The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

by Rav David Silverberg

Parashat Vayechi opens with Yaakov's request that Yosef bury him specifically in Eretz Canaan, rather than in Egypt. After Yosef makes an oath to his father that he will grant this wish, the verse states, "Yisrael bowed at the head of the bed" (47:31). Rashi explains, citing the Gemara in Masekhet Megila 16b, "A jackal in his moment [of power] – bow before him." Meaning, Yaakov bowed to Yosef by virtue of the latter's position of power and authority. But Rashi then adds, citing (in part) from the Midrash Tanchuma, "'at the head of the bed' – he turned himself towards the Shekhina. From here they deduced that the Shekhina resides over the head of an ill patient." At first glance, it appears that Rashi contradicts himself within a single passage. First he writes that Yaakov bowed to Yosef as a sign of respect and honor to Yosef's high rank, and then immediately thereafter Rashi claims that Yaakov bowed his head in homage to the Shekhina.

Moreover, the Gemara's proverb itself – "A jackal in his moment – bow before him," requires explanation. It is well established that one must show honor to those in positions of leadership and authority, such as kings. Why must the Gemara remind us to afford one honor during his period of greatness? The simple explanation would seem, at first glance, to be that we deal here with a "jackal" – meaning, someone undeserving of leadership who chances upon a brief opportunity for greatness. The Gemara thus informs us that even to such a person, during his moment of power, we must show honor and respect. But if this is what the Gemara means, how could it possibly apply this adage to Yosef Ha-tzadik? Are we to view him as but a "jackal" who never deserved his position of leadership in Egypt?

To explain both the Gemara as well as Rashi's comments to this verse, Rav Chayim Hirschensohn, in his "Nimukei Rashi," suggests that this passage in the Gemara is directed not towards those around the person in power, but rather to that person himself. He is reminded that although many people bestow upon him honor and prestige, this is simply because "a jackal in his moment – bow before him." He might very well be just a jackal who temporarily takes the lion's place as king of the jungle, before which even the lion itself bows. He should not think of himself as greater than those who show him honor, for his current ascent to power reflects nothing of his essential character or greatness. The Gemara enlists the verse in Parashat Vayechi as an example of this lesson. Just as Yosef clearly could never feel greater or more deserving than his righteous father, despite Yaakov's bowing before him, so should no one ever feel superior to those who show him honor.

With this in mind, Rav Hirschensohn suggests, we can now resolve Rashi's seemingly self-contradictory remarks. Once we realize that this proverb is directed to the authority figure himself, we need not explain that Yaakov bowed with the intention to honor Yosef. In truth, as Rashi writes in his second sentence, Yaakov bowed in honor of the Shekhina. Yosef, however, who was unaware of his father's illness (he finds this out only in the following verse), and hence unaware of the Shekhina's presence, must have understood his father's bow as directed towards him. And yet, he clearly could not have interpreted this as an indication of his superiority over his father. It thus turns out that we may, indeed, extract from this verse the lesson of "A jackal in his moment – bow to him," and at the same interpret the verse to mean that Yaakov bowed to the Shekhina, rather than to Yosef.

******

At the beginning of Parashat Vayechi, we read of Yaakov's request that Yosef bury him in his homeland, Eretz Canaan, rather than in Egypt. Yaakov goes so far as to ask Yosef to take an oath in this regard, and he later reiterates this wish to all his sons after bestowing upon them their individual blessings (see 49:29-32). The impression given from this parasha is that Yaakov viewed his burial in Eretz Canaan as a matter of critical importance, which he felt compelled to impress upon his children before his death.

