Category: Excerpts

Excerpted from Rabbi Shmuel Goldin’s ‘Unlocking The Torah Text: An In-Depth Journey Into The Weekly Parsha- Bereishit‘

Context

After thrusting Yosef into a pit, his brothers sit down to eat. When they observe an approaching caravan of Ishmaelites, Yehuda convinces his siblings to sell Yosef into bondage rather than allow him to die.

The text then continues (note the pronouns and their referents): “And Midianite men passed by, merchants, and they drew Yosef up out of the pit; and they sold Yosef to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver; and they brought Yosef to Egypt.”

Later, the Torah relates: “And the Medanites sold him (Yosef) to Egypt, to Potiphar, a court official of Pharaoh…”

Finally, even later, the text states: “And Potiphar…bought him from the hand of the Ishmaelites who had brought him there.”

Questions

The text concerning the critical event of Yosef’s sale seems strangely ambiguous, even contradictory.

Who are the Midianite men who suddenly appear, as if out of nowhere, and what is their relationship, if any, to the caravan of Ishmaelites?

Who actually pulled Yosef out of the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites: his brothers or the Midianites?

If Yosef was sold to the Ishmaelites why does the Torah state that the Medanites “sold him to Egypt, to Potiphar…”?

Why does the Torah seem to contradict itself again with the statement “and Potiphar…bought him from the hand of the Ishmaelites who had brought him there”?

Finally, why is the Torah so deliberately vague concerning the sequence of events at this critical juncture in the story of our people?

Approaches

The commentaries directly confront the ambiguity of the text in their discussions
of the sale of Yosef.

A

Rashi maintains the classical position that Yosef’s brothers actively sold him into slavery. Commenting on the phrase “and they drew…,” Rashi simply states, “The sons of Yaakov (drew) Yosef from the pit.”

Rashi further explains that the appearance of the Midianites reflects the fact that Yosef was sold numerous times: “The brothers sold him to the Ishmaelites who sold him to the Midianites, and the Midianites sold him to Egypt.”

Yosef ’s grievous treatment at the hand of his brothers is further exacerbated when he is treated like chattel and sold from one hand to the next. [Rashi identifies the Medanites, mentioned later in the text, with the Midianites. He fails, however, to explain the final statement which declares that Potiphar bought Yosef from the Ishmaelites.]

B

Numerous other scholars, while agreeing with Rashi’s basic premise that the brothers sold Yosef into slavery, offer their own solutions to the mention of Ishmaelites, Midianites and Medanites.

The Ramban and the Sforno both simplify the scene by suggesting that the Ishmaelites and Midianites were operating in partnership within one caravan, with the Ishmaelites serving as camel drivers for the Midianite merchants. Yosef was, therefore, only sold twice: first by the brothers to the passing caravan and then by the merchants of the caravan to Potiphar. The Ramban further explains that the references in the text to the Ishmaelites underscore their role as the ones who physically brought Yosef to Egypt, while the Midianites are highlighted as the merchants who actually bought and sold him. The Sforno, for his part, suggests that the brothers were unwilling to speak directly to the Midianites for fear that they might be recognized. For this reason, he says, they negotiated with the Ishmaelites.

The Ibn Ezra goes a step further and claims that there was only one group of merchants, at times referred to by the text as Ishmaelites and at times as Midianites. To prove his position he quotes a passage from the book of Shoftim which identifies Midianite kings as Ishmaelites.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, Chizkuni suggests that Yosef was actually sold four times. The brothers sold Yosef to the Midianites while he was still in the pit. The Midianites then drew Yosef out of the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites who in turn then sold him again to the Midianites (Medanites). Finally, the Medanites sold Yosef, for the last time, to Potiphar.

C

An entirely different, revolutionary approach to the sale of Yosef is first suggested by the Rashbam and then echoed by a number of subsequent commentaries including Rabbeinu Bachya, Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch and the Malbim. Remaining true to his pashut pshat approach to text, the Rashbam maintains that Yosef’s brothers were not actually involved in his sale. He literally interprets the passage “and Midianite men passed by, merchants, and they drew Yosef up out of the pit; and they sold Yosef to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver…” as follows: The brothers were eating at a distance from the pit…and waiting for the arrival of the Ishmaelites whom they had observed approaching.

Before the Ishmaelites arrived, however, others, Midianites, passed by, saw [Yosef] in the pit, drew him up out of the pit – and the Midianites sold him to the Ishmaelites. It is even possible that the brothers were unaware of these events.

This approach, closer to the text, changes our entire conception of the events surrounding Yosef’s sale: Yosef ’s brothers fully intended to sell him but never actually got the chance to carry out their plans.

D

The most important question, however, yet remains. Why is the Torah, at this critical and dramatic moment in the story of our people, so deliberately vague? Why doesn’t the text tell us clearly whether or not Yosef ’s brothers were actively involved in his sale? Why allow for conflicting interpretations?

Perhaps the text is deliberately vague to teach us that it really doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter whether the brothers actually pulled Yosef out of the pit and sold him or whether they simply set the stage for others to do so. Their guilt, in either case, remains constant.

Centuries later the Torah text will proclaim: “Do not stand idly by the blood of your friend” – If you witness danger to another, you are obligated to act.

We are responsible for the pain we cause or allow to occur to others even when it is not inflicted directly by our hands.

Excerpted from Rabbi Norman Lamm’s ‘Derashot Ledorot: A Commentary for the Ages – Genesis‘ co-published by OU Press, Maggid Books, and Yeshiva University Press; Edited by Stuart W. Halpern

Hypocrisy is rightly a despised trait, and the word “hypocrite” a harsh and contemptuous epithet reserved for vile people. It is all the more unfortunate, therefore, that the popular condemnation of insincerity is not always matched by a correspondingly universal abstention from this vice in the affairs of man in society. Every day many thousands of letters are written in which the writers employ varied devices ranging from subtle deviousness to outright deceit, and compound their crime by signing the letters, “I am, sincerely yours….”

What is a hypocrite? According to the dictionary definition it is one who pretends to be something other than what he really is (usually one who pretends to be better than he really is) or to feel what he does not really feel. Hypocrisy is feigning, acting a part, pretending. Perhaps a better word is the Hebrew tzeviut – literally: coloring, dyeing. Hypocrisy, then, is giving an impression which does not correspond with the facts. It is the incommensurateness of the inner fact and the outer appearance.

Our prophets stormed against hypocrisy. Our rabbis thundered against it. The Talmud quotes King Yannai advising his wife, Queen Salome, “Do not be afraid either of the Pharisees or of those who are not Pharisees; fear only those hypocrites who act like Pharisees, who behave like Zimri (an ignoble person), and who expect to be rewarded like Pinchas (the saintly priest of Israel)” (Sota 22b).

In that case, we are presented with a problem by the sidra. We read, in very few lines, that Reuben sinned with Bilha, the concubine of his father Jacob. If the Bible said so, it is the truth. Yet the Talmud (Megilla 25b) advises us that the story of Reuben should be read but not translated. It was once the custom that the Torah would be read as we read it, and then one person would be assigned to translate it publicly into Aramaic, the vernacular at that time. However, an exception was made of this story of Reuben, and when one rabbi insisted that it be read in the Hebrew but left untranslated, he was congratulated by his colleagues. But is this not insincere, even hypocritical? Is not the suppression of the truth hypocrisy, and is not every instance of hypocrisy deplorable?

The answer is no, it is not hypocrisy or insincerity, although it suppresses the broadcast of a true event. And, if one should insist that this is hypocrisy, then with full respect to all our honorable prejudices, certain forms of such insincerity are not malicious but wholesome and healthy. Not in all ways must one’s appearances be thoroughly equivalent and correspond to his inner thoughts. To speak a conscious untruth aiming at personal gain or creating a favorable image and false impression is a foul act. But to refrain from telling all I know and consider to be true, either because I am unsure how that truth will be interpreted, or out of respect for the sensitivity and feelings of others – that is an act of civility, not insincerity.

