The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

Parashat Vayechi records the death and burial of Yaakov Avinu. Immediately after his death, Yosef sends the following message to Pharaoh: "My father made me swear, saying, 'I am about to die. Be sure to bury me in the grave which I made ready for myself in the land of Canaan.' Now, therefore, let me go up and bury my father; then I shall return" (50:5). The Gemara in Masekhet Sota (36b) notes that Yosef felt compelled to mention his oath to his father as he petitioned Pharaoh. The Gemara explains that Yosef had previously taken a much different oath, to Pharaoh, that he will never reveal to anyone that the Egyptian king did not speak Hebrew. When Yosef initially appealed to Pharaoh for permission to bury Yaakov in Canaan, Pharaoh instructed him to seek "hatara" - legal annulment of the vow. Yosef thus "threatens" Pharaoh that should he force him to violate his promise or even seek "hatara," he will do the same for his promise to Pharaoh. (Rashi makes brief mention of this Gemara in his commentary to 50:6.) How are we to understand Yosef's "threat" to Pharaoh?

The Steipler Gaon offers an insightful interpretation of this Gemara in his work, "Birkat Peretz." A person's refusal to violate his word involves more than the technical, legal requirement to fulfill one's promises; it relates to the more general value of truth. One must view his speech as something sacred and do his utmost not to cheapen it. Even the legal mechanism of "hatara," which absolves one from the technical constraints imposed upon him by his promise, undermines - if only slightly - his firm commitment to "emet" (truth). When all is said and done, the individual did not uphold his word. Though he violates no legal or halakhic violation as a result of his hatara, the sanctity which he affords his speech has nevertheless been affected.

Yosef thus warned Pharaoh of the natural consequences of the annulment of his vow to his father. As the sanctity of his speech will be undermined, he is likely to treat other promises in a similar manner. Once he no longer retains absolute devotion to truth, he is prone to find loopholes for other promises, as well. It is therefore in Pharaoh's own, personal best interest to avoid causing a decline in Yosef's commitment to the value of emet.

*****

In the very beginning of Parashat Vayechi, Yaakov Avinu has his son, Yosef, take a vow that he will take his father's remains to Canaan for burial (as discussed yesterday). The Chida (Rav Chayim Yosef David Azulai, Italy, 18^th century), in his work, Midbar Kedeimot, cites a question on this episode from the Mahari Ze'evi. The Ramban maintains that the patriarchs observed mitzvot, despite their having yet to be transmitted by God, but only in Eretz Canaan. When they resided outside the land, our patriarchs were not bound by the commandments. As we saw in our S.A.L.T. series on Parashat Vayeitzei, the Ramban employs this theory to justify Yaakov's marriage to two sisters, which is prohibited by Torah law. Since he married Rachel and Leah outside Eretz Canaan, the Torah prohibition did not apply. If so, asks the Mahari Ze'evi, then what does Yaakov Avinu gain in our parasha by having Yosef swear to fulfill his burial wishes? As the obligation to follow through on one's promises did not apply in Egypt, Yosef's oath was legally non-binding. Why, then, did Yaakov have Yosef take this vow?

The Chid"a cites the Mahari Ze'evi as resolving this difficulty by substantially limiting the Ramban's principle. Only when our patriarchs planned on returning to Canaan were they absolved from mitzva observance outside the land. In situations such as Yosef's, however, when he knew that he would not return to Canaan before his death, he did, in fact, observe the commandments. Therefore, he was halakhically bound to his oath to his father.

A far more compelling answer, however, has been offered based on a principle established by Rav Avraham of Sochachov, in Avnei Nezer, Y.D. 2:306, and related to our discussion yesterday. The Avnei Nezer claims that even without an explicit command in the Torah, one is bound by basic ethical standards to fulfill his promises to others. Even without any halakhic requirement to this effect, good manners and social propriety dictate that one stick to his word. The Torah's laws concerning vows add an obligation to fulfill one's vows even when they do not affect others, such as in cases of personal oaths unrelated to human interaction. Promises made to others, however, take effect even before Matan Torah on the basis of universal ethical norms. Therefore, regardless of the applicability of Torah and mitzvot, Yosef's vow to his father was indeed binding.

*****

Among the many blessings that Yaakov Avinu bestows in Parashat Vayechi are the special blessings to Yosef's two sons, Menashe and Efrayim. He first affords them tribal status, by which they each will form an independent tribe within Am Yisrael (48:5). Suddenly, however, the verse records that Yaakov sees the two grandchildren and asks, "Who are these?" (48:8). The peculiarity of such a question at this point - after all, Yaakov had already discussed their status several verses earlier, or, as the Pesikta Rabbati (3) asks, "They lived with him for seventeen years, and now he says, 'Who are these?'!?" - likely prompted the Midrash, cited by Rashi, to reinterpret Yaakov's question. According to the Midrash, Yaakov prophetically foresaw Yerovam, Achav, and Yehu, wicked kings who will descend from Efrayim and Menashe. Rashi writes that at that point the Shekhina departed from Yaakov, leaving him to wonder as to the worthiness of his grandchildren to receive his special blessing.

