Joseph's Brothers Plot...

11 May 2013 Torah Study with Rabbi Marder

• Rav Joseph Soloveitchik writes about the Joseph story, paying tribute to the Mizrahi (founder of the Israel religious Zionist movement, as opposed to Herzl, who was secular), and comparing Mizrahi to Joseph.  Joseph’s dreams betrayed insecurity; he’s wary that Jacob’s serenity will come to an end.  The dreams foreshadowed new skills other than farming and shepherding, a new economy.  Note the similarity to Zionism – building a new state with different labor skills than just book learning.  Brothers didn’t see this; they were too fixated on the present.  Neither did religious leaders.

Mizrahi was in conflict with other religious leaders who opposed creation of a state of Israel because only God could do this.  Those leaders – mostly in Eastern Europe – saw that synagogues and study halls were filled and deduced that everything was OK.  They were also fixated on the present and thought, why bother to join the secular Zionists?  Mizrahi foresaw the destruction of East European Jewish institutions, to be replaced by Israel as the center of Torah study. 

Source: The Rav Speaks: Five Addresses on Israel, History and the Jewish People by Joseph Dov Soloveitchik and Joseph B. Soloveitchik.  Toras HoRav Foundation, 1982.  

• 37:18
• “They saw him from afar” – brothers are far away from the moderating influence of Jacob.  Ralbag – they recognized his colorful coat, the mere sight of which enrages them.
• “They conspired”
• Rashi writes, “They were filled with plots and cunning.” 
• Ramban comments “kill him before he gets too close,” i.e., at bow-arrow range or turn loose the dogs on him.  [Midrash Rabbah 84:14]
• In other words, conduct long-distance killing without implicating themselves.
• וַיִּתְנַכְּלוּ could be construed as a reflexive verb.  Brothers believed that Joseph was conspiring against them.
• Sforno and Hirsch – brothers acted in self-defense; it was morally correct and mandated.  Killing someone before other person kills you is permissible: pre-emptive strike.
• Context for this view of self-defense
• Exodus 22:1 – killing a night burglar is mandated because there will probably be someone in the house and the burglar will be armed and prepared to kill.  Killing a day burglar is not permissible; expectation is that people are at work.
• Sanhedrin 72a – can’t kill your son, relative, or friend.  However, killing is OK if a stranger.  Gemara formulates the reasoning behind the law.
• There are opposite points of view, based on the contention that the burglar, day or night, will not kill and would just drop the goods and run.
• This verse was used to justify assassination of Yitzak Rabin, but has been disputed.  There was no halakhic basis for this act.  No one can just pick a line of Talmud and interpret it for political purposes; this is disrespect of the texts and of rabbis.
• Why this interpretation that the brothers were acting in self-defense? Because:
• The brothers founded the tribes; they were not thugs.
• The brothers never expressed regret for the act so sages thought there was justification for their actions.  
• 37:19 –אָחִיו אֶל אִישׁ, literally, a man to his brother
• Zohar: Shimon and Levi were the culprits; they were very much alike since they killed the Shechemites).  Jacob curses them in Genesis 49; other brothers are ruled out, according to Rashi’s commentary on that verse.
• “And they said, each man to his brother, 'Behold, here comes the dream master'." (Genesis 37:19) This is Shimon and Levi, who were brothers in every respect
  [Zohar cited in Kabbalah Online at http://www.kabbalaonline.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/379665/jewish/Of-Blessings-and-Curses.htm, accessed 13 May 2013; thank you Rabbi Marder for this reference.]
• Rashi further develops this point in his commentary to Genesis 49:5: Simeon and Levi are brothers [and were] of one [accord in their] plot against Shechem and against Joseph: “So they said one to the other, ‘…So now, let us kill him…’ ” 
• Who were “they”? If you say [that it was] Reuben or Judah, [that cannot be because] they did not agree to kill him. 
• If you say [that it was] the sons of the maidservants, [that cannot be because] their hatred [toward him] was not [so] un-mitigated [that they would want to kill him], for it is stated: “and he was a lad [and was] with the sons of Bilhah” (Genesis 37:2). 
• [It could not have been] Issachar and Zebulun [because they] would not have spoken before their older brothers. 
• [Thus,] by necessity [we must say that] they were Simeon and Levi, whom their father called “brothers.” - [from Genesis Rabbah, Shitah Chadashah]
• “This master of dreams as coming.” 
• Robert Alter – הַחֲלֹמוֹת בַּעַל is not just “the dreamer,” but because of בעל, there is a sarcastic implication.  Alter writes, “The ba’al component suggests someone who has s special proprietary relation to, or mastery of, the noun that follows it.”  So, why is it “sarcastic?”
• Midrash – all wrapped up in his dreams [Midrash Rabbah 84:14 + footnotes in Kleinman/Artscroll edition]
• Joseph was a “possessor of dreams” who had come to yet again relate his dreams to the brothers.  They were displeased at the prospect of hearing yet another of Joseph’s dreams.  Otherwise, Joseph could have been described without the בעל.
• The brothers were unwittingly prophesizing that the descendants of Joseph will worship Baal or idols.  In fact, that’s what those descendants – Jeroboam and Ahab – did.
• Abravanel – more ways to make Joseph our master?  He fabricated his dreams as self-aggrandizement.
• Sforno – someone who dreams excessively.
• 37:20 – kill him now!
• Pits – cisterns for water storage; if deep, impossible to climb out; often used as prisons.
• Sarna on וְנַהַרְגֵהוּ (root ג–ר–ה): the word connotes ruthlessness and violence, the same verb for Cain killing Abel.
• Kill him and throw into pit is the denial of burial.  Robert Alter comments on the naked brutality of this act; it was an atrocity to leave a body unburied.
• At the Lorraine Hotel in Memphis, where Martin Luther King, Jr was killed, there is a plaque quoting this passage. 
• Other references to dreamers: song “Beautiful Dreamer” by Stephen Foster; song “Imagine” by John Lennon; MLK’s “I have dream” speech. 
• Rashi on “let us kill him …  and we will see what will become of his dreams:” The Holy Spirit says thus: They (the brothers) say, “Let us kill him,” but the verse concludes: “and we will see what will become of his dreams.” Let us see whose word will stand up, yours or Mine. It is impossible that they (the brothers) are saying, “and we will see what will become of his dreams,” because, since they will kill him, his dreams will come to naught. [From Tan. Buber, Vayeshev 13]

Joseph went to find his brothers.... geography and more

4 May 2013 – Rabbi Sarah Weissman

37:12 - And his brothers went to pasture their father's flocks in Shechem.