Thus, in the affair of Reuben there were many mitigating factors, and varying interpretations are possible, as indeed many of them appear in the Talmud. A direct translation into the vernacular is, therefore, misleading and the cause of much misunderstanding. Furthermore, it is bad enough that the Torah preserves a sacred record of Reuben’s misdeed, and there is no need to add salt to the wounds of a cherished forebear even if he is no longer in the world of the living.

It is a sin to lie; it is no mitzva to tell all I know, even if it is the truth. There is a law in the Shulchan Arukh that if a man has, heaven forbid, lost a close relative for whom he must mourn, but he is unaware of his loss, then one ought not to apprise him of it within thirty days of the death, for then he would be obligated to observe all of the shiva. One may not give a false answer upon interrogation, but one ought not to volunteer this kind of information, and if he does he is considered a kesil, a fool. A fool, indeed! Hypocrisy is not avoided and insincerity not served by mindless chattering and compulsive loquaciousness!

Too much cruelty has been practiced under the guise of honesty, too much frightful foolishness excused as frankness, too many assaults on the feelings of others carried out under the pretense of sincerity. Is it hypocrisy for a teacher to refrain from telling a slow student that he is unintelligent? Is it commendable sincerity to tell every homely person, “You are plain-looking and unattractive”? No, it is not. In fact, Hillel taught that one must even tell an unattractive bride that she is beautiful and charming!

The truth should be spoken, not blurted out. If you hear a performer or entertainer or artist, and have adverse criticism – even if it is constructive – then Jewish ethics and derekh eretz advise you: wait for a propitious time before offering your comments, do not offend the innermost feelings of another human being. If you apprehend a friend in embarrassing circumstances, performing an evil deed, it is a mitzvah to reproach him. You are not free to withhold your comment. But the rebuke must be administered gently, considerately, delicately. The Torah commands us, “You shall reproach your friend” (Leviticus 19:17). And the rabbis add, “Even a hundred times” (Bava Metzia 31a). On this, one of the great lights of the Musar movement commented: this means that the single rebuke must be broken into a hundred pieces and offered in tiny doses, lest the person you seek to correct should become the victim of painful insult.

Furthermore, there is a decent, beneficial, and honorable kind of hypocrisy which is not insincere, and without which society might well collapse. There are certain conventional fictions that are apparently untrue, but that suggest a kind of truth far beyond the reach of normal comprehension. Jewish law, for instance, aims at producing perfect individuals and a holy society, yet it knows full well, as King Solomon taught, that no person in the world is perfectly righteous and blameless.

Halakha grants each person a chezkat kashrut, a presumption of innocence and virtue; yet it knows full well that, as the Bible teaches, “Man’s innate disposition is toward evil” (Genesis 8:21). Is this hypocrisy? If it is, then we should all be in favor of hypocrisy! For without it, all law and religion must progressively be reduced and diminished to the lowest level of common practice. This spells the death of all ideals. A child who errs and stumbles, yet who is trusted by a parent and feels that the parent’s opinion of him is higher than his poor reality, is inspired by this discrepancy to fulfill the higher image. Likewise the Jew and his halakha: he is imperfect and faulted, yet because he is granted the chezkat kashrut and told that he incorporates the image of God, and is expected to live up to it, he will strive to do just that, lest he suffer inner embarrassment and shame.

This week the Supreme Court has been deliberating on the problems of censorship and pornography. This brings to mind a fascinating article by George P. Elliot I read in a national magazine, in which a principle similar to the one we have been discussing was put forth. The author believes that the law should banish pornography, but not enforce this regulation. He asks: is it not, however, hypocrisy to outlaw pornography if we know well that it will be sold surreptitiously? He answers: “The law should rest content with a decent hypocrisy,’’ and ban obscene literature in the marketplace even if it knows that it will be sold under the counter, where the law will not and cannot bother with it. Law is the way that society approves and disapproves of certain acts. “A certain amount of official hypocrisy is one of the operative principles of a good society.” Unenforced laws express society’s goals, ideals, and visions. Law is meant not only to punish, but also to educate to higher standards. “Civilization behaves as though men are decent in full knowledge that they are not.”

Judaism cannot take exception to this doctrine. When, at the beginning of the Emancipation, non-Orthodox Jews did adopt an opposite point of view, they began to prune the laws and cut down the halakha to fit current, prevalent practice. As a result, they discovered – as we well know in our days – that when you do this Judaism begins to crumble and Jews begin to vanish. If Jewish laws are abandoned because they are not universally observed, Judaism becomes nothing but a sanctimonious self-approval for spiritual failures, a vacuous “hekhsher” for not-so-kosher Jews.

That is why we ought not to be impressed or depressed at the cries of hypocrisy often hurled at Orthodox synagogues that disapprove of travel on the Sabbath, though many of its members violate that standard. We rightly insist upon full and meticulous observance of kashrut, though some members in the privacy of their homes or when away from home do not live up to this ideal. If a standard is set, the congregation must live under the impression that the ideal is a reality; and all who fail to conform must suffer the pangs of guilt. If that is a fiction, it is a splendid and sublime fiction, on the way to becoming a luminous truth.

…

We live in an alma diperuda, an imperfect and fragmented world. For truth to be triumphant, it must proceed cautiously. We must give no quarter to falsehood, but we must remember that truth must often disguise itself in a thousand different garments – until that blessed day, the “day of the Lord,” when man and society will be redeemed; when truth will be revealed courageously and fully; when this world will become transformed into an olam ha’emet, a world of truth; when God’s unity will be expressed in living the whole truth and nothing but the truth; and when men will confront their own selves in truth, and be truly devoted to each other, so that each man will be able to address his brother and say, in full and genuine honesty, “I am, sincerely, yours!”

*For the full text of this sermon, see Rabbi Norman Lamm’s ‘Derashot Ledorot: A Commentary for the Ages – Genesis‘

Excerpted from Rabbi Shmuel Goldin’s ‘Unlocking The Torah Text: An In-Depth Journey Into The Weekly Parsha- Bereishit‘, co-published by OU Press and Gefen Publishers

Yaakov’s Second Dream

Context

Hidden in the shadow of Yaakov’s dramatic dream at Beit E-l is a second dream, experienced by the patriarch and recorded in Parshat Vayeitzei.

Unlike the first, this second dream is not recorded directly as it occurs. We learn about it only secondhand when, at the end of twenty years in the house of Lavan, Yaakov tells Rachel and Leah that the time has come to return to Canaan. In the course of the discussion the patriarch says:

And it was at the time of the mating of the flock that I raised my eyes and saw in a dream: And behold all of the goats mounting the flocks were ringed, speckled and checkered. And an Angel of God said to me in the dream, “…Lift up your eyes and see that all the goats mounting the flocks are ringed, speckled and checkered; for I have seen all that Lavan is doing to you. I am the God of Beit E-l where you anointed a pillar and where you made me a vow; now arise, leave this land and return to the land of your birth.”

Questions

Yaakov’s vision of sheep clearly relates to the financial agreements which he had made with Lavan and to Lavan’s attempts to undermine those agreements. At the beginning of his last six years in his father-in-law’s house, Yaakov arranged that his payment would consist of any unusually marked or colored animals born to the flocks under his care. Lavan attempted to manipulate the flocks to minimize the birth of such animals.

What, however, is the relationship between the symbolism and substance of this second dream? There seems to be no clear connection between Yaakov’s vision of sheep and the divine commandment to return to his homeland.

Why, in addition, does the angel in the dream refer to himself as the emissary of the “God of Beit E-l,” and why does he makes specific reference to Yaakov’s vow?

Approaches

A

Clearly bothered by the disconnect between the vision and the message of Yaakov’s dream, the Ramban maintains that Yaakov is actually describing the content of two separate dreams to his wives.