The explanation for this sense of urgency is given by Rav Meir Simcha Ha-kohen of Dvinsk, in the Meshekh Chokhma to Parashat Bechukotai. The Meshekh Chokhma there explains that Yaakov here sets a precedent that has since been repeated throughout Jewish history, namely, that religious leaders bear the responsibility of ensuring the maintenance of Jewish identity in the Diaspora. When Benei Yisrael live outside their ancestral homeland, among foreign peoples, they face the threat of extermination by default; they might gradually drift away from their heritage and tradition and blend and assimilate into the host culture and society. Yaakov, foreseeing the long Egyptian exile and the spiritual danger it posed, insisted that he, the patriarch of the fledgling nation, be buried in Eretz Canaan. His burial in the "old country" will ensure a bond between the people and their past; it will help prevent the feeling of absolute belonging in Egypt, and foster a sense of alienation, at least to some extent, from Egyptian society. Thus Am Yisrael will retain its identity despite the two centuries it will spend in Egypt, and so has the Jewish people retained its identity over the two millennia of exile among other nations.

Rabbi Shemuel Kuselwitz, in his "Netivot Shemuel" (New York, 1960), adds that the Meshekh Chokhma's approach may have already been alluded to by Chazal. Rashi (in his commentary to 47:29) cites three reasons why Yaakov asked for burial in Eretz Yisrael, including the fact that "the dead [buried] outside the Land return to life only with the pain of rolling through underground tunnels." Needless to say, we do not really know what exactly this process involves or what will actually take place at the time of techiyat ha-meitim (resurrection of the dead). But in any event, Rabbi Kuselwitz suggests that we may interpret this image as an allegory for a common form of "resurrection" – spiritual resurrection. If Am Yisrael become too entrenched and rooted in their lands outside Eretz Yisrael, if they feel too much a part of the surrounding culture and society, to the point where they forsake their past and their heritage, then the road back to tradition will require a very slow, painful, agonizing process. The image of bones rolling through tunnels back to Eretz Yisrael perhaps symbolizes the grueling process of return Benei Yisrael will be forced to undergo should they be "buried" among the nations, should they firmly root themselves among foreign peoples to the point where they abandon their Jewish identity and heritage.

******

Towards the end of Parashat Vayechi, we read that after Yaakov's passing, Yosef's brothers fear that he will now seek revenge for their mistreatment of him. The Torah tells, "His brothers went to him themselves, flung themselves before him, and said: We are prepared to be your slaves" (50:18). Yosef, of course, assures them that they have nothing to fear, that he would continue supporting them and their families in Egypt and has no plans of vengeance.

Despite Yosef's response, the brothers' offer to serve Yosef as slaves appears to have remained in the minds of Yosef's descendants for many centuries to come. Rashi, in his commentary to Sefer Hoshea (12:9), cites a Midrash in the name of "Rabbi Shimon" claiming that Yeravam Ben Nevat made use of the brothers' offer in establishing his control over the rest of Benei Yisrael. Yeravam, a member of the tribe of Efrayim – the larger and more prominent of the two tribes that emerged from Yosef, led the establishment of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, which declared its independence from the rule of the Davidic dynasty. According to the Midrash cited by Rashi, Yeravam enlisted this verse in Parashat Vayechi as proof to the facthat he, or the tribe of Efrayim, deserves control over all the property of the other tribes, who promised to serve Yosef as slaves.

If, indeed, Yeravam based his claim to power (if only partially) on the brothers' offer to become Yosef's slaves, then we can perhaps answer one of the central questions asked concerning Yeravam's rise to power. As part of his efforts to complete the break with Jerusalem, Yeravam established a new mode and new locations of worship, so that his constituents would no longer have any need to travel to the Temple (see Melakhim I 12:26-33). This new mode of worship (as we noted several weeks ago, in our S.A.L.T. series to Parashat Vayeishev) involved two golden calves that Yeravam established in his temples – one in Dan, and the other in Bet-El. Many commentators wonder how the ten tribes could have continued supporting and following Yeravam after he had instituted the worship of golden calves. Surely they all knew the infamous incident recorded in Sefer Shemot of the sin of the golden calf, and they were aware of its disastrous results and repercussions! How could Benei Yisrael have gone along with Yeravam's project, if it included the worship of golden calves?