• 37:12 
• Hirsch on middle of verse - brothers’ angst is because they find Joseph threatening. Also, את has extra dots on top of letters – like those when Esau “kisses” Jacob; it’s a pretense; Esau was not really happy to meet Jacob.  Here, there may a deception; the brothers are not really tending father’s flocks but to themselves – a pretext to get away from Joseph.  Not doing what they’re supposed to be doing –making plans.

The source of Hirsch’s commentary on the dots is Midrash Rabbah 84:13. את normally serves as a direct object marker.  In this case, the dots served to negate the direct object, so that “their father’s flocks” cannot be the direct object. The sentence can be read as two clauses: “And his brothers went to pasture” and “their father’s flocks [were] in Shechem.”  “Scripture is thus saying that they went to “pasture,” – to indulge -- themselves.”  [Footnotes to Midrash Rabbah, Artscroll/Kleinman Edition]

• Zohar - את represents the shechinah, God’s presence, as brothers go to Sh’chem (שְׁכֶם).  The brothers seem evil now, but they are ancestors of the Tribes.  Sages have difficulty with this.  This teaching is parallel to the one that God was with Jacob in the pit and in Egypt.  Munk (citing Zohar) writes, “The brothers were pious and righteous men [and] were accompanied by the Divine Presence.  It hovered above them and was with them when Joseph was sold.  It stayed with them despite the way the treated Joseph, for they constituted the nucleus of the future Jewish nation.”
• Is Sh’chem an evil place?  Dinah gets raped, but the brothers become united. 
• So, why did they go to Sh’chem?  
• Nahum Sarna [JPS Torah Commentary] gives two reasons.
• Since the brothers were pastoral nomads, they moved to where there was adequate forage.  Sh’chem fit that bill, since it was well watered and had fertile soil.
• Sh’chem was also a place of family heritage, since Jacob dwelled there in 33:18-20.  Furthermore, in those days, Sh’chem was considered sacred (שְׁכֶם מְקוֹם) because of the plentiful water supply [Sarna’s commentary on 12:6].
• Others remark that the brothers went there to find brides to counter Joseph’s assertions of flirting.  By marrying, they would remove such suspicions and demonstrate greater piety than Joseph, who had made no such efforts [Me’Am Loez, citing Yafeh Toar, page 464].
• The brothers put their trust in God, Who had caused Sh’chem’s population to (1) fear them as in 35:5; or (2) forget the Dinah revenge massacre in 34:25-29 [Artscroll Chumash, citing Radak]
• Did brothers sin by throwing Joseph into the pit?  This sin was punished later by reading the ten martyrs on Yom Kippur …

37:13 - And Israel said to Joseph, "Are your brothers not pasturing in Shechem? Come, and I will send you to them." And he said to him, "Here I am.

37:14 - So he said to him, "Go now and see to your brothers' welfare and the welfare of the flocks, and bring me back word." So he sent him from the valley [depth] of Hebron, and he came to Shechem.

• 37:13-14
• Jacob is called “Israel” – why?  
• He wants brothers to be united; thus “children of Israel.”  Is God behind this scene? Isn’t God always “behind the scenes?”
• “Israel” is used her to reflect his “higher spiritual nature as the architect of the national destiny.” [Artscroll Chumash, citing R’Bachya]
• Israel says to Joseph, go see how your brothers and the flocks are doing (welfare, שְׁלוֹם, of the brothers and flocks), and bring back good words.
• Israel wants Joseph to find the wholeness of his brothers – their good qualities and virtues, not their bad qualities, and see his brothers in a good light in contrast to the  “evil tales” (“bad reports” per JPS translation) of 37:2 [Etz Hayim, citing Simchah Bunem].  

Hirsch writes, “Ya’akov senses that there is a rift between Yosef and his brothers, and he does not want it to deepen.  A the same time, he wants to test Yosef’s feelings toward his brothers.”  Thus, Israel gives Yosef no specific assignment beyond inquiring about his brothers’ “welfare.”

• In other words, Israel wants family harmony.
• Israel’s real motive was to determine the status of his flocks. Are the brothers doing their job as shepherds?  Is he using Joseph in his role as a tattler?

Probably not.  Midrash Rabbah 84:13 states that while it seems natural for Jacob to ask about the welfare of his sons, knowing the status of his flocks is also a legitimate question.  It is incumbent for a person to ask about the state of a resource from which he derives benefit.  After all, an individual is obliged to protect and maintain his wealth, lest he plunge into poverty.