The first of these dreams, which consisted of the vision of sheep, occurred towards the beginning of the six-year period during which Yaakov was to be paid through the receipt of the unusually marked animals. With this vision God was informing the patriarch that divine intervention would overcome Lavan’s machinations.

The second dream, says the Ramban, occurred at the end of the six years, right before Yaakov spoke to his wives. In this dream the angel appeared and informed Yaakov that the time had come to return to Canaan.

B

Other commentaries maintain that Yaakov was referring to one unified dream. They differ, however, as to the message conveyed by that vision.

Rashi, for example, sees the dream as emphasizing God’s miraculous protection of Yaakov’s welfare. He quotes the Midrashic tradition which pictures heavenly angels overcoming Lavan’s deceit by physically returning to Yaakov sheep that Lavan had unfairly appropriated. The Ralbag explains the dream as underscoring the partnership between God and man. Yaakov’s own efforts are supplemented by God’s support.

Neither of these approaches, however, seems to address the apparent disconnect between the vision and the angel’s message to return home.

The Malbim connects the disparate segments of the dreams by suggesting that God’s message is: “Stay in this place no longer, so that you will no longer have to rely upon miracles to succeed.” The Rivash, on the other hand, sees the unified message as: “Don’t think that because God is protecting you, you can at last relax and bask in your success. God is now commanding you to return to Canaan.”

C

Finally, it has been suggested that Yaakov’s second dream can be connected to his first vision at Beit E-l, yielding an entirely different approach. Seen in context, the two dreams recorded in Parshat Vayeitzei emerge as contrasting end points in Yaakov’s philosophical journey over his years in exile.

When Yaakov leaves the home of his parents and embarks on the path to Charan, he dreams of angels ascending and descending a ladder. Towards the end of his journey, after twenty years in the house of Lavan, when the patriarch dreams again, he dreams of sheep.

The message of that second dream may simply be: Yaakov, when you stop dreaming of angels and start dreaming of sheep, it’s time to go home.

The words of the angel who appears in Yaakov’s second dream are, thus, to be interpreted as follows:

“I have seen what Lavan is doing to you.” I have seen how your father in-law has changed you. You no longer set your sights upon the heavens. Your focus is, instead, upon material gain.

“I am the God of Beit E-l where you anointed a pillar and where you offered to me a vow; now arise and leave this land and return to the land of your birth.” Remember that morning at Beit El when you vowed to return? The time has come to fulfill your vow before it is too late; return to your roots before you are unalterably changed.

Points to Ponder

The frightening possibility that Yaakov needed prodding from God to return and fulfill his vow serves as a cautionary reminder of the powerful allure of material wealth and of its potential effect on our lives. Jewish tradition clearly acknowledges the value of self-sufficiency and underscores that the physical world is a gift from God, meant to be appreciated and enjoyed. The attainment of material wealth, however, should never become the primary focus of our lives. When that happens, and it can easily happen without our conscious realization, wealth becomes a god, effectively supplanting lofty principles and ideals with pedestrian, limited dreams.

Simply put, when we stop dreaming of angels and we start dreaming of sheep, it’s time to go home.

Excerpted from Dr. Mandell Ganchow’s Coming of Age: An Anthology of Divrei Torah for Bar and Bat Mitzvah

Parashat Toldot

by Rabbi Mordechai Willig

The parashah of Toldot contains the source for the berachah made on the occasion of a bar mitzvah. When Esav and Yaakov reached manhood, the Torah tells us, Esav became a hunter, while Yaakov entered the tents of study. The Midrash comments that from this verse we derive that a father must attend to his son until the son turns thirteen, at which time the father says, “Baruch she-petarani me-onsho shel zeh—Blessed is He who exempted me from the punishment of this [boy].”

The Magen Avraham (Orach Chayyim 225:5) explains that after bar mitzvah a father is no longer punished for the sins of his son. The Levush maintains the opposite—that after bar mitzvah the son is no longer punished for the sins of his father. Both understandings, however, share the same difficulty: Why is this berachah limited to a father and son? Why isn’t the same berachah recited for a daughter? Why isn’t it recited by the mother?

Perhaps the basis for this berachah can be explained differently. The first halachah of the Rambam’s Hilchot Talmud Torah states, “Women, slaves, and children are exempt from Torah study, but a father is commanded to teach his young child Torah.” Two questions can be raised. First, why does the Rambam mention only a child? Isn’t a father required to continue teaching his son Torah after bar mitzvah? Second, why does the Rambam begin this series of halachot by telling us who is exempt? Wouldn’t it be more logical to first describe the obligation of talmud Torah and then list the exemptions?

It would seem that, according to the Rambam, one cannot be commanded to teach Torah to someone who has his own personal obligation to learn Torah. Therefore, it is necessary to state that children are exempt from talmud Torah before stating that the father is obligated to teach him. Moreover, though a father is certainly responsible for his son’s education beyond bar mitzvah, this obligation does not fall under the specific mitzvah of “ve-limadtem otam et beneichem”—teaching Torah to one’s sons (See Chazon Ish Yoreh De’ah 152:1).

In this light, the berachah is the father’s statement of gratitude that he has completed his mitzvah of ve-limadtem and is no longer punishable for it. This interpretation is supported by the context of the berachah’s midrashic source: A father must care for his son for thirteen years, after which the son himself must choose the tents of study over the hunting field. Since ve-limadtem does not apply to daughters or mothers, the berachah is not said for or by them.

The Magen Avraham (Orach Chayyim 225:4), citing the Zohar, requires that a father make a festive meal when his son becomes bar mitzvah just as he would make for his son’s wedding. The Zohar’s comparison to a wedding reflects a father’s mitzvah to celebrate with a se’udah when completing one of his obligations towards his son, namely, milah, pidyon ha-ben, teaching him Torah and marrying him off.

The Maharshal, however, views the se’udah from the boy’s vantage point—as a celebration for becoming commanded to do mitzvoth. As such, the Yechaveh Da’at (II, 29) equates bar and bat mitzvah celebrations. It would seem that the Maharshal’s reason does, in fact, apply and therefore the girl is required to make a party for her close friends and family. However, a wedding-like feast, which reflects the completion of the father’s obligation of ve-limadtem, applies, like the berachah of Baruch she-petarani, to a bar mitzvah only.

Rabbi Willig is rav of the Young Israel of Riverdale, New York and Rosh Yeshiva, RIETS.

Excerpted from Rabbi Shmuel Goldin’s ‘Unlocking The Torah Text: An In-Depth Journey Into The Weekly Parsha- Bereishit‘, co-published by OU Press and Gefen Publishers

Context

Mystery surrounds the search for Yitzchak’s wife.

Although the rabbis identify the servant sent by Avraham to Aram Naharaim as Eliezer, he is not mentioned by name in the text at all. Instead, two terms are used interchangeably throughout the narrative to describe the anonymous envoy: eved, “servant,” and ish, “man.”

Questions

Why does the Torah fail to identify Eliezer in his central role in this pivotal event?

What is the significance of the seemingly interchangeable terms eved and ish in the narrative, and why does the Torah text fluctuate between the two?

Approaches

A

The mystery of Eliezer’s “absence” from the text raises a series of tantalizing possibilities within rabbinic literature.

Some authorities actually suggest that the omission of Eliezer’s name reflects a fundamental ambivalence on the servant’s part concerning the possible success of his mission. At some level, Eliezer may well have hoped that he would fail.

Until the birth of Yishmael and Yitzchak, Eliezer was the heir apparent to Avraham’s wealth and spiritual legacy. This fact is reflected in Avraham’s own complaint to God: “And the controller of my home is Eliezer of Damascus.”

Eliezer, say these scholars, still harbored a hope that he would somehow be Avraham’s heir. He even believed that if his journey to find a wife for Yitzchak ended in failure Avraham would consider a marriage between Yitzchak and Eliezer’s own daughter.

