Masekhet Gittin draws our attention to a different Midrashic passage, in Midrash Tehillim (chapter 18), from which it clearly emerges that different views exist with regard to Esav's death. The Midrash Tehillim tells that when Yitzchak passed away and was buried in Machpela, Yaakov's sons left the cave to allow their grieving father to weep in private. Esav, who years earlier had vowed to kill his brother after Yitzchak's death (see Bereishit 27:41), sought to seize this opportunity to slay Yaakov. But Yehuda noticed his uncle entering the cave and alertly killed Esav to protect his father.
This account clearly represents an entirely different view concerning Esav's death, maintaining that it occurred at the time of Yitzchak's burial, and not when Yaakov was buried. Presumably, the Talmud Yerushalmi, which tells of Yehuda killing Esav, followed the view of the Midrash Tehillim, and need not be reconciled with the account in Masekhet Gittin.
Alternatively, the Yerushalmi perhaps refers to a third view, which appears in the Yalkut Shimoni (108), that Esav launched an assault against Yaakov and his family at the time when Leah passed away and the entire family was grieving. Yehuda led his brothers to a victorious battle against Esav and his followers, and during this battle Yehuda slew his uncle. In any event, there are clearly different traditions regarding the death of Esav, and we therefore should not feel compelled to reconcile the account in Masekhet Gittin with the comment of the Yerushalmi.
(Based on a discussion in Rav Mordechai Frankel's Mayim Rabim)
******
Parashat Vayechi contains Yaakov's famous and timeless blessing to
Yosef's sons, Efrayim and Menashe, "Ha-mal'akh ha-go'el oti mi-kol ra"
(48:16), which concludes with the phrase, "ve-yidgu la-rov be-kerev
ha-aretz." The verb ve-yidgu
originates from the word dag, "fish," and hence this phrase is
commonly translated as, "they shall propagate abundantly like fish in the midst
of the land." The Midrash Bereishit Rabba (97), however, explains this verse
differently:
Just as these fish grow up in water, and
when a single drop falls from above they greet it thirstily as if they had never
in their lives tasted the taste of water, so do Israel grow up in water, in
Torah, and when they hear a new idea from the Torah they greet it thirstily as
if they had never in their lives heard a Torah idea.
According to the Midrash, Yaakov wishes his
grandchildren that they shall be like fish with regard to their love of
Torah. Just as fish
enthusiastically welcome each and every drop of water that falls into the sea,
so does Yaakov wish upon his grandchildren that they hungrily take in each and
every word of Torah they hear, regardless of how much Torah they had already
learned.
Rav Avraham Moshe Chevroni, in his Mas'at Moshe, explains this passage to mean that
specifically because we "grow up in water," that we spend so much time engrossed
in Torah study, we react so enthusiastically to each and every Torah idea that
we hear. Living a life of Torah has
the effect of sensitizing a person to the inestimable value of Torah
knowledge. A student with this
heightened sensitivity will naturally feel anxious to hear another word of
Torah, regardless of how much knowledge he has already
acquired.
All too often, of course, intensive Torah study has the precise opposite
effect: a student who devotes a significant amount of time to learning will at
times respond with less enthusiasm to a devar Torah than the Jew who invests little time in
Torah study. The Midrash likely
seeks to impress upon the Torah student that his involvement in Torah learning
should increase, rather than dull, his excitement over Torah knowledge. Even after a student has delved into the
depths of complex sugyot in the Talmud, he must still be able to
exult upon hearing a relatively simple, straightforward Torah thought, and
appreciate its value and beauty.
Regardless of how long a person spends in the "sea," submerged in the
"waters" of Talmudic literature, he must still rejoice over even a single "drop"
of water the comes his way.
******
Towards the beginning of Parashat Vayechi, Yaakov declares to Yosef that
he bequeaths to him the region of Shekhem, which, as Yaakov describes, "I seized
from the hands of the Emorites with my sword and bow" (48:22). Targum Onkelos famously translates the
words "be-charbi
u-ve-kashti ("with my sword and
bow") to mean, "bi-tzloti
u-va'uti" – "with my prayers and
supplications," a homiletic reading of this phrase that appears in several
Midrashic works (Mekhilta and Midrash Tanchuma, Parashat Beshalach). Many later writers have noted this
uncharacteristic deviation from the plain meaning of the text. Onkelos' Aramaic translation of the
Torah is, in almost all instances, precisely that – a direct translation, with
virtually no interpretative – let alone homiletic – modifications from the plain
meaning. A number of different
theories have been proposed to explain why Onkelos preferred the homiletic
reading of this phrase over the plain meaning.
The simplest explanation, it would seem, is that the meaning of be-charbi u-ve-kashti depends on how one understands Yaakov's
reference to Shekhem in this verse. As Rashi notes, when Yaakov promises
Yosef "an extra Shekhem over your brothers," he refers either to
the city of
Rabbi Michael Bernstein, in his work Windows to the Soul, suggests a different approach, in light of
Onkelos' tendency to deviate from the plain meaning when translating
anthropomorphic references to the Almighty. As the Rambam discusses in his Guide for the Perplexed (1:27), Onkelos was very fearful of the
possible misinterpretation of the Torah's anthropomorphic descriptions of God,
and for this reason he consistently deviates from the plain meaning of the text
when translating these descriptions.
For example, Onkelos translates the verse "the Lord will come down"
(Shemot 19:11) as "the Lord will manifest Himself." Onkelos wanted to ensure that nobody
would mistakenly ascribe physical qualities to God on the basis of the Torah's
anthropomorphisms, and was therefore prepared to present a non-literal
translation of these descriptions.
If this concern of heretical conclusions is what prompted Onkelos to
deviate from the plain meaning of the text in these contexts, Rabbi Bernstein
suggests, we might speculate that a similar concern led him to adopt the
homiletic reading of the words be-charbi u-ve-kashti.