It seems, however, that the Midrash's answer simply brings us back to the original question only in a slightly different form. If the Midrash initially asked, why could Yaakov suddenly not recognize Efrayim and Menashe, we may now ask, why was Yaakov suddenly struck by the sinners who will emerge from Efrayim and Menashe? Why specifically now is Yaakov troubled by Yerovam and Achav?

Rav Zalman Sorotzkin, in his Oznayim Le-Torah, suggests that Yaakov's concern resulted from the new status he has just conferred upon Efrayim and Menashe. Unfortunate as the emergence of Yerovam and Achav is in its own right, it takes on much greater significance and yields far more severe repercussions after Efrayim and Menashe have been elevated to independent tribal status. The higher a person's status, the higher the expectations. The possibility of a blemish on the characters of Efrayim and Menashe did not strike Yaakov until after he declared them equivalent to Reuven and Shimon. At that point, just as the misdeeds of Reuven and Shimon troubled their father terribly, so did the stain that he detected on the future of Efrayim and Menashe.

Rav Sorotzkin continues by noting the text of our Rosh Hashanah liturgy, in the "zikhronot" section of the mussaf service. We acknowledge in this prayer that God observes and recalls "ma'aseh ish u-fkudato" - a man's actions and his "pekuda." Rav Sorotzkin defines the word "pekuda" as "appointment." Meaning, God judges based on not only a person's conduct, but also his stature, and, by extension, the expectations from him. What may pass as an excusable, passable slip for some people constitutes a grave error for others. When conducting ourselves, therefore, we must carefully examine not only our actions themselves, but whether or not they accommodate the people we are or hope to become.

*****

As we discussed yesterday, in Parashat Vayechi Yaakov assigns Yosef the bekhora, or birthright, by which his descendants form two independent tribes among Am Yisrael. Yaakov thus declares that Yosef's sons, Efrayim and Menashe, will henceforth share the same stature as Reuven and Shimon and their other brothers. Curiously, however, Yaakov continues byrecalling Rachel's death and he roadside burial. Wdoes Yaakov raise the issue of Rachel's burial specifically at this point?

Many different answers appear in the various commentaries. Many commentators, including Rashi, Ramban, Ibn Ezra and Radak, explain that Yaakov anticipated Yosef's complaint regarding Yaakov's order that Yosef bury his remains in Canaan. Yosef may have wondered why Yaakov demands a dignified burial in the family plot in Chevron, whereas he did not provide this same level of respect for Yosef's mother, Rachel. Yaakov therefore explains that Rachel died during travel, with quite some distance left until the nearest town. He thus had no choice but to bury her along the road.

Several later commentators, including the Or Ha-chayim and the Netziv, raise a compelling objection to this approach. If this concern prompted Yaakov's recollection of Rachel's death, why did he wait until now to address this issue? He had requested his burial in Chevron during his previous meeting with Yosef, as related at the outset of Parashat Vayechi. The current meeting involved Yosef's children; why would he raise the issue of Rachel's burial only here? For this reason, later works suggest many different explanations.

Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch suggests that Yaakov here informs Yosef as to the reason why he was appointed firstborn. As Rachel did not earn a proper burial, and, moreover, Leah, rather than Rachel, is buried alongside Yaakov in Me'arat Ha-machpela, Yaakov feared that history will relegate Rachel's status to that of the maidservants. Like Rachel, each maidservant bore only two children. To rectify the situation, Yaakov named her oldest son, Yosef, the firstborn, such that two tribes will emerge from him. It will then turn out that Rachel produced three of the tribes of Israel - Efrayim, Menashe and Binyamin - whereas Yaakov's maidservants bore only two apiece. By naming Yosef the bekhor, then, Yaakov hoped to at least emphasize Rachel's elevated status vis-à-vis the maidservants.

In contradistinction to these approaches, the Ralbag claims that Yaakov notes Rachel's burial as an example of his immense love and devotion to her. Whereas other commentators assume that the roadside burial was somewhat undignified for the distinguished matriarch, the Ralbag suggests just the opposite. The fact that Yaakov provided her with a respectful funeral despite the obvious hardships of travel (not to mention a newborn baby) testifies to his high regard for his most beloved wife.

Tomorrow we will iy"H look at two other possibilities.