The Midrashic tradition of Eliezer’s ambivalence reminds us that the Torah narrative reflects the lives of real individuals in complex situations. Avraham’s servant could well have patiently guarded his own personal aspirations over years of faithful service to his master, only to find those very aspirations now threatened by a mission in which he is to play the pivotal role. The Midrash thus adds a poignant and complex human twist to a familiar biblical tale.

Whatever the truth concerning Eliezer’s intentions, however, the textual evidence is clear. This faithful servant responds to Avraham’s wishes completely and without hesitation.

Perhaps the Torah omits Eliezer’s name from the narrative to demonstrate the total sublimation of his personal aspirations as he fulfils his respected master’s will. He is, in this tale, truly and completely the nameless servant of Avraham.

B

More significant, perhaps, than the omission of Eliezer’s name in the narrative is the seemingly arbitrary alternation between two terms in the Torah’s description of the messenger sent by Avraham. At times the envoy is referred to as an eved, “servant,” and at times as an ish, “man.”

While this linguistic fluctuation might seem inconsequential, a careful review of the narrative reveals, once again, that no word in the Torah text should ever be taken for granted. By alternating between these two terms, the Torah creates a subtle pattern which courses beneath the surface of this tale. Once revealed, this pattern chronicles significant changes in Eliezer’s role as his mission progresses.

C

Eliezer’s journey can be divided into three major sections. During the first, he receives instructions from Avraham, agrees to carry them out, travels to Aram Naharaim, prays to God for success and devises a test by which a wife will be chosen for Yitzchak. Throughout these steps he is consistently referred to as Avraham’s eved, “servant.”

Suddenly, however, Eliezer’s efforts are blessed with success. Rivka appears and passes her test, and the second phase of Eliezer’s mission begins. The servant is now in uncharted territory. He has come to the point where he no longer has clear instructions from his master telling him what to do. On-the-spot decisions now must made. Serious diplomatic skill will have to be brought to bear as he enters into active negotiations with Rivka’s family. Personal initiative and inventiveness will be required if his delicate mission is to be blessed with success.

As Eliezer moves into this new, autonomous arena, the Torah no longer refers to him as an eved, “servant.” He is now ha’ish, “the man.” He has become an independent operator who must move beyond the instructions he has received if he is to succeed in fulfilling his mission.

Evidence of Eliezer’s new role can be clearly seen in the text as the envoy repeats Avraham’s messages to Rivka’s family. The Abravanel enumerates no less than ten substantive changes between Avraham’s instructions to Eliezer and the way the servant repeats those instructions to Rivka’s family. Other commentaries also illuminate additional variations.

This is one of a number of instances where the Torah repeats a conversation or an event. As we have noted before, such repetition serves as a red flag and challenges us to compare the two versions before us. The differences that emerge are invariably meaningful and instructive.

While each variation in Eliezer’s dialogue warrants its own study and explanation, an overall pattern begins to surface. Eliezer changes his master’s very words in order to make the messages more palatable to his audience. To cite a few examples:

Avraham	Eliezer
1. “You shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites among whom I dwell.”	1. “You shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites in whose land I dwell.”
2. “Go to my land and to my birthplace and take a wife for my son Yitzchak.”	2. “…to the home of my father shall you go and to my family and you shall take a wife for my son.”
3. “He [God] shall send His angel before you and you shall take a wife for my son from there.”	3. “[God] shall send His angel with you…and you shall take a wife for my son from my family and from the home of my father.”

The differences between Eliezer’s words and Avraham’s words are extremely telling.

Avraham has successfully fulfilled God’s commandment of Lech Lecha and has effectively severed his connection with his past. Canaan is now his land and he no longer refers to his family as his family at all.

Eliezer, on the other hand, correctly perceives Avraham’s severance with the past as an insult to the patriarch’s family. He therefore alters the text of Avraham’s message to suit the situation.

Eliezer’s diplomacy is revealed through his words as the Torah testifies not only to his loyalty but to his initiative, as well. He has truly been transformed from a servant into a man.

The tale, however, does not end there. As soon as Rivka’s brother and father agree to her union with Yitzchak, the Torah states, “And the servant took out jewelry of silver and gold…”

Eliezer’s brief transformation into an ish has ended and from this point in the narrative onward he will be referred to once again as an eved. His diplomatic initiative behind him, he is again Avraham’s servant, fulfilling the specific instructions of his master as he brings his mission to a close.

Points to Ponder

Through the use of specific words the Torah transforms the simple story of a servant on a mission into the poignant tale of a man with his own conflicting dreams and responsibilities.

On the one hand, Eliezer emerges as the most faithful of servants, enshrined in our history as an example of fealty and devotion. Living at a time when servitude was commonplace, he had the good fortune not only to serve a benevolent master but to play an important role in the unfolding story of the Jewish nation.

At the same time, however, who knows what personal dreams may have remained unrealized? For a moment, as his story unfolds, Eliezer reveals initiative and talents until this point unexplored.

In a different situation, at a different time, given other opportunities, who knows what kind of “man” this “servant” would have been?

A final possibility is hinted at by a Midrashic tradition which suggests that Eliezer was actually the son of the powerful and corrupt hunter and ruler, Nimrod. One can only imagine the possibilities for personal advancement that must have confronted the heir to Nimrod’s throne; and yet, Eliezer becomes Avraham’s servant.

Is it possible that Eliezer’s servitude is a matter of personal choice? Does this biblical figure make the conscious decision to live by the rabbinic dictum verbalized centuries later, “Be a tail to lions rather than a head to foxes?” Faced with the possibility of ruling over an immoral domain, does Eliezer instead put personal ambition aside and deliberately choose servitude to a great man?

If so, Eliezer sets a quiet example of private sacrifice, nobility of service and dedication to society, concepts so sorely missing in our “me first” world.

Excerpted from Rabbi Shmuel Goldin’s ‘Unlocking The Torah Text: An In-Depth Journey Into The Weekly Parsha- Bereishit‘, co-published by OU Press and Gefen Publishers

Context

One of the strangest and most disturbing episodes in the entire Torah is recorded immediately before the destruction of the city of Sodom. Two of the three angels who earlier visited Avraham now arrive at his nephew Lot’s doorstep in Sodom. Lot showers them with hospitality as he invites them into the protection of his home. It does not take long, however, before the evil inhabitants of the city learn of the angels’ presence and surround Lot’s house demanding that the strangers be given up to them. Seeking to protect his guests from the danger confronting them, Lot reasons with the mob and offers his two unmarried daughters in their stead. The Sodomites refuse the offer, and prepare to storm the house. The angels miraculously afflict their potential attackers with blindness, and then inform Lot that to protect himself and his family he must now leave Sodom.

Questions

How are we to understand Lot’s bizarre behavior? He welcomes strangers into his home, but is then willing to sacrifice his own daughters to mob violence.

Does this episode provide us with any kind of window into Lot’s personality and soul? If so, what does a glimpse through that window reveal?

Approaches

A

With the story of Lot, we are confronted with one of those occasions where a simple, careful, straightforward reading of the biblical text reveals easily missed significance. We must first, however, back up to gain an overview. When we do so, a tragic pattern begins to emerge. This pattern, spanning a number of chapters in the text, enables us to understand Lot and his frightening journey.

B

Our story begins in Parshat Lech Lecha at the point when Avraham and his nephew part ways.

Responding to a dispute that erupts between Avraham’s and Lot’s shepherds, the patriarch turns to his nephew and says: “Let there not be a dispute between you and me and between my shepherds and your shepherds, for we are brothers. Behold, all of the land is before you. Separate yourself from me. If you go left then I will go right, and if you go right I will go left.”

Given the opportunity to choose anywhere within the land of Canaan, Lot chooses the fertile Jordan plain and the Torah states, Va’ye’ehal ad Sodom, “And he tented until Sodom.”

C

Two elements of this phrase immediately catch our attention.