• On the other hand …
• Rashi remarks, “Shechem [is] a place destined for misfortune. There the tribes sinned, there Dinah was violated; there the kingdom of the house of David was divided, as it is said: “And Rehoboam went to Shechem” (I Kings 12:1). [From Sanhhedrin 102a 
• Jacob feared the Hivites (Shechemites) would attack in revenge for the massacre there in 34:25-29 [Me’Am Lo’Ez, citing Sefer HaYashar and Targum Yonathan; also in Munk].  An intelligence mission?
• “Valley of Hebron?”  Wait!  Hebron is on a hill.  Vey iz mir! Vats goin’ on?
• It’s metaphorical - Israel is sending Joseph on a profound mission to fulfill a prophecy. God is deeply connected in this process.
• Rashi - But is not Hebron on a mountain? It is stated: “And they ascended in the south, and he came as far as Hebron” (Numbers 13:22). But [it is to be understood that he sent him] from the deep counsel of the righteous man who is buried in Hebron (i.e., Abraham), to fulfill what was said to Abraham between the parts (Genesis 15:13). [From Genesis Rabbah 84:13]
• חֶבְרוֹן מֵעֵמֶק can also be translated “depth of Hebron,” suggesting that Joseph was sent to carry out the “profound, deep design” of Abraham (15:13), who was buried there.  Given the dangers of going to Shechem (above), Jacob would be justified in sending servants to inquire about his flocks.  However, that he sent his favorite son shows that the divine presence was acting through Jacob’s actions. The profundity of the design is revealed by the (relatively) short-term bitterness of slavery and the long-term benefit of building a nation [in Exodus and subsequent texts] and bringing the people closer to Torah and God [Artscroll Chumash; Midrash Rabbah 84:13; Talmud Sotah 11a].

37:15 - Then a man found him, and behold, he was straying in the field, and the man asked him, saying, "What are you looking for?"

16 - And he said, "I am looking for my brothers. Tell me now, where are they pasturing?"

17 - And the man said, "They have traveled away from here, for I overheard them say, 'Let us go to Dothan.' " So Joseph went after his brothers, and he found them in Dothan.

• 37:15-17
• A man found (met) Jacob.
• Perhaps by chance?  Or another point of divine intervention?  Actually, three angels appearing as one man according to Midrash Rabbah 84:14, because in these verses, “man” is mentioned three times.
• Rashi writes that this is [the angel] Gabriel, as it is said: “And the man Gabriel” (Daniel 9:21). [From Tanchuma Vayeshev 2]
• Ramban – the man was a regular person, but used by God for Divine will; however, this diminishes God’s workings.  Ramban writes, “This story is … written to inform us that ‘the decree of God is truth, and the effort is falsehood.’ That is, man cannot escape his Divinely ordained fate.  For the Holy One, Blessed is He, arranged a guide for [Joseph], without his knowledge to bring into [the brothers’] hands.  It was this that our sages had in mind when they said (Bereshis Rabbah 84:14 – see below) that these three ‘men’ mentioned in [these three verses] were angels – that this whole story did not occur for naught, but to teach us that ‘it is Hashem’s counsel that prevails’.” [Artscroll, citing Ibn Gabriol Mivchar Ha Peninim, 43:48 and Proverbs 19:21]
• Midrash Rabbah 84:14 explains: it is written that “a man found Joseph, asked him, and said to him;” not the other way around, suggesting that this “man” was actively pursuing Joseph.  Who but an angel would be looking for Joseph in a vacant field?  Furthermore, only an angel could tell Joseph where his brothers are located.
• Rambam agrees that this man is an angel, sent so that Joseph would continue his mission if he was unable to locate his brothers [Etz Hayim].
• דֹתָן, “Dotan,” is related to דת, “dat,” religion or law/decree.
• Are the brothers looking for a law or loophole to find a reason/justification to kill Joseph?

Rashi on דֹתָינָה  נֵלְכָה , let us go to Dothan - to seek regarding you legal pretexts (דָתוֹת נִכְלֵי), by which they could put you to death. According to its simple meaning, however, it is a place-name, and a Biblical verse never loses its simple sense.

• מִזֶּה נָסְעוּ, literally, “they traveled from this” – brothers are on the wrong path, yet they are fulfilling to fulfill God’s decree.
• Rashi on “They have traveled away from here:” They removed themselves from brotherhood.
• Dothan was a city, not a pasture area, suggesting that the brothers were in the city sampling its pleasures [singles bars?] and neglecting the flocks (the “wrong path” above)
• Clues to Joseph’s character: his answer to the man’s question, what are you looking for, in 37:15 is in 37:16, “I am looking for my brothers.”  Not power, fame, wealth, envy hatred, or approval; only my brethren. [Tauber, page 298]. Furthermore, Joseph readily agreed to his father’s request to go to his brothers in 37:13, despite the potential danger of his brothers’ hatred, envy, and jealousy.  His reply included the word הִנֵּנִי, here I am, thus honoring Jacob and suggesting humility and enthusiasm [Midrash Rabbah 84:13].
• General discussion: free will vs fulfilling God’s will – may seem to be opposite.  How should these events be judged?

Two Dreams...Reactions and who were they about Really????

27 April 2013, Rabbi Adam Rosenwasser

37:9 - And he again dreamed another dream, and he related it to his brothers, and he said, "Behold, I have dreamed another dream, and behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were prostrating themselves to me."

37:10 - And he told [it] to his father and to his brothers, and his father rebuked him and said to him, "What is this dream that you have dreamed? Will we come I, your mother, and your brothers to prostrate ourselves to you to the ground?"

• 37:9-10, Joseph’s second dream
• Why two dreams?
• Robert Alter [Five Books of Moses] – sign of what will happen in Joseph’s life – a series of doublets.  Alter writes, “Doublets are a recurrent principle of organization in the Joseph story, just as binary divisions [see below] are an organizing principle in the Jacob story.  Joseph and Pharaoh have double dreams; the chief butler and chief baker dream their pair of seemingly parallel, actually antithetical dreams.  Joseph is flung into a pit and later into the prison-house.  The brothers make two trips down to Egypt, with one of their number seemingly on each occasion.  And their descent to Egypt with goods … mirrors the descent of the merchant caravan, bearing the same items, that at first brought Joseph down to Egypt.” [Underlining added]