*****

Yesterday we studied the verses regarding Yaakov's affording double-tribe status to Yosef. Immediately following his declaration that Yosef's sons, Efrayim and Menashe, will form two independent tribes, Yaakov recalls Rachel's sudden death and roadside burial. Of what relevance is this event to Yosef's having earned two tribes? Yesterday we looked at several answers given by classical commentators; today we will consider two additional approaches.

Rabbi Menachem Leibtag suggests, quite simply, that Rachel's roadside funeral may have called into question Yosef's privilege to the birthright. The question of the bekhora revolved around the issue of who Yaakov considers his "primary" wife - Leah or Rachel. If Leah is to be viewed as Yaakov's primary wife, having married him first and borne him the most children, then her sons deserve the birthright. If Reuven forfeited his right as a result of his sin with Bilha (see Divrei Hayamim I 5:1), then Shimon, the second of Leah's sons, should take his place. If, however, Yaakov deemed Rachel his primary wife, then bekhor status rightfully belongs to her eldest, Yosef. The fact that Rachel did not merit burial in the family graveyard in Chevron may have indicated that she is not to be considered Yaakov's primary wife. Yaakov therefore reminds Yosef now, as he confers the birthright upon him, of the circumstances surrounding her death. She was buried alongside the road not because of any lower status, but rather due to the unfeasibility of a more proper burial.

We should perhaps consider another possible explanation. Normally, we try to avoid solutions to textual problems characterized by the quality of "ikar chaser min ha-sefer." That is, we should avoid interpretations of verses that presume the absence of the most critical piece of information from the text. Nevertheless, such an interpretation may be valid if we can advance a reasonable argument as to why the verse intentionally omitted the relevant information. Our case may be such an example.

As we very briefly alluded to earlier, Reuven was initially destined to earn the bekhora. As we know from Yaakov's blistering rebuke here in Vayechi (49:3-4) as well as from Divrei Hayamim I (5:1), he forfeited this privilege as a result of his sin with Bilha. The verse in Divrei Hayamim says explicitly that at that point, Yaakov transferred the birthright to Yosef. We may suggest (though strictly as speculation; it would be difficult to substantiate this explanation) that Yaakov here refers to this sorrowful event. He wishes to explain to Yosef why Reuven lost the bekhora, allowing for its transfer to Yosef. In deference to Reuven's honor, however, he decides to avoid any explicit reference to his sin. Instead, Yaakov recalls Rachel's death and specified the location where this occurred. By association, this would immediately bring to Yosef's mind the family crisis that surfaced immediately following his mother's passing. As Chazal explain, Yaakov had moved his bed from Rachel's tent, where it had been during her lifetime, to that of Bilha - Rachel's maidservant. Reuven found Yaakov's preference of the maidservant over his mother, Leah, an affront to her honor and moved the bed into his mother's tent. Rather than recalling this incident directly, Yaakov preferred to protect his eldest son's honor and refer to it by association.

Should this approach be correct, then an important message may emerge. While Yaakov avoids explicit reference to Reuven's sin in his private meeting with Yosef, he does overtly address this incident in his final charge to Reuven. Someone in a position of influence bears the responsibility of rebuking those who have erred; this certainly applies to a revered father just prior to his death. At this moment, when all ears are attentive and hearts open and seeking inspiration, Yaakov felt it appropriate to condemn the sins of Reuven, Shimon and Levi. By contrast, he specifically couched the sin in a related incident when talking with Yosef. When speaking to a third party, we must do our utmost to preserve the honor and dignity of other people, even when the situation necessitates a reference to their wrongdoing. Unfortunately, we often do just the opposite: to a person's face, we speak kindly and gently and avoid raising objection to his conduct, even in situations when constructive criticism would be helpful. Specifically in conversations with others do we feel free to speak openly of people's mistakes and shortcomings.

Whether or not this final approach is correct, the message it conveys is a critical one and worth contemplating.

*****

Over the last two days we have discussed Yaakov's having transferred the bekhora (rights of the firstborn) from his oldest son, Reuven, to Yosef. The verse in Sefer Divrei Hayamim I (5:1) tells that as a result of Reuven's sin with Bilha, Yaakov denied him birthright privileges and conferred them instead upon Yosef. Indeed, in Parashat Vayechi, Yaakov confirms Yosef's right to these privileges by awarding him a double share in Am Yisrael, as his sons, Efrayim and Menashe, form two, independent tribes within the nation.