Several different answers have been given to this question, but Abarbanel, in his commentary to Sefer Melakhim, claims, on the basis of this difficulty, that Yeravam never meant for these golden calves to serve as religious articles. Rather, he fashioned these golden calves as a national symbol (similar, perhaps, to the menorah in the modern State of Israel); only later, as the people grew further away from authentic Jewish belief, did the golden calves gradually become objects of worship. Abarbanel explains that cattle became the symbol of the tribes of Yosef when Moshe, in his final blessing to these tribes, likened them to "a firstling bull" (Devarim 33:17). This approach of the Abarbanel introduces a tribal element into Yeravam's rebellion; it means that on some level, the pride of the tribes of Yosef played a role in the severing of ties with the Kingdom of Judah and Yeravam's establishment of a monarchy. Further support for this outlook on Yeravam's rebellion may be drawn from the aforementioned Midrash cited by Rashi in Hoshea. Yeravam perhaps put his campaign into the context of the ancient rivalry between Yosef and the other brothers, led by Yehuda, seeing himself as continuing the struggle of his ancestor against his hostile brothers.

The story of Yosef and his brothers appears to end on a note of reconciliation, friendship and forgiveness. The brothers accept Yosef as family leader, and Yosef harbors no feelings of animosity for their rejection and mistreatment of him. But many centuries later, Yeravam, in his greed and selfish longing for power, rekindled the extinguished flame of fraternal strife and claimed that the score had yet to be settled. Rather than avoiding quarrels and friction, Yeravam specifically resuscitated a conflict that had long since been resolved, to further his egotistical ambitions of power and fame.

******

Yesterday, we discussed Yosef's brothers' concern, as told in Parashat Vayechi, that Yosef would seek revenge from his brothers for their having sold him into slavery. The verse appears to link their fears with Yaakov's death: "Yosef's brothers saw that their father was dead, and they said, 'What if Yosef still bears a grudge against us and pays us back for all the wrong that we did him!'" (50:15). Why did Yaakov's death precipitate these fears?

We find in the Midrashim several explanations as to why the brothers' fears were triggered specifically by Yaakov's death. Bereishit Rabba (100) explains that after Yaakov's death, Yosef stopped inviting his brothers for family gatherings, which they interpreted as a sign of hostility. In truth, however, Yosef stopped inviting them to preserve their honor. During Yaakov's lifetime, at family gatherings Yaakov would assign Yosef the seat of honor, instead of giving the seat to Yehuda, whose tribe was destined for royalty, or Reuven, the firstborn. After Yaakov's death, however, Yosef felt uncomfortable continuing this practice, of hosting his brothers while assuming the seat of honor. (Apparently, abrogating this seat of honor was not an option, either, due to his position of leadership in Egypt.) The brothers, however, feared that Yosef changed his policy to one of anger, revenge and animosity towards them.

A different account appears in the Midrash Tanchuma. There we are told that as the brothers made their way back to Egypt after burying Yaakov in Canaan, Yosef made a stop to peer into the pit into which his brothers had thrown him many years earlier. Yosef visited this site in order to express thanksgiving to the Almighty for miraculously saving him from that pit. The brothers, however, interpreted it as a signal that Yosef harbored ill feelings towards them and seeks revenge for their having mistreated him. Interestingly, the Midrashic work "Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer" (cited in Torah Sheleima, note 50) cites both these accounts and brings them as examples of the principle known as, "vihyitem nekiyim mei-Hashem u-mi'Yisrael." This means that one must make an effort to not only act correctly, but act in a manner that cannot be misinterpreted as incorrect. Yosef had no plans of revenge, but failed to act in a way that would assure his brothers that he forgave them and did not intend to punish them for what they did.

On the level of "peshat," however, it is likely that the brothers felt that Yosef would not seek revenge during Yaakov's lifetime out of respect for him. A generation earlier, Esav expressed his desire to kill Yaakov for having seized his blessing from him, but made a point of saying that he would do so only after his father's death (27:41). Similarly, the brothers may have thought, Yosef waited until after Yaakov's passing to begin his vindictive campaign against them.