Quite possibly, Onkelos feared that readers might mistakenly interpret
Yaakov's remark to mean that he took full, personal credit for his victory over
the Emorites. Of course, our belief
is that human endeavors can succeed only with divine assistance; undoubtedly,
Yaakov acknowledged that his ability to defeat the hostile Emorite tribes was
granted by the Almighty. Therefore,
just as Onkelos deviates from the plain meaning in cases of anthropomorphisms,
lest the reader reach the heretical conclusion that God possesses physical
features, so does Onkelos find it necessary to adopt the Midrashic reading of
this verse, which might otherwise be taken as a basis for denying God's role in
human affairs.
******
Towards the end of Parashat Vayechi, we read of Yosef's brothers' concern
after their father's death that Yosef would now seize the opportunity to avenge
their mistreatment of him. They
send a message to Yosef informing him that Yaakov had issued a command before
his death that he should forgive them for the crimes they had committed against
him (50:16-17).
The Gemara in Masekhet Yevamot (65b) comments that Yaakov never issued
such a command before his death.
The brothers here acted upon the famous halakhic principle, "mutar le-shanot mipenei ha-shalom," allowing one to speak untruthfully for
the sake of maintaining peaceful relations among people. In the interest of winning Yosef's favor
and keeping the family together, the brothers took the liberty of falsely
reporting that their father had ordered him to forgive.
Rashi, in his commentary, makes reference to this Gemara, but adds one
phrase that does not appear in the Talmudic passage: "for Yaakov had not
commanded this, since he had not suspected Yosef." The reason why Yaakov had not issued
this command, Rashi explains, is that Yaakov had never suspected Yosef of
harboring any vengeful desires with regard to his brothers. This addition of Rashi is perhaps
significant in that it assumes Yaakov's knowledge of the brothers' sale of
Yosef. One might have interpreted
the Gemara to mean that Yaakov had never issued such a command because he had no
knowledge of what the brothers had done to Yosef. Indeed, a number of sources, including
the Peirush Ha-Tur (commenting to this verse), indicate that
Yaakov never learned of what had happened to Yosef. From Rashi's comments it appears that
Yaakov was indeed aware of what the brothers had done.
In truth, Rashi appears to express this opinion elsewhere in his
commentary, as well. In his
commentary to Yaakov's castigation of Shimon and Levi before his death (49:6),
Rashi understood that Yaakov condemned them for their plot to kill Yosef. Likewise, commenting on Yaakov's
blessing to Yehuda (49:9), Rashi explains that Yaakov commended Yehuda for
arguing against actively killing his brother. Clearly, then, according to Rashi's
view, Yaakov had indeed discovered – somehow – what had happened when Yosef came
to his brothers in Dotan nearly forty years earlier.
(See also www.dsilverberg.blogspot.com/2006/12/did-yaakov-ever-find-out-what-had.html.)
******
We read in Parashat Vayechi that after Yaakov's passing Yosef ordered his
servants to embalm his father (50:2).
Abarbanel, in his commentary, describes the embalming procedure, which
entailed the removal of several vital organs from the deceased's body, filling
the body inside and out with fragrant oils, and draining the body of its
fluids. The oils were replaced each
day during the embalming process (which, as the Torah here writes, lasted for
forty days), upon the completion of which the body was dried of its fluids and
could therefore be preserved.
Of course, Halakha strongly denounces the performance of any
surgical procedures on a corpse, which would certainly include the system
described by Abarbanel. Yet, oddly
enough, although we indeed find a view in the Midrash that criticizes Yosef for
ordering his father's embalming, it condemns not the violation of the Yaakov's
body, but rather Yosef's lack of trust in God: "The Almighty said to him: I am
not capable of preserving My righteous ones?" (Rabbi Yehuda Ha-nasi, cited in
Bereishit Rabba 100; on this basis Rabbi Yehuda explains
why Yosef died before his brothers).
According to this view, Yosef is criticized for not trusting in God's
power to preserve Yaakov's body from decay, given Yaakov's unique stature of
piety. Had it not been for Yaakov's
stature, it appears, Yosef would not have been criticized for issuing this
command, as he could not have relied on God to miraculously preserve the
body.
The Zohar implicitly addresses this question and
claims that Yaakov's body was not embalmed in the traditional fashion. Rather, the body was repeatedly smeared
with fragrant oils, and this sufficed to preserve it. The Chatam Sofer (responsa, Y.D. 336) elaborates on this
comment of the Zohar, and wonders how the smearing of oils would
prevent the decay caused by the refuse inside the body. He explains on the basis of the Ramban's
comment towards the end of Parashat Chayei-Sara that Yaakov was stricken before
his death with a digestive disease which drained his body of all its waste
products, so that smearing the body was an effective means of
preservation.
Rav Menachem Kasher, in his Torah Sheleima (chapter 50, note 5), cites a responsum of
the Rashba (1:369) who explicitly permits the usual procedure of embalming,
claiming that this entails no discomfort or disgrace to the deceased. In his view, this kind of procedure is
permissible because it is done specifically for the purpose of preservation, and
not as an expression of disrespect.
As for the practical halakha, Rav Yechiel Michel Tuketchinsky, in his
classic compendium of mourning laws Gesher Ha-chayim (5:7), writes that these procedures should
not be performed unless the body is to be transported to a distant location for
burial. In such a case, the blood
and fluids are drained from the body and should be kept in a container and
buried together with the body. Rav
Tuketchinsky notes that although Halakha follows the view that blood which leaves
the body after death does not require burial, this applies only to blood that
exits the body naturally. In this
case, where the blood and other fluids are manually drained from the body, they
should be buried along with the body.