Several verses later in the parasha, Yaakov addresses each son individually, beginning with his oldest, Reuven. Here he reminds his firstborn of why he forfeited rights to the bekhora: "Reuven, you are my firstborn, my might and first fruit of my vigor, exceeding in rank and exceeding in honor. Hasty as water, you shall excel no longer… " (49:3-4). As Rashi explains, "The rashness and haste witwhich you hurried to show your anger…. - therefore you shall excel no longer… " According to Rashi, Yaademoted Reuven from his status of bekhor not because his anger per se, nor even because of the actual act he committed. It was rather on account of Reuven's rashness, his inability to temper his emotions with sound reason and a controlled thought process, that he lost his unique status.

This point may have also contributed to Yaakov's decision to name Yosef bekhor in Reuven's place. At the beginning of Parashat Vayeishev, the Torah (Bereishit 37:3) bases Yaakov's special love for Yosef on his having been Yaakov's "ben zekunim" (literally, "a child of old age"). Several different interpretations have been given for this ambiguous term. The Abarbanel suggests that Yosef exhibited a precocious maturity when relating to his father. Whereas around his brothers Yosef conducted himself as a "na'ar," with youthful energy and vigor, with Yaakov he behaved as a "ben zekunim," a mature adult, calculated, patient, and rational. It was this very quality - Yosef's ability to tailor his mode of conduct to the specific circumstances at hand - that impressed Yaakov.

Herein, perhaps, lies the distinction between Reuven and Yosef as assessed by Yaakov. Reuven faltered as a result of his rash conclusions without patient calculation. Yosef, on the other hand, knew how and when to be a "ben zekunim," patient and diligent, carefully weighing all factors before reaching decisions. As we know, Yosef's decisions were not always correct; Chazal have criticized Yosef for a number of things of which we read in these parshiyot. He nevertheless earned leadership status through his careful consideration of every situation, avoiding rash decisions made by instinct and impulse.

*****

Addressing his sons before his death, Yaakov turns to Yissakhar and likens him to a "strong-boned donkey, crouching among the sheepfolds" (49:14). He continues, "He saw rest, that it was good, and the land, that it was pleasant; he bent his shoulder to the burden and become a toiling serf." Chazal explained the image of the "strong-boned donkey" as connoting Yissakhar's tireless toil in Torah study, as evidenced in Divrei Hayamim I (12:33), where we are told of the halakhic proficiency acquired by this tribe. Just as a donkey submissively accepts the heavy load on its back, so do the scholars from Yissakhar humbly take upon themselves the hardships associated with a life of scholarship, the pressure of mastering the vast corpus of Torah and the required sacrifice of material and physical comfort. The second verse of this prophecy, however, appears to be inherently contradictory. If Yissakhar "saw rest, that it was good," then why does he "bend his shoulder to the burden and become a toiling surf"? Why does his appreciation for comfort and recreation result in his submission to the heavy yoke of scholarship?

The answer, of course, is that we must add the word "nevertheless" in the middle of this sentence. Despite Yissakhar's appreciation for luxury, he nevertheless denied himself an overly comfortable lifestyle in order to take upon himself the grueling responsibility of mastering the Torah and reaching halakhic decisions. This tribe of scholars did not embark on this lifestyle simply because they knew nothing better; to the contrary, they willingly sacrificed material and physical luxury in order to properly invest all their time and energy into the sacred pursuit of Torah study.

Already in the preceding verses, Yaakov made it perfectly clear that this life is not for everyone: "Zevulun shall dwell by the seashore; he shall be a haven for ships, and his flank shall rest on Sidon" (49:13). Chazal explain that Yissakhar and Zevulun formed the most famous partnership in Jewish history, one which still exists, on one level or another, today: the successful entrepreneurs of Zevulun supported their brethren from the tribe of Yissakhar, allowing them to study unencumbered. The Zevulunite merchants were prosperous and affluent, and they supported the institutions of higher Jewish learning. Clearly, a nation consisting entirely of Yissakhar could not survive; the Yissakhar-Zevulun partnership was essential in order to ensure the nation's economic and spiritual success.

Nevertheless, the toil and sacrifice of Yissakhar must serve as a model and example for all elements within the nation. Even those who do not forego on material comfort to the extent that Yissakhar does must learn and inculcate the basic message emerging from this tribe's selfless devotion. A Torah lifestyle - whether that of Yissakhar or of Zevulun - demands difficult sacrifices. Though it does not frown upon wealth per se, the Torah does require that we forego on some degree of comfort and relaxation for the sake of Torah and mitzvot. This demand takes on different forms with regard to different people and different situations, but the basic notion is one and the same for us all. For the sake of Torah and mitzvot we must be willing to give of our time, energy and resources, despite the necessary sacrifice of comfort entailed.

This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.

Make Jewish learning part of your week on a regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual Beit Midrash

Yeshivat Har Etzion
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il