Rav Yehuda Henkin, in his work, "New Interpretations on the Parsha," adds another factor that perhaps contributed to the brothers' fears at this point. In consoling his brothers, Yosef assures them that he will "support" them and their children (50:21), just as he "supported" his father, brothers and their families during the years of famine (see 45:11). The question arises, why must Yosef support his brothers now? We are now a full seventeen years after his brothers' arrival in Egypt, which occurred after two of the seven predicted years of famine (again, see 45:11). Thus, the famine had ended twelve years earlier; what more, according to the Midrash (cited by Rashi to 50:3), the famine actually came to an end with Yaakov's arrival in Egypt. Why, then, must Yosef continue supporting his shepherd brothers, who, presumably, had plenty of pasture for their sheep and therefore had the means to make their own livelihood?

The answer appears in a comment of the Sifrei in Sefer Devarim (38), which indicates that another famine struck Egypt after Yaakov's death. The seventeen years Yaakov spent in Egypt marked a long hiatus in the seven-year famine, which resumed after the patriarch's death. We can now easily understand the brothers' concern. With the resumption of the famine in Egypt, the brothers must rely on Yosef for their basic sustenance, for their very survival. This gives Yosef the opportunity to do to the brothers precisely what they had initially decided to do to him. They threw him into the pit to let him die of thirst and starvation; he is now in a position to let them die of hunger and starvation. Yosef, however, never entertained any thoughts of retribution, and generously fed his brothers and their families throughout the period of famine.

******

Over the last two days we have discussed the account towards the end of Parashat Vayechi, where Yosef's brothers appeal to Yosef for compassion, fearing that he might use his position of power in Egypt to repay them for the evil they had brought upon him. In expressing their concerns, they say that Yosef might "pay us back for all the wrong" (50:15). The brothers employ in this phrase the double ex, "ve-hashev yashiv lanu" ("pay us back"). The work "Yad David" by Rav David Yehuda Zilberstein cites a Midrash which interprets each of the two words – "hashev yashiv" – as referring to a different fear of the brothers. The first, "hashev," expresses their most obvious concern, that Yosef himself will turn against them and take his long-awaited revenge. The word "yashiv," however, refers to their fear of Esav. For some reason, the brothers at this point fear that Esav, their father's brother and nemesis, might come to harm them. The obvious question arises, why suddenly now does the fear of Esav arise, and what does this have to do with their concern of Yosef's revenge?

One possible explanation perhaps emerges from our discussion several weeks ago, in our S.A.L.T. series to Parashat Vayishlach, where we cited Abarbanel's discussion (in his commentary to Sefer Yeshayahu) concerning the relationship between Esav and Rome. Amidst his discussion, Abarbanel cites Josephus' account of an attack launched by Esav's children and grandchildren against Yaakov's sons as they returned to Egypt after burying their father. Josephus records that the brothers soundly defeated their assailants and even took a captive, Tzefo, who later fled to Carthage and ultimately settled in Italy, where his name became Janus, one of the heroes of ancient Roman legend. In any event, this shows that the brothers indeed had reason to fear Esav, and upon their return to Egypt, they may have feared that Yosef, in revenge for their mistreatment of him, would deliver them into the hands of Esav's children and grandchildren.

The "Yad David" himself, however, provides perhaps a more satisfying explanation. Chazal comment that the nation of Esav will fall into the hands of Am Yisrael only through Yosef. In this vein, Chazal interpret the verse towards the end of Sefer Ovadya (verse 18), "The House of Yaakov shall be fire, and the House of Yosef a flame; and the House of Esav shall be straw; they shall burn it and devour it." Without Yosef's protection, then, the brothers stood no chance against their enemies; therefore, the prospect of Yosef turning against them meant their exposure to Esav.