“Binary divisions” in Jacob’s life refer to his lack of completeness, although he supposedly arrived “complete” or “whole” (שָׁלֵם) in Sh’chem in 33:18. In fact, his entire life had been a series of divisions such as splitting his clan into two groups upon learning of Esau’s impending arrival (33:1); struggling with his twin brother for their father’s blessing (27:34ff); two sisters battling for his love; and two flocks, one uncolored and the other colored (30:32ff). [From “Completion,” a sermon by Shmuel Herzfeld. Thanksgiving 2004.  Accessed 29 April 2013 at http://www.rabbishmuel.com/browse.cgi?type=torah_sermons, “ Vayishlach 2”]

• Double verb in Hebrew suggests importance and emphasis, often translated as “verily.”  Does Rabbi Adam mean וַיַּחֲלֹם עוֹד חֲלוֹם, “he dreamed another dream” and   חָלַמְתִּי חֲלוֹם, “I dreamed a dream?”  In other words the same root, ם–ל–ה, is used for the verb “dream” and the noun “dream.”
• First dream is earthy, agricultural; second is in the sky, more spiritual.
• First dream – Jacob doesn’t get involved; second dream, Joseph tells his father, too.
• First dream is childish – “my sheaf is bigger than yours.”
• In the second dream, Joseph doesn't ask for his brother’s attention as in the first dream.  They are inured to him, resigned to hear a dream.
• Symbols of sun, moon, eleven stars
• About his family?
• About nations?  Alter [citing other sources] writes that the “eleven stars” refer to eleven ancient constellations; but is this blasphemy?  In ancient cultures, rulers were associated with celestial hosts, e.g., Pharaoh is the sun.
• Tells dream to father and brothers.  Jacob reacts by rebuking/admonishing him, asking essentially, “Who are you, you dreaming dreamer?”  Jacob may have been settled but is not unsettled.  Brothers see that Jacob is upset and perhaps this was incentive for them to toss Joseph in the pit.  Perhaps Jacob saw what he had done in raising Joseph – spoiling him and making him the favorite son.
• Recall that Joseph just tells the dream and does not interpret it.
• Jacob, too, had dreams (wrestling, ladder); was he afraid?  He knows what’s happening but the brothers are clueless.
• Rabbi Jack Tauber (Yalkut Ya’akov.  Lessons from Bereshit.  Chapel Hill, NC: Professional Press, 2000.  Pages 294-295) on the differences between the two dreams:

The first dream was about a larger sheave of wheat, suggesting that Joseph would be wealthier than his brothers, who then might need Joseph’s financial help in the future.  This engenders the strong dislike for Joseph, although the brothers could acknowledge that Joseph could indeed become wealthier by just a stroke of luck.  However, the second dream involving stars, sun, moon -- and by extension the brothers -- bowing before Joseph was too much for them to bear.  Joseph was in effect saying to his brothers, not only will I be wealthier but better than you.  It should be no surprise that hatred from the first dream turned into envy and jealousy [37:11] in the second dream, setting the scene for the eventual casting into the pit and selling to slavery.

• Another reading from R’ Bachya (cited in Artscroll/Stone Edition of the Chumash): after the first dream, the emotion was hatred but not jealousy because the brothers saw Joseph as a child and no threat to them.  After the second dream, however, when the brothers, in their wisdom, realized that the source of Joseph’s dreams was Providential and that he would become their master, the hatred turned to jealousy [37:11].

37:11 - So his brothers envied him, but his father awaited the matter.

• 37:11 
• New verb וַיְקַנְאוּ, envied him or were jealous of him (JPS: wrought up).  
• Old verb was שְׂנֹא, “hated” (37:5).
• Other uses of קנא root:
• 1 Kings 19:10 – jealousy for God, longing for God.  And he [Elijah] said: "I have been zealous [קִנֵּאתִי] for the Lord, the God of Hosts, for the children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant. They have torn down Your altars and they have killed Your prophets by the sword, and I have remained alone, and they seek my life to take it.
• Numbers 25:11 – zealousness of Phineas.  Phinehas the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the kohen has turned My anger away from the children of Israel by his zealously avenging Me [קִנְאָתִי  אֶת בְּקַנְאוֹ] among them, so that I did not destroy the children of Israel because of My zeal. 
• Numbers 5:14 – man filled with rage and jealousy over his wife not playing by the rules.  … a spirit of jealousy had come upon him and he became jealous of his wife, and she was defiled, or, a spirit of jealousy had come upon him and he was jealous of his wife, and she was not defiled.
• A few other places according to various concordances.
• Brothers’ reaction is different.  Hasidic story [from Greenberg, Aharon Yaakov. Torah Gems. Chemed Books & Co., Inc.: Brooklyn, 1998]  on who should succeed a recently deceased Yeshiva head.  In every Parsha, there is a good and evil, except Vayeshev, where everyone was righteous.  Every candidate for the new yeshiva head was good candidate.  Yet Joseph was a brat …
• Unlike previous behavior, Jacob doesn’t support Joseph on hearing this dream.  Then he “took note” i.e., changed his mind.  Hassidic story [source: Torah Gems as above] - Jacob saw the envy in the brothers and realized that there may be some truth in this dream as a prophecy.
• Jacob was manipulative as a youth; does he see the same behavior in Joseph?  If so, that’s worrisome.

Joseph - why his brothers hated him - Parental favoritism - interpreted.

 Torah Study 4/13 - with Rabbi Marder -

Genesis 37:1-6

·      A righteous person is never “settled.”  Instead, life is a series of challenges to be dealt with.

·      In 37:2, Joseph tattled on his brothers.  Leads to teaching of judging the whole person; give the benefit of the doubt; identify the good, do not focus on the bad aspects of other’s behavior.

·      Alan Morinis – Mussar on evaluating others.  It’s unnatural to view the positive in other people; instead focus on imperfections.  We must train ourselves to see honor in people.  Everyone, no matter how strange, is the image of god.  Suggests “visualization,” a technique that finds good in people … see bad people as babies who have been denied the ability to be nursed and comforted.  Bottom line: see people in a positive light, but be cautious about your personal safety.