1. First of all, the Torah uses the verb va’ye’ehal, “and he tented,” to describe Lot’s relationship to the land near Sodom.

The two words normally used by the Torah to indicate residence in a particular location are lashevet, “to live,” which connotes permanent residence, and lagur, “to dwell,” which connotes impermanent residence.

Here, however, the Torah chooses to use an even more transient term – “tenting.” Why?

2. Secondly, the word ad, “until,” is an inherently ambiguous one and its use here seems strange.

The rabbis tell us that ad can mean one of two things depending upon context. The word sometimes means “up to and including,” and sometimes means “up to but not including.” (For example, if Jewish law says that a certain object is acceptable ad, “up to,” a height of forty amot [a halachic measurement], the rabbis will still have to define what that means. Is an object forty amot high acceptable, or must the object be, at most, 39.999 amot high?)

By stating that Lot tents “ad Sodom,” the Torah deliberately leaves his situation vague. Is Lot in the city or outside the city? The facts are unclear. The Torah goes out of its way to convey a sense of ambivalence on Lot’s part as he considers his relationship to the city of Sodom. The reasons for this ambivalence are made abundantly clear in the Torah’s very next sentence: “And the citizens of Sodom were greatly evil and sinful towards God.”

Lot is aware of the true nature of the city before him and consciously tents at its border. He literally has one foot in the city and one foot out. He believes that he can live on the edge of Sodom without being affected by its evil.

D

We next encounter Lot a chapter later, when he is taken captive during a war involving Sodom. The Torah states: “And they took Lot and all of his wealth, the son of Avraham’s brother, and they went. V’hu yoshev b’Sodom, and he was living in Sodom.”

The seemingly superfluous phrase v’hu yoshev b’Sodom, “and he is living in Sodom,” is actually chronicling an important transformation. By this point, Lot is no longer living at the edge of the city, but rather “in Sodom.” At first ambivalent about his relationship with Sodom, Lot is now comfortable as a full citizen within its borders.

E

Finally, we meet Lot yet again, this time in Parshat Vayeira five chapters later. The occasion is the event with which we began: the visit of the angels to Sodom. The Torah introduces this event in the following fashion: “And the two angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting b’sha’ar Sodom, in the gates of Sodom.”

You could easily miss it, but the Torah is conveying a very significant point with the two words b’sha’ar Sodom, “in the gates of Sodom.” Only specific people had the privilege of sitting in the gates of a city in biblical times: the elders and officials of that city. By now, Lot’s transformation is complete. He has moved from the edge of the city to its center. Lot is now a respected elder of the evil city of Sodom. The man who felt that he would be able to withstand the lure of the city has fallen prey to its power.

F

With the pattern of Lot’s personal transformation as a backdrop, we can now begin to understand his seemingly inexplicable behavior when confronted with the threatening mob outside his door.

Lot is not an evil, but, rather, a weak man. His most fatal flaw, in fact, is his failure to recognize his own vulnerability. He believes that he can withstand the temptations of Sodom. Without realizing it, however, he is sucked in and indelibly transformed by the city around him. The Torah testifies that you cannot live near Sodom and remain unchanged.

At the most critical juncture of his life, Lot displays the aberrant behavior of a man who is trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. On the one hand, he desperately attempts to hold true to the traditions he witnessed in his Uncle Avraham’s tent. He welcomes guests and treats them royally. He is willing to go to any lengths to protect them. At the same time, however, he seamlessly crosses over into the horrific world of Sodom and offers to sacrifice his own daughters to a brutal fate. Lot fails because he believes that he can live in two worlds at once – in two worlds which simply cannot coexist.

Points to Ponder

Over the course of several chapters, the Torah clearly chronicles Lot’s step- by- step transformation: an unwitting journey into the hell that is Sodom.

Lot’s story remains a cautionary tale concerning the effects of external environment on our lives. We must be ever aware of the world that surrounds us, and we must actively reject those elements of our surroundings that are incompatible with our own standards.

Through such vigilance, we will escape Lot’s fate.

Excerpted from Dr. Mandell Ganchow Coming of Age: An Anthology of Divrei Torah for Bar and Bat Mitzvah 

Parshat Lech Lecha

by Rabbi Steven Weil

After discovering God, Avraham Avinu found his mission in life— he “made souls.” Together with his wife Sarah, he successfully brought thousands of pagan idolaters under the wings of the Shechinah by lovingly and logically teaching them about the One True God. Avraham did not care about nationality, social status, age or gender; he only cared about enlightening the masses and spreading the truth of monotheism to as many people as he could reach. Avraham was God’s number-one kiruv person, single-handedly transforming a society. That is why it is so difficult to understand why God instructed Avraham, “Lech lecha.” God told him to leave his home, his birthplace, the place where he was having an outstanding impact and go to an unknown, sparsely populated destination. Avraham was doing God’s work. Why would God want him to abandon that?

Another curious statement from God comes years later. The four kings, who waged war against the five kings, lured Avraham into the battle by kidnapping his nephew, Lot. Against all odds, Avraham was victorious. He not only rescued Lot and other prisoners of war, but he pursued the most powerful armies of the world all the way into Syria. After the war, he was greeted personally by the king of Sodom and honored by Malki Zedek the priest. Avraham already enjoyed a fine reputation as a generous, charismatic man, but after this stunning victory in a world war, he also became known as an awe-inspiring man of power, someone whose might and strength were to be feared. So why, right after this battle, does Hashem say to him, “Al tira Avram—Do not fear, Avram” (Bereishit 15:1)? What could Avraham—one of the most feared men alive—possibly be afraid of?

The third puzzling statement comes from Avraham himself. After Hashem promises, “Do not fear, Avram, I am your shield; your reward will be very great” (Bereishit 15:1), Avraham responds uncharacteristically: “What can You give me, seeing that I go childless?” he says to Hashem (Bereishit 15:2).

Avraham endured many tests to his faith: he left his home, survived a famine and his wife’s abduction, lost his nephew to a foreign value system, and was drawn into a world war—all without ever questioning or doubting Hashem’s plan. But when Hashem promises him great things, Avraham is dismissive. This is the first time Avraham complains to Hashem, and the first time he seems to be bothered by the fact that he is childless. Why has this never before been an issue for Avraham, and why does it take on suddenly take on such urgency?

Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik addresses these questions, and shares with us a very relevant insight into the nature of Avraham’s mission—which is our mission as well. Avraham faced an existential crisis, a crisis of identity and purpose, during his battle against the kings. Until this war, Avraham had understood that his mission in life was to transform humanity and bring the knowledge of God to the peoples of the world. Avraham loved all mankind and envisioned a world united in the belief in a singular God of morals and values. Numerous followers proved his success.

But what scared Avraham was that the world he loved and cared about so much, the world that he dedicated his life to teaching, turned against him in this epic world war. Avraham had faced adversaries before, like Nimrod and Pharaoh, but they were individuals. This was the first time entire kingdoms united against him. Notably, it is the first time the Torah uses the adjective “ivri” to describe Avraham (Bereishit 14:13). Ivri is a variation of the word “eiver,” which means “other side.” For the first time, Avraham felt that the world stood on one side, and he on the other. He felt like an outcast. The idea that he would not be able to fulfill his mission, that he would always be at odds with—instead of at one with—the world, terrified him.

That is why Hashem reassures him, “Do not fear… your reward will be very great.” But Avraham protests that Hashem’s rewards are wasted since he has no children. Up until this point, Avraham was not pained by his childlessness; he considered all of mankind to be his children, who would perpetuate his teachings when he no longer could. But after this war, once he saw himself estranged from mankind, having his own biological child suddenly became monumentally important.