It thus turns out that the brothers here express two concerns. Firstly, and more obviously, they fear that Yosef would use his power in Egypt to hurt them. But secondly, even if Yosef would not actually inflict upon them harm, he might simply abandon them, he might decide to dissociate himself from his family and become fully and completely integrated into Egyptian society. Recall that according to one passage in the Midrash, cited yesterday, Yosef stopped inviting his brothers after Yaakov's death. This may have indicated to the brothers that even if Yosef would not actively hurt them, he might turn away from them and no longer maintain family ties with them. If so, then they have no reason to remain in Egypt, and should simply return to Canaan. But they realized that this, too, was not an option. For without Yosef, they had no chance of surviving amongst the hostile nations in and around Eretz Canaan. Therefore, even this possibility, that Yosef simply alienated himself from his family, posed great danger to the sons of Yaakov and to the nation they were now in the process of building.

******

Parashat Vayechi records the blessings Yaakov Avinu bestows upon his sons just prior to his death. In his blessing to Yehuda, his fourth son, Yaakov declares, "The scepter shall not depart from Yehuda, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet – until Shilo will come, and to him will nations gather" (49:10). The Gemara in Masekhet Sanhedrin (98b) explains "Shilo" as a reference to Mashiach, to whom "nations will gather" to accept his reign. Accordingly, this verse predicts that the tribe of Yehuda will enjoy kingship continuously, until the Messianic era.

This verse, particularly in light of Chazal's interpretation, has formed one of the bases of Christian-Jewish polemic. Christian theologians argued that since this verse promises Yehuda kingship until the arrival of the Messiah, then the fact that Yehuda has obviously long since lost royal power proves that the Messiah has already arrived.

The Rashba, in one of his responsa (4:187), records a dialogue he held with a Christian scholar on this very subject. The Rashba soundly demonstrates that the word "ad" ("until") in this verse does mean to the exclusion of the thereafter. He cites several examples where the word "ad" does not exclude the period after the stipulated event or time, but rather means "even until… " – but continuing onward, as well. Here, too, Yaakov tells Yehuda that kingship will always be his, all the way until the coming of the Mashiach, a scion of the House of David (which descends, of course, from the tribe of Yehuda), who will establish his eternal dynasty that will rule over Israel and the world forever. The Rashba adds that in any event this argument will not help substantiate the Messianic claims of Christianity. After all, the tribe of Yehuda lost its royal authority even before the birth of Christianity's Messiah. Thus, this verse requires explanation in any event, and Christianity's claims of the Messiah's arrival will not resolve Yaakov's prediction.

How, then, can we explain this verse? How do we resolve Yaakov's prophecy with the tribe of Yehuda's loss of royal power many centuries ago?

The Rashba responds that Yaakov refers not to practical kingship, but rather to a claim, or acknowledged right, to kingship. True, in practical terms, no one from the tribe of Yehuda has been king over Israel for many centuries. But the Nation of Israel has continuously acknowledged the right of the tribe of Yehuda to kingship, and that the ultimate, eternal monarchy that will be established by Am Yisrael will emerge from this tribe.

The Ramban, in his commentary to this verse, explains slightly differently, though along generally similar lines. He reads this prophecy as saying that whenever Am Yisrael has an established, monarchal dynasty, it must come from the tribe of Yehuda. Yaakov does not mean to say that Yehuda will not lose kingship until the advent of the Messiah, but rather that royal dynasties among Am Yisrael must be from this tribe. The Ramban here famously adds that the Hasmoneans, the family of kohanim who overthrew the Greeks and established their own dynasty, violated this imperative and were therefore ultimately destroyed.

A much different approach to this verse is taken by the commentary, "Panei'ach Raza" (by the Ba'alei Ha-Tosefot). The Panei'ach Raza claims that the phrase, "ad ki" in this verse means not, "until the time when," but rather "when." Meaning, once the Messianic king arrives, from that point on the scepter shall never leave the possession of the tribe of Yehuda. Thus, Yaakov foresees the continuous rule of Yehuda not until the time of Mashiach, but rather from the time of Mashiach. The Ran, in his "derashot," adopts this approach to the verse, as well.