·      37:3 – contrary to Leviticus, why do brothers hate Joseph

*     Israel loved Joseph more because he was a son of his old age, the last of Jacob’s sons while in Padam Aram.

*     Munk [The Call of the Torah] – ironic that Jacob, who grew up in dysfunctional family, took no steps to preclude brotherly dysfunctions.

*     Rashi give three interpretations based on wordplay: (1) – זְקֻנִים בֶן  for he was born to him in his old age (Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 38). (2) Onkelos rendered: for he was a wise son to him. Whatever he had learned from Shem and Eber he gave over to him. (3) Another explanation: for his (Joseph’s) features (זִיו אִיקוֹנִין) resembled his own (those of Jacob). [From Genesis Rabbah 84:8]

-  (1) Child of Jacob’s old age …

-  (2) Joseph was wise: in Kiddushin 32b, Jacob went to Yeshiva and passed his learning to Joseph.

-  (3) Joseph looks like Jacob.

-  Why three interpretations?  Perhaps Rashi wasn't sure.

-  Commentary on Rashi 2^nd reason– Yakov Kameninski [?] – Jacob knew Joseph would be exiled in Egypt; just as Jacob was exiled.  Joseph would emerge unscathed because the teachings fortified him.

-  On 3^rd reason – more than just a resemblance; spiritual essence in Joseph was as in Jacob.

-  More on “son of old age”

s  Ramban – one caretaker child in this case, Joseph; he was constantly in Jacob’s presence.  He had understanding of the elder.  Why wasn't Benjamin give this role?  Benjamin was born eight years later; he wasn’t as wise; when born, Joseph was already loved/imprinted on Jacob.

s  Abravanel – Joseph acted with maturity toward his father, but more juvenile toward his brothers.

s  Hirsch – old age is when we contemplate our lives and pass on our heritage; Joseph is the heir of Jacob’s wisdom and accomplishments; he was the most likely to carry on the family legacy.

s  This story is a description of one family over many generations; it’s not normative or prescriptive.  They are real people who are not perfect.

-  Munk  on patriarch’s behavior: showing love in public, making distinctions in public.  There are texts on proper child-raising in the Torah and Talmud.

-  Naomi Rosenblatt [Wrestling With Angels] on Joseph as a gifted, charismatic child …

·      The Coat

*     Nahum Sarna [JPS Torah Commentary] – meaning is unclear; in the story of Amnon and Tamar (his half-sister) in II Samuel, Tamar wore a similar garment to show high status.

*     Richard Friedman on Amnon-Tamar episode: In both cases [Joseph and Amnon-Tamar], beautiful coats are torn.  But in Joseph’s case, it’s covered with blood, suggesting that the coat is associated with violence.

*     RaDak [Rabbi David Kimchi] - A cloak that covered hands and feet so that manual labor would be difficult.  Joseph was not supposed to work in manual labor, but was to be an rich man’s son.

*     [Sarna] Archeology and ancient art shows such garments with color panels as worn by dignitaries or ambassadors.  “Coat of many colors” comes from the Vulgate and Septuagint translations.

Focus on Joseph's Story....

Howard's Notes from Torah Study 3/30 with Rabbi Marder

·      General comments on the style of this chapter (Genesis 37):

*      From here to end, Genesis is mostly about Joseph, except for Judah-Tamar episode [Chapter 38] and Jacob’s blessing [Chapter 49].

At our current study pace, we will reach Chapter 49 in early 2017.  This statement is a mathematical extrapolation only, not a judgment of the class, its teachers, or its students.

*      Jacob’s descendants became slaves in Egypt; Esau’s descendants dwelt in the Seir hill country.

*      Nahum Sarna [JPS Torah Commentary. Genesis, page 254; and Understanding Genesis, pages 211] on literary style: the Joseph story is the longest narrative in the bible and is mostly secular (or so it seems); there are no divine revelations. God is not in Joseph’s life; he is not mentioned as one of the patriarchs [Exodus 2:24, Talmud Brachot 16b].  Yet there are hints of the divine presence, behind the scenes, a worker of the master plan by God to save Jewish lives.  The seemingly haphazard events of meeting a man who knows the location of his brothers (37:15); encountering a caravan of trades going to Egypt (37:25,28); scenes in Potiphar’s house (39:2,9) and in prison (39:21 ff); and interpreting dreams (40, 41) suggest that God is present and that the secularity of the story is superficial.

*      In contrast, Richard Elliot Friedman, in his The Hidden Face of God states that God disappears in the bible, fading away from Genesis to the end [Book of Esther]. God withdraws from the Book.

Friedman writes, “God disappears in the Bible … The Bible begins … with a world in which God is actively and visible involved, but it does not end that way.  Gradually through the course of the Hebrew Bible … the deity appears less and less to humans, speaks less and less.  Miracles, angels, and all other signs of divine presence become rarer and finally cease.  In the last portion of the Hebrew Bible, God is not present in the well-known apparent ways of the earlier books.  Among God’s last words to Moses, the deity says, ‘I shall hide my face from them.  I shall see what their end will be’ (Deuteronomy 31:17, 32:20).  By the end, God does just that.”

Apparently, that trend begins with the Joseph story.

*      Also, in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, God has no presence, even in the Temple.

-  No revelations, appearances; books feel different – no awe; a post-revelation world, not unlike today.  Deity is present but is not physically detectable.  God has withdrawn and become a force for hope and faith.  The balance of power shifts from God to human; humans take over responsibility.  God’s “face” becomes less public and more private.

-  Before, people confronted or wrestled with God.  But Joseph’s story focuses on earthy scenes of people. Joseph is endowed a special [god-like] power to interpret dreams to see the future.

*      Joseph’s character changes more dramatically than Noah, Abraham, or Jacob.