Hashem responds to this, too. “Look now toward the heavens and count the stars if you are able to count them… so shall your offspring be” (Bereishit 15:5). Hashem promises Avraham that he will have his own children. Avraham’s mission to turn the world into a monotheistic community is noble and necessary, but it is not enough. Hashem commanded Avraham to leave his home and the great work he was doing there because to really have an impact on the world, to really transform humanity, to really leave behind an enduring legacy, Avraham had to first teach one little boy named Yitzchak. The world needs to know that there is One God, and that He has expectations of humanity and ethical and moral standards to uphold. But we, the descendants of Avraham, need to know that often times the world is against us, and no matter how great our impact on the world at large may be, the greatest impact we can ever have is on our own children—children like you, the bar mitzvah bachur.

Eight days shy of thirteen years ago you entered into the covenant of Avraham Avinu at your brit milah. Now you stand at the next stage, bar mitzvah, where you become responsible for the beautiful system of mitzvoth that you have been taught by your teachers, parents and grandparents. Their mission, like Avraham’s, was to teach one little boy, and raise him with a solid commitment to the ideals and values of a Godly life. While their mission continues, yours is just beginning. You, too, must be a kiddush Hashem to the world at large, and continue to learn, continue to grow, continue to be the living fulfillment of Avraham’s dream.

And God willing, one day, you will be able to teach everything you know and everything you are to your own little boys and little girls. Then you will know the joy and nachat of Avraham and of every parent that has borne that privilege and led his son to this day.

Rabbi Steven Weil is Senior Managing Director of the Orthodox Union.

Excerpted from Rabbi Shmuel Goldin’s ‘Unlocking The Torah Text: An In-Depth Journey Into The Weekly Parsha- Bereishit,  co-published by OU Press and Gefen Publishers 

Context

A series of slight textual variations appear in the flow of the Noach story.

The Torah describes the entry of Noach’s family into the ark by stating, “Noach and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives entered the ark, because of the waters of the flood.”

When God commands Noach to exit the ark after the flood has ended He states, “Go out from the ark: you and your wife and your sons and your sons’ wives with you.”

Finally, when Noach actually leaves the ark, the text reads as follows: “And Noach went out and his sons and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him.”

Questions

Why is the Torah inconsistent in its description of the order of entry into and exit from the ark? Why is it that when Noach enters the ark, husbands and wives are listed separately; when God commands the departure from the ark, husbands and wives are listed together; and, finally, when the actual departure from the ark takes place, husbands and wives are again listed separately?

Approaches

A

These seemingly unimportant variations serve as a reminder that, when it comes to the Torah, nothing should be taken for granted. Each subtle nuance of the text carries significant lessons and ideas which are too easily missed in a less than careful reading.

B

Commenting on the separation of the men and women as Noach’s family enters the ark, Rashi immediately states, “The men separately, and the women separately: marital relations were prohibited during a time when the world was engulfed in sorrow and tragedy.”

It would have been totally inappropriate, the Torah hints, for Noach and his family to carry on life as normal, complete with the pleasures of intimate relations, at a time when destruction literally rained down upon the world. In spite of the inevitability of the flood, and in spite of the unimaginable evil that caused it, Noach and his family members are forbidden to ignore the pain and suffering outside the ark. The Torah indeed often indicates (as it does here through nuance) that it is immoral for man to live in a vacuum. We are forbidden to ignore the pain and suffering of others.

We can now also understand why God switches the familial order when He instructs Noach’s family to exit the ark at the end of the flood: “You and your wife, and your sons and their wives,” God commands Noach, “men and women together.” The flood is over. Rebuilding civilization and repopulating the world have become the order of the day. The resumption of family relations is not only a right, God states, but an obligation.

C

At this point, however, the logical pattern seems to break down.

The Torah indicates that as Noach’s family departs the ark, men and women remain separate, in apparent defiance of God’s wishes. Why is this gender separation consciously maintained by Noach’s family even now that the flood has ended?

This apparent problem actually provides a key to the final phases of Noach’s story. We must, however, read the story in human terms.

Imagine the scene of total devastation that greets the members of Noach’s family as they begin to exit the ark. How deep their despair must have been and how overwhelming their sense of aloneness. In the face of such tragedy and destruction how can one possibly trust in the future? How can one even contemplate the thought of rebuilding, of beginning again?

Noach and his children are paralyzed by the scene before them. They trust neither God nor themselves. They do not believe that they can be successful in building a new world; and they are unable to imagine the benevolent protection of a God Who could visit such destruction upon mankind.

Men and women leave the ark separately, because they simply cannot contemplate the future.

D

A careful reading of the continuing text shows that God feels compelled to respond in a number of ways:

He promises that He will never again curse the earth because of man’s actions.

He blesses Noach and his sons and commands them, not once but twice, to be fruitful and to multiply.

He constructs and commands a series of laws, establishing a basic morality for mankind. Hopefully, these laws will ensure that the kind of evil that characterized the generation of the flood will never again mark civilization.

He establishes a visible covenant with mankind, symbolized by the rainbow, and promises that He will remember that covenant and never again destroy the world through flood.

God directly responds to the paralysis Noach and his family are experiencing. He urges, encourages and cajoles them to move beyond the moment, to realize that the future can and must be built.

Everything hinges upon how Noach and his family respond at this juncture. The world that God intends to create will depend on this last human remnant’s ability to move forward.

E

The results are mixed. On the one hand, civilization continues. Noach’s children have children, and the world is populated in the aftermath of the flood.

On the other hand, on a personal level, Noach never moves past the tragedy of the world’s destruction. The text chronicles his spiritual descent as he plants a vineyard, drinks from its wine and falls into a drunken stupor. Unable to face what the world has become, Noach apparently escapes in the only way that he can.

The man who has saved the world at God’s command is transformed into a tragic figure right before our eyes.

Points to Ponder

Noach’s struggle and failure in the aftermath of the flood should move us to consider the spiritual heroism of a generation of our own time.

In the aftermath of World War ii, survivors of the Shoah emerged, one by one, from ghettos, concentration camps, forests and other places of hiding, to face a world similar to Noach’s after the flood. These survivors had witnessed unspeakable cruelty and horror. Their world had been totally destroyed, their families murdered.

Who could have blamed these survivors had they given up on the world? Who would have called them to task had they said, “We have lost faith: lost faith in the world, in our God, even in ourselves.”

How understandable it would have been had they been paralyzed, like Noach, unable to continue.

Almost to a one, however, that was not their response. With unimaginable strength and indomitable spirit, these survivors rebuilt their worlds. They married, had children and grandchildren, and successfully created professions and careers. They refused to succumb to hatred and bitterness, all the while courageously living decent, moral lives.

The contributions made by this generation to the Jewish community at large, and to the State of Israel, in particular, are immeasurable; and the families that they built, in the aftermath of their own indescribable personal tragedies, will continue to shape the story of our people for generations to come.

Where Noach failed, they succeeded.

Excerpted from Rabbi Norman Lamm’s Festivals of Faith: Reflections on the Jewish Holidays, co-published by OU Press and Ktav Publishers

The theme that dominates these days is that of farewell.

Shemini Atzeret comes at the tail end of the Sukkot holiday, which itself is the conclusion of the whole High Holiday season, including Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. The Rabbis explain Shemini Atzeret, this one-day celebration at the end of the holiday season, as a special day set aside by God. He may be compared, they say, to a king who invited his children for a feast for a number of days. When the time came for him to take leave of them, he said to them, Beni be-bakkashah mikkem, ikkevu immi yom ehad, kashah alai pereidatkhem, “My children, please stay with me for a while, even for only one more day; it is so difficult to take leave of you” (Rashi to Lev. 23:36).

And the biblical figure who dominates this holiday, when we read the last portion of the Torah, is of course Moses, delivering his last discourse and then facing his death.

There is something particularly pathetic about Moses in this role. He is a man who looms larger than life itself. Yet his death is so very human! He wants so desperately to live, that he is even reduced to begging: Va-ethanan el Hashem, “And I pleaded with the Lord at that time, saying . . . let me, please, cross over and see that good land” (Deut. 3:23).