Abarbanel advances a particularly novel theory in his explanation of this verse, suggesting that in truth, the leaders of the Jewish people continue to be from the tribe of Yehuda. Chazal comment that Yaakov refers here even to the rabbinical leaders of Am Yisrael in the Babylonian exile, who descended from the tribe of Yehuda. Clearly, then, Chazal understood that Yaakov here refers not specifically to monarchal rule, but to any type of leadership role or position of authority. Once we accept this premise, Abarbanel argues, we have every right to assume that the leaders of the Jewish people throughout the generations have always descended from the tribe of Yehuda.

******

We read in Parashat Vayechi of the blessings Yaakov bestows upon his sons just before his death. But even a cursory reading of these blessings reveals that Yaakov's first three sons did not receive anything resembling a "blessing" – despite the fact that the Torah describes them as such (see 49:28). In his address to Reuven, Yaakov sharply criticizes him for his sin concerning Bilha (removing Yaakov's bed from Bilha'stent), and Shimon and Levi are castigated for their violent destruction of the city of Shekhem. Leaving aside the common question of how these remarks can classify as "blessings," we will concentrate on a different issue – these sons' response to Yaakov's criticism. The Yalkut Shimoni (Mishlei, 953) comments, "Since Reuven, Shimon and Levi accepted their father's criticism, they were privileged of having their lineage associated with Moshe and Aharon." The Midrash refers to the brief genealogical record in Parashat Vaera (Shemot 6:14-26), where the Torah lists the families of the tribes of Reuven, Shimon and Levi, until it finally arrives at Moshe and Aharon. Why are these tribes rewarded in this manner for their acceptance of Yaakov's criticism?

One might explain, at least at first glance, that the reason has to do with the particular nature and context of Yaakov's castigation of these three sons. Yaakov's deathbed condemnation of the conduct exhibited by Reuven, Shimon and Levi could have been interpreted as his refusal to include them within Am Yisrael. With regard to Reuven, Yaakov explicitly attributes his loss of the birthright and leadership to his sin. The fact that each of the other sons receives prophecies of greatness and prosperity, whereas these three are only reprimanded for their misdeeds, could have been taken to mean that they have forfeited their membership within the nation formed by Yaakov's offspring. In reward for accepting this criticism, despite its potential, long-term repercussions, these sons are later the only tribes whose families are listed in Parashat Vaera. The Torah there presents this genealogical record for the sole purpose of giving the family background of Moshe and Aharon. It is a show of honor to these three tribes that the Torah could not proceed directly to delineate Moshe and Aharon's genealogy without listing all the families of the first three tribes until it finally arrives at the two leaders. This reaffirms these tribes' full inclusion within Am Yisrael.

But the Yalkut Shimoni adds that this reward granted to these three tribes reflects a general rule, rather than a specific reward in this specific instance. It comments that the reward of Reuven, Shimon and Levi fulfills the verse, "He whose ear heeds the rebuke of life lodges among the wise" (Mishlei 15:31). By lending an ear to Yaakov's "rebuke of life," Reuven, Shimon and Levi earned "lodging among the wise" – they were given the privilege of explicit association with Moshe and Aharon. Thus, the Midrash appears to establish here a general principle, that a positive response to criticism is rewarded with affiliation among great people. Why does acceptance of criticism earn one association with great people?

The knee-jerk reaction many people have to criticism is, "Are you saying that I'm just a fool?"; "Are you accusing me of lying?"; "How can you say that I'm just no good?" This instinctive association between criticism and rejection leads many to refuse criticism and throw it back at the speaker. The more mature, healthy attitude to criticism is to understand that even fine people make mistakes, that the person administering the rebuke has no intention, necessarily, of labeling the other or writing him off as a failure. One who accepts criticism understands that one can still be considered intelligent, capable, upright, and meritorious even with certain shortcomings and flaws that demand his attention. His reward, therefore, is "lodging among the wise." If one has the ability to reconcile his worthiness with the criticism offered to him, if he believes in his potential for greatness even if the harsh words he hears are correct, then this will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and he will indeed earn "lodging among the wise."

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