*      Rabbi Marder’s favorite Midrash: If we all shut up for one minute [figuratively, I assume], we’d hear the voice of Sinai.

·      37:1-2, Jacob settled וַיֵּשֶׁב

*      Contrast with Esau, who left the land.

*      Munk, citing Midrash and other sources:

-  Two verbs, one to settle (וַיֵּשֶׁב), other temporary (sojourning) (מְגוּרֵי)

-  Jacob wanted to settle down, to peace and quiet, in the land promised to his ancestors.  Munk writes, “After his many ordeals, Jacob wanted to live in peace in the land where his father had been merely a stranger and a wanderer.  He felt that he had the right to the peace and quiet of his hopes … in Canaan.”  But God’s providence prevented this from happening.  Jacob felt like Iyov (Job) 3:25, “I was not at ease, neither was I quiet, and I did not rest, yet trouble came.”

Talmud Brachot 64a [Soncino online] - The disciples of the wise have no rest either in this world or in the world to come [because they are always progressing in their spiritual strivings], as it says, ‘They go from strength to strength, every one of them appears before God in Zion' [Psalm 88:4].

Various translations of Psalm 84:8, חָיִל אֶל מֵחַיִל

s  www.chabad.org: They go from host to host; he will appear to God in Zion

s  JPS: “… rampart to rampart”

s  Artscroll/Schottenstein Tehilim (and others): “… strength to strength”

-  Rashi on 37:2 … when you get to paradise, you can be at peace.  In this world, one can never find peace; there’s too much action here.  There is no “happily ever after.”

-  A person goes from struggle to struggle (not necessarily strength to strength) until you achieve peace; then you die [paraphrasing Psalm 84:8 above].

*      Even the righteous will have such struggles and never achieve tranquility, according to Rav Gedaliah Schorr (1910-1979) – Rosh Yeshiva … [cannot find English translations of his commentary]

-  Service to God never ends.

-  Jacob thinks that his life has ended with loss of Joseph – it didn’t.

-  One generation keeps working to help the next one.

·      37:2 – these are the generations of Joseph – usually a genealogy follows, but it doesn’t.  Instead it’s the chronicles of Joseph. 

*       Translations of תֹּלְדוֹת [tol-dot]

-  JPS/Plaut: “the line of”

-  Alter: “lineage”

-  Munk; Kaplan; Artscroll/Stone: “chronicles”

-  Friedman: “records”

-  Hertz; www.chabad.org: “generations”

-  Fox: “begettings”

*      Rashi [above] – pattern of Joseph’s life will be similar to that of Jacob.

*      Munk – Joseph is resilient; he’s down, he’s up; this type of life is what happens to the Jews.  “The whole history of Jacob’s descendants is reflected in Joseph’s life.”  Sufferings were for the sake of eventual elevation.

-  Munk cites the Chofetz Chayim’s teachings: “When the time comes for the Messiah, the nations will acknowledge that all the trials and sufferings which have befallen us during our exile were ultimately states in our ascent.  ‘And you shall say on that day, "I will thank You, O Lord, for You were wroth with me; may Your wrath turn away and may You comfort me.’ [Isaiah 12:1]  So, just as with Joseph’s life, in the final analysis the tribulations and torments willed by Providence are seen to be truly beneficial.”

-  Munk further cites Rashbam, whose commentary is directly opposite of above; he believed in straightforward literal meaning of the text, not fanciful midrashim.  Rashbam interprets the term תֹּלְדוֹת to mean simply children or new generations.

Why so much Esau Genealogy in Torah?

Torah Study with Rabbi Marder - 9 March 2013 - (Howard's notes)

·      Philosophical and theological problem – why so much verbiage on this family that nearly disappears from Torah and become the enemies of Israel? Edom becomes a symbol for Rome and Christians.  Why do these peoples rise to a position of power?  Munk offers two reasons (36:8 ff).

+ (1) Esau’s name is mentioned three times; acquired this name because of his desire for blood. 

-  Esau was grandson of Abraham, therefore had ties to the Israelite nation.  Edomites still retained some part of Israelite nation’s tradition, but perhaps in a watered down or diluted form. Thus there was some divine purpose: spread the principles of Judaism of the time.

Munk writes, the repetition of Esau’s name three times means “that the important group of nation called Edom and stretching from East to West, was founded by its ancestor, the son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham.  Some ideas concerning the existence of God and certain moral principles going back to the patriarch were in this way spread among the peoples of mankind, albeit in softened and ‘sweetened’ form [Christianity, Islam?].  The purpose of this chapter [Genesis 36] would then be to sketch a vast historical picture of the cultural evolution within humanity.”  Munk cites Ibn Ezra in support of this analysis.

-  Rambam, Mishneh Torah on Jesus and Mohammed and their triumphs:

.  Jesus’ ascendancy is foreshadowed in Book of Daniel.  Jesus (and his disciples) changed the Torah by preaching that the Commandments were no longer relevant.

.  Although Christianity and Islam did prepare the world for coming of Messiah, the suffering of the Jews suggests that Jesus and Mohammed were false messiahs.  Yet they helped spread monotheism throughout the world: the triumph of the Abrahamic religions.

-  (2) Contrast the ultimate fate of Edom with descendants of Jacob.  Edom and Ishmael conquered territory by military might.  Jews (descendants of Jacob) give to the world a morality not present in Edom and Ishmael.  Edom rose quickly but has disappeared from the world (not Christianity and Islam).  Jews are still here.

Munk writes, “this chapter … shows us the contrast between the remarkable development of Esau’s offspring and the destiny of the descendants of Jacob, who will be living for long centuries in wretched conditions and will go through great headship before finding peace.  Esau and his descendants live according to the ‘natural law’ of the sword.  Their prosperity and their greatness stem directly from the easy success achieved by one who does not keep moral law.  But, Jacob and his sons work modestly, to build the true city of God, the only one on which the future of the world will depend.  Esau and his descendants have disappeared from the world stage despite their rapid rise and their immediate successes. … Jacob and his sons humbly founded the nation that would bring spiritual redemption the world and which to this day has kept a personality quite like that of its ancestors in all its aspects.” 