The Rabbis fill in the gaps in this biblical account of the dialogue between God and Moses, and they add that Moses said: “If I cannot come in as the leader, let me come in at the end of the procession as an ordinary Jew. And if I cannot come in alive, let me at least come in dead, to be buried in the promised land” (Sifra, Be-midbar, 135; Mekhilta, Amalek, 22).

But the divine response was, No! Ve-shammah lo ta‘avor (Deut. 34:4), “you shall not cross over there.” Moreover, the tradition adds, Moses wrote the last words of the Torah by himself, with his quill dipped into an ink made of his own tears (Bava Batra 15a). Va-yamat sham Mosheh, “And Moses died there”— there, on the plains of Moab, not in his Promised Land (Deut. 34:5).

When the Rabbis approach this story of the death of Moses, they make a number of interesting remarks, one of which (in Sotah 14a) has always astonished me. “Rabbi Samlai taught: The Torah begins with an act of loving-kindness (gemilut hasadim), and concludes with an act of loving-kindness. It begins with gemilut hasadim, as it is written, ‘And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them’ (Gen. 3:21). And it ends with gemilut hasadim, as it is written, ‘And He buried him in the valley’ (Deut. 34:6).”

Now, I can understand why the Rabbis saw the beginning of the Torah as characterized by divine charitableness. Providing clothing for primitive man was a way of giving him warmth, protection against the elements—and, even more, a sense of dignity which raised man above the natural order and elevated him above the animals. Clothing is a response to a sense of shame, and that is one of the things that makes mankind human.

But how, and why should the verse “And He buried him in the valley” be regarded as gemilut hasadim, an act of divine loving-kindness?

I can imagine that if some medieval churchman had written this story, it would have offered a script in which Moses bodily ascends to Heaven, in the company of a chorus of singing angels, leaving only a halo to mark the spot of his ascension. Had Mohammedans reworked this story, they would have had Moses charging the Gates of Heaven, his sword held aloft, whilst astride a white Arabian steed. A Greek tragedian would have brought Moses’ life to a grand, tragic, smashing climax—perhaps a duel with Satan, who finally pierces the heart of Moses, which gushes forth blood endlessly, across the ages. A modern scenario for Moses would have had him awarded him a Nobel Prize; or, as our country recently did for George Washington, posthumously granted him the rank of a six-star general; or invited him to address the assembled United Nations from the same rostrum that was dignified by the appearance of Yasir Arafat.

Instead, the Bible offers us nothing but an utterly simple farewell. No act of bravery, no dramatic climax—Moses just lies down and dies.

The Midrash describes the scene in a manner that is pathetic in its simplicity (Sifra, Ha’azinu 339). God says to Moses, “Moses, lie down.” And Moses lies down. “Moses, fold your hands across your chest.” And Moses folds his hands across his chest. “Moses, close your eyes.” And Moses closes his eyes. Where-upon, God softly kisses Moses, and thus withdraws his soul from his body. And so, Moses is dead. No witnesses, no audience, no long list of obituaries in the New York Times, no fancy mausoleum, no unveiling in the company of family and friends. Instead, no one knows his burial place until this very day. For thirty days the people mourned him. At the end of this period, “And the days of the mourning for Moses came to an end.” Finis, it is all over.

And this, according to the Rabbis, is an act of gemilut hasadim, of loving-kindness!

My own intuitive feeling has always been that this was an unkind cut, a cruel blow. This powerful, titanic figure, this Moses who flouted the might of Egypt and forced the Pharaoh and his empire to their knees, who gathered up this pitiful group of slaves and molded a nation out of them, who dealt a mortal blow to the hold of paganism on the ancient world and turned civilization around, ushering in a new age—this historic giant was reduced to begging for a few more days of life! I find it heartbreaking that Moses must plead for these extra favors. I can almost imagine what went on in Moses’ heart, if not on his lips: “God, I gave my sweat and my blood for this people, I suffered through every kind of agony because of them and received nothing in turn but ingratitude. Shall I be deprived of this one bit of pleasure? This obstreperous and obstinate people, who never forgave me for elevating them to greatness, who awarded my forty years of service with rebelliousness and accusations against me—accusing me of adultery, of stealing their donkeys—may I not even have the privilege of seeing their felicity? And God, was it I who wanted this mission? Did I not respond to you (Ex. 4:13), shelah na be-yad tishlah—send them through someone else, but leave me alone? Was it not You who insisted that I be their shepherd? Will you now deny me this one bit of nahas, this one last act of satisfaction? Kill me if You will, O Lord, but at least bury me there!” And the answer comes: No! Ve-shammah lo ta‘avor—You shall not cross over; and the Lord buried him in the valley. Not even on the mountaintop, but down deep, in the valley!

And this, the Rabbis tell us, is sofah gemilut hasadim, the charitable and loving way in which the Bible ends! How can we account for their interpretation?

I suggest three ways in which to understand this rabbinic tradition.

First, the gemilut hasadim the Rabbis refer to was not an act of loving-kindness for Moses, but for all the rest of mankind, for all of posterity, for you and for me. They are teaching us that life’s work is never done, that no career is ever perfect, that no achievement is ever complete. There are always faults, always gaps, always lacunae, always flaws in the painting and chips in the statues that we build and conceive of. It is not only a sobering thought, but also a consolation to all the rest of us, that even a Moses was not perfect, even a Moses did not reach his Promised Land, even a Moses was not fully successful.

Had Moses completely succeeded and attained the full realization of his vision by crossing into the Promised Land, life would have become unbearable for the rest of us. Knowing that perfection is humanly possible, and full success is humanly attainable, it would have made nervous wrecks of us, even those who are not obsessively compulsive. It is, therefore, a gemilut hasadim to us when we recognize, through the biography of Moses, that failure and imperfection are essentials of the human condition. With the knowledge that no life and no endeavor can be perfect, even that of a Moses, we can allay our anxieties about our own imperfections, our own lack of full achievement and absolute success. Hence, sofah gemilut hasadim, this story at the end of the Torah is indeed an act of charity to all of mankind.

The second answer would be that the utterly simple farewell of Moses was an act of gemilut hasadim primarily for Joshua, the successor of Moses.

As is, it was extremely difficult for any man to follow a Moses. I do not envy a Joshua! Anything but a simple farewell would have made it literally impossible for a Joshua to function as a leader and for the loyalties of the people to be transferred from Moses to Joshua. A triumphant march into Eretz Israel, capping Moses’ prophetic career with a brilliant victory, or even a dramatic death, would have rendered the transition from Moses to Joshua virtually impossible.

So it was an act of gemilut hasadim for Joshua—and also for the Children of Israel—that Moses’ death was undramatic and uneventful. Even more, it was in this sense an act of kindness for Moses too, for his goal was not to enhance his own reputation and add to his own prestige, not caring what went on after him—après moi le deluge. His goal was the eternity of Israel and the perpetuation of Torah. By having his last wish denied, by understating his death, Providence assured that his mission would continue, his life’s work would be perpetuated. Gemilut hasadim!

Third, and finally, the simple farewell was an act of loving-kindness to Moses by virtue of its very simplicity. Why? Because Moses needed no heroic act to signify heroic ends, for all his life was an exercise in heroic holiness. His quiet, uneventful death highlighted and emphasized by contrast the dramatic quality and the heroic texture of his whole life. Courage and valor were his everyday companions. Hardihood of spirit, fortitude of character, firmness of backbone were his daily experience and daily equipment. He needed no closing act, no grand finale, no heroics or histrionics, for no death could be as great as his life, as impressive as his teachings.

When a man is remembered for one act, no matter what it be, he has lived for but a moment. But if he is remembered for his whole life, he has achieved immortality.

No wonder that the Torah says of Moses that lo kahatah eino ve-lo nas leho, “his eye was not dimmed and his vigor was not abated” (Deut. 34:7). Moses was too busy living to begin to die. The Rabbis tell us that he ascended the fifteen steps to the peak of Mount Nebo, where he died, bi-pesi‘ah ahat, in one quick step or leap (Sotah 13b). His end came quickly and simply. It was not really death, but simply the cessation of life.

To appreciate why this was a gemilut hasadim, an act of loving-kindness, consider what would have happened had he experienced a dramatic death, whether of victory or of defeat. This man Moses, who spent his life reproaching his people, urging them to repentance, disturbing their peace, goading them, restlessly prodding them on from level to level, denying them peace of mind— all his life would have been vitiated by a dramatic farewell that would have been the only thing the Israelites remembered! The Israelites would have been all too prone to forget his whole life, all his teachings, all of his message, all the annoying irritations that constituted Moses’ mission, in favor of mythologizing and dramatizing and reenacting his death.

It was therefore a favor to Moses to force him to a simple farewell, and thus perpetuate the nobility of his whole life and his whole prophetic career.

Indeed, no parent wants to be remembered only for the way he died, no matter how noble; he wants the whole of his life and what he lived for to be perpetuated. No teacher wants to be remembered only by his last lecture, no rabbi by his last sermon.

To summarize, then, this simple farewell was gemilut hasadim for three reasons. First, it was an act of kindness to all men and women thereafter, in order to reassure us that no life or career is perfect, that we must do the best we can and be grateful for it.

Second, it was an act of gemilut hasadim to Joshua—and even to Israel and Moses himself—to make it possible for someone else to begin with a fair chance for success, and not impose upon the successor the excessive burden of a glorious climax of a predecessor.

Finally, it was an act of gemilut hasadim to Moses, so that the dramatic conclusion not obscure and outshine the far more significant achievements of his whole life, not to let the people forget his historic service.

So, the theme of farewell is suffused with charity and gentleness and goodness.

God, as it were, closes the holiday somewhat sadly: Kashah alai pereidatkhem, “it is difficult for Me to say farewell to you,” and yet hopefully and warmly: Ikkevu me‘at, “stay on for a while,” brace yourself for the long winter to come, and wait for the next yamim tovim, the next festivals, to begin.

And the Books of Moses, like the life and mission of Moses, come to an end.

Somewhat sadly and longingly, but also lovingly and hopefully—and even joyously, with simhah on this Simhat Torah—we close the book of Moses, and open up the next one, the book of Moses’ successor Joshua, and we listen intently and hear and respond, with our hearts full of devotion and sensitivity and the purest of sentiment, to the words Rak hazak ve-ematz me’od, “Be very strong and courageous” (Josh. 1: 7).

And may God bless you all.

Excerpted from Dr. Mandell Ganchow Coming of Age: An Anthology of Divrei Torah for Bar and Bat Mitzvah

by Rabbi Yosef Grossman

The legendary great ga’on, Rav Yitzchok Hutner, in his classic sefer, Pachad Yitzchak (Rosh Hashanah, ma’amar yud, p. 80), points out that Chag Ha-Sukkot is the culmination of two festival cycles. It is the last of the Shalosh Regalim, and it also closes the Yerach Ha-Eitanim that began with Rosh Hashanah and continued through Yom Kippur.

The joyous festival of Simchat Torah brings Sukkot to its conclusion. It is thus the special day each year that leads both festival cycles to their glorious climax.

I believe there is an important lesson to be learned from these special yamim tovim concerning our passion to perform mitzvot, a lesson I would like to share with you as you accept upon yourself the joyous duty of performing mitzvot. It is a lesson which I hope will stay with you for your entire long and productive life.

One of the piyyutim on Simchat Torah contains an enigmatic statement: “Let us rejoice and delight in this Torah, for she is strength and light for us.”
What is the meaning of “be-zot ha-Torah—this Torah”? Should we not merely say “Let us rejoice and delight in the Torah”?

Perhaps the answer can be found in the pasuk we recite when the Torah is raised aloft at the conclusion of its reading. In clarion voice we call out, “ve-zot ha-Torah—And this is the Torah that Moshe set before the children of Israel” (Devarim 4:44). This pasuk immediately follows the parashah concerning the arei miklat, the cities to which one who killed by accident could flee. What is the connection?

The Ma’asei La-Melech, a commentary on the Chafetz Chayyim Al ha- Torah, explains as follows: The pasuk at the beginning of the parashah states that Moshe would assign three cities on the eastern side of the Jordan to be arei miklat. Moshe did this even though he knew that the status of these three cities would not go into effect until Yehoshua crossed over the Jordan and set aside another three cities in Eretz Yisrael proper. Moshe could have rationalized to himself, “Why bother? Let Yehoshua designate all six at one time.” Rather, Moshe Rabbenu said, “A mitzvah that I can accomplish, I will accomplish” (Rashi, Devarim 4:41). If the only part of the mitzvah that Moshe could fulfill was the mere designation of the three cities, he would accomplish even that portion of the mitzvah.

Therefore, the Ma’asei La-Melech tells us, after Moshe designates the three arei miklat, the pasuk declares “ve-zot ha-Torah.” This is the Torah that Moshe placed in front of them—a dedication to the performance of mitzvot which encompasses the diligent pursuit of even a fragment of a mitzvah.

Perhaps we can add to the Ma’asei La-Melech’s beautiful thought. In Kohelet 5:9, Shlomo ha-Melech declares, “He that loves money will never be satisfied with money.” This pasuk, Chazal tell us, refers to Moshe Rabbenu. Money refers to mitzvot—he who loves mitzvot will never have enough mitzvot. Ve-zot ha-Torah teaches us that not only a pauper in mitzvot should pursue every mitzvah, no matter how “small,” but the billionaire in mitzvot should do so as well.

Rebbe Simla’i (Sotah 14a) wonders: Why did Moshe have this burning desire to enter Eretz Yisrael? Did he need to eat the luscious fruit of Eretz Yisrael? Moshe understood that there are many mitzvot that can only be performed in Eretz Yisrael, and he wanted to perform these mitzvot, too. Although Moshe Rabbenu at the end of his life was a mitzvah billionaire, he still had an unsatiated desire to perform more mitzvot. This passion for mitzvah performance propelled Moshe to undertake a fragment of a mitzvah for which someone else would get the credit. This is the Torah which Moshe placed in front of the Bnei Yisrael—in front of us!

This lesson comes to mind during Sukkot and Simchat Torah. Sukkot is saturated with mitzvot. We have the mitzvah of dwelling in the sukkah; the Four Species—etrog, lulav, hadasim and aravot; the mitzvah of the aravah on Hoshanah Rabbah, which originated from the Prophets; and the mitzvah, “vesamachta be-chagecha,” to rejoice during the festival. During Temple times we had the additional mitzvah of nissuch ha-mayim—the drawing and libation of water on the altar—as well as the offering of the special holiday korbanot of chagigah and shalmei simchah.

We are so rich in mitzvot during Sukkot, and yet when Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah come we haven’t had enough. We don’t run home happy that our yoke of mitzvot has been completed. Rather we stay in Yerushalayim to celebrate with Hashem. He and us. He and me. The nations of the world are absent. This is the meaning of the aforementioned piyyut: “Let us rejoice and delight in this Torah”—the Torah of Moshe Rabbenu, the Torah of never being satisfied with mitzvah performance. With great passion and desire we look forward to doing more and more mitzvot. We look forward to performing even a fragment of a mitzvah for which we will not receive full credit.

My fervent blessing to you is that this passionate desire to perform Hashem’s mitzvot, the same passion you felt the first time you put on tefillin, remains with you for 120 years. Thereby, you will continue to be a great source of nachat to your dear parents, grandparents, to all of Klal Yisrael, and to Hashem.

Rabbi Grossman is Senior Rabbinic Coordinator at the OU and Director of its Kosher Education Department. He is the editor of the OU’s Daf HaKashrus and the author of Sefer Ohr HaOros and Mourning Over Churban.