The Palestinians might dispute this.

-  As further illustration of the rise and fall of empires, Rabbi Marder offered two poems.

s  Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822)

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: `Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear --
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.'

Edom is the “colossal wreck” of an empire.  Yet Jacob and his descendants, small and humble, are still here.

.  “In Memoriam: 1933 by Charles Reznikoff (1894-1976)

Jonathan speaking to a rabbi at the Academy at Jamnia, CE 70:

You have seen a bush beside the road
whose leaves the passing beasts pluck at
and whose twigs are sometimes broken
by a wheel, and yet it flourishes,
because the roots are sound --
such a heavy wheel is Rome;
these Romans,
all the legions of he East
from Egypt and Syria,
the Islands of the sea and the rivers of Parthia
gathered here
to trample down Jerusalem,
when they have become a legend
and Rome a fable,
that old men will tell of in the city’s gate,
the tellers will be Jews and their speech Hebrew.

The hurricane, leaving its dead or dying,
leaves also the healing and the hale,
but the sunshine and the stars,
the air that we breathe,
the daily bread,
the words we listen to,
and the thoughts of our hearts
become ourselves and our sons.
We who have outlived the empires
 of the ancients –Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon
withstood their conquests or been conquered
and, captives or fugitives, slaves or strangers,
still were Jews,
have nothing to fear from Rome …

Rome is a wheel crushing the grass; Jews are like the dew on the grass, there the next day and every day.

+ Maimonides in his Guide for the Perplexed, Part III, Chapter 50 [“On Scriptural Passages with seemingly Purposeless Contents”], writes about why Esau’s genealogy is necessary.  Rambam is adamant that every word in the Law [Torah] has a purpose. In this case, it was to spare the Amalekites so they would not be forgotten [?].

“THERE are in the Law portions which include deep wisdom, but have been misunderstood by many persons.; they require, therefore, an explanation. I mean the narratives contained in the Law which many consider as being of no use whatever; e.g., the list of the various families descended from Noah, with their names and their territories (Genesis 10.): the sons of Seir the Horite (Genesis 36:20-30): the kings that reigned in Edom (Genesis 36:31 ff): and the like. There is a saying of our Sages (Sanhedrin 99b) that the wicked king Manasse frequently held disgraceful meetings for the sole purpose of criticizing such passages of the Law." He held meetings and made blasphemous observations on Scripture, saying, Had Moses nothing else to write than, And the sister of  Lotan was Timna" (Genesis 36. 22) ?

“The list of the families of Seir and their genealogy is given it the Law (Genesis 36:20-36), because of one particular commandment.  For God distinctly commanded the Israelites concerning Amalek to blot out his name (Deuteronomy 25:17-19). Amalek was the son of Eliphas and Timna, the sister of Lotan (Genesis 36:12). The other sons of Esau were not included in this commandment. But Esau was by marriage connected with the Seirites, as is distinctly stated in Scripture: and Seirites were therefore his children: he reigned over them; his seed was mixed with the seed of Seir, and ultimately all the countries and families of Seir were called after the sons of Esau who were the predominant family, and they assumed more particularly the name Amalekites, because these were the strongest in that family. If the genealogy of these families of Seir had not been described in full they would all have been killed, contrary to the plain words of the commandment. For this reason the Seirite families are fully described, as if to say, the people that live in Seir and in the kingdom of Amalek are not all Amalekites: they are the descendants of some other man, and are called Amalekites because the mother of Amalek was of their tribe. The justice of God thus prevented the destruction of a[n] [innocent] people that lived in the midst of another people [doomed to extirpation]: for the decree was only pronounced against the seed of Amalek.” [Translated from the original Arabic text By M. Friedlander, Ph.D.  Second Edition, Revised Throughout.  1904.]

·      Verses 9-14 repeat the listing of Esau’s descendants from 1-3, 28:34, and 28:9 and extend the line to his grandchildren.  For some wives, Adah and Basemat, grandchildren – two generations -- are given; for others, only one generation.

+ Sarna (JPS Torah Commentary.  Genesis) –social status; listed in order of number of sons.  Oholibamah’s sons are placed on the same level as grandsons of other wives, suggesting that her family had a lower social status that the others.  Amalek is stated to be the son of the concubine Timna and Esau’s son Eliphaz, and thus having inferior status.

+ The sons of Esau total twelve.  Other places in the Torah where twelve children are listed:

-  Genesis 35:22-25, Jacob’s sons

-  Genesis 22:20-24 - Nahor’s (Abraham’s brother’s) 12 sons

-  Genesis 17:20 - Ishmael’s twelve chieftains [or princes]

+ Timna – also a place name in Edom, near Petra, Jordan

+ Kenaz – Genesis 15:19 covenant of the half – the Kenizites were granted land; also in book of Judges

·      12 – Timna is a concubine – why should we care?

+ Rashi – Timna was a highborn Edomite, but wanted to be associated with Israelites.

-  [This passage is here] to proclaim the greatness of Abraham-how much [people] longed to attach themselves to his descendants. This Timna was a daughter of chieftains, as it is said: “and the sister of Lotan was Timna” (below verse 22). Lotan was one of the chieftains of the inhabitants of Seir, from the Horites, who had dwelt there before. She said, “I may not be worthy of marrying you, but if only I could be [your] concubine” (Genesis Rabbah 82:14).

In (I) Chronicles (1:36) [the Chronicler] enumerates her among the children of Eliphaz [here she is counted as the daughter of Seir the Horite, and the concubine of Eliphaz]. This teaches [us] that he (Eliphaz) was intimate with the wife of Seir, and Timna emerged from between them (Seir’s wife and Eliphaz), and when she grew up, she became his (Eliphaz’s) concubine. That is the meaning of “and the sister of Lotan was Timna.” [Scripture] did not count her with the sons of Seir, because she was his (Lotan’s) sister through his mother but not through his father. — [from Tanchuma Vayeshev 1]

-  In other words, the relationship was incestuous!

+ From Talmud Sanhedrin 99b – Timna as a gentile was not accepted as a convert, so she gives birth to Amalek, Israel’s greatest enemy.

+ Why didn’t they accept Timna in light of Abraham’s missionary legacy? 

-  The Israelites didn’t think she was sincere and believed her to be an opportunist. 

-  Abraham didn’t keep prisoners in Genesis 14 because he might have converted them forcefully.  Abraham had scruples – he didn’t want to force religion on others; that would be contrary to the basis tenets of religious faith.  So Abraham lost the opportunity to bring pagans to a belief in God [Munk citing Nedarim 32a]

-  By refusing to accept her, Israel paid the consequences; see below.

-  Elie Munk writes, “Certainly no Jew fulfilled the duty of converting people to monotheistic belief with such zeal, perseverance, and success as Abraham.  But he wanted the conquest of spirits to be based solely on the persuasive force [that] comes from the truth.  He [and the other patriarchs to which she turned] refused to accede to Timna’s demand, for he know that she was above all ‘desirous of joining with the family of Abraham’ whose greatness alone forth over the whole of that generation [citing Rashi on 36:20].

·      More on Amalek in verses 12 and 16, son of Timna

+ His status is that of a son of a concubine; not a genuine Edomite

+ Verse 22 – Horites were the indigenous people in the land to where Edomites moved.  He is of mixed stock.  Unlike Edomites and Egyptians, which Jews are not allowed to hate forever (Deuteronomy 23:8), Jews are required to always hate Amalek (Deuteronomy 25:17-19) because of the memory of gratuitous violence and cruelty against the Israelites.

+ Certain verses related to this issue are read on Shabbat Zachor (before Purim) in addition to the regular parasha – Tetzaveh, Exodus 27:30 to 30:10

-  Deuteronomy 25:17-19 (above)

-  I Samuel 15:2-34, in which Agag kept alive by Saul instead of killed; Haman was his descendent.  Oy Vey.

What is gleaned from the list of names of Esau's family

Torah Study with Rabbi Marder 2 March 2013

·      Why such detail in verses 1-15ff when other pieces of Torah legislation are so terse?  Sages say this shows the depravity of Edomites.

·      36:2 - Rashi: “Anah” is masculine name; see verse 24.  Zibeon is another father of Anah.  How can this be?

If she was the daughter of Anah, she could not have been the daughter of Zibeon: Anah was the son of Zibeon, as it is said:“And these are the sons of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah” (below verse 24). [This] teaches [us] that Zibeon was intimate with his daughter-in-law, the wife of Anah, and Oholibamah emerged from between them both [i.e., from Zibeon and Anah]. Scripture teaches us that they were all mamzerim (illegitimate), products of adultery and incest. — [from Tanchuma Vayeshev 1]  

-      “Mamzer” – colloquial Yiddish, not a “bastard” – persons who cannot marry according to Jewish law.  All descendants of Anah are mamzerim.

-      Adah = Basemat.  According to Rashi, his is [actually] Basemath the daughter of Elon (mentioned above 26:34). She was called Basemath because she burnt incense (בְּשָׂמִים) to idols. [some references to Song of Songs…]

-      Oholibamah - She is [identical to] Judith (mentioned above 26:34). He (Esau) nicknamed her Judith (יְהוּדִית) to imply that she denied the validity of idolatry, so that he might deceive his father.  Judith, the daughter of Ishmael, is from word for praise.

-      Rashi solves problem of multiple sources and justifies the negativity toward the Edomites.

·      Raises issues of projecting bad characteristics onto some people (outward) and good things on others.  This is verbal aggression, done by people without the ability to use physical power.  Often, Jews’ only weapons are words. They are not above criticizing other sages, too.

·      36:3 - Basemat

-      In v 28:9, she’s named for machalat (sickness); but in Aramaic, sweetness

-      Rashi - Elsewhere [Scripture] calls her Mahalath (above 28:9). I found in the Aggadah of the midrash on the Book of Samuel (ch. 17): There are three people whose iniquities are forgiven (מוֹחֲלִים) : One who converts to Judaism, one who is promoted to a high position, and one who marries. The proof [of the last one] is derived from here (28:9). For this reason she was called Mahalath (מָחֲלַת), because his (Esau’s) sins were forgiven (נְמְחֲלוּ).

-      Origin of Jewish tradition: all sins are forgiven on wedding day; bride and groom wear white; they fast until the ceremony.

·      36:5, children of Oholibamah

-      Korach - This Korah was illegitimate. He was the son of Eliphaz, who had been intimate with his father’s wife, Oholibamah, the wife of Esau. This is evidenced by the fact that he [Korah] is [also] listed among the chieftains of Eliphaz at the end of this chapter. — [from Genesis Rabbah 82:12]

-      In Torah, he’s the son of Esau

-      36:16 – Korach is descendant of Eliphaz – incest!

-      Another tradition about Eliphaz from Ramban: raised in Isaac’s household; he would not kill someone…

-      Eliphaz appears in Job 2:1 as one of Job’s friends; Job was an Edomite as was Eliphaz.

·      Identification of an individual by his/her ancestors is rare today [in USA].  Bible is a literary work, not a factual history book.  Such genealogy shows patterns that show structure of the world, despite the outward chaos.

·      36:6-7 – Esau takes his family elsewhere, another land away from Jacob

-      Rashi - to dwell wherever he would find a suitable place.  There is no further specification of where this land could be, implying that Esau had no specific place in mind when he left [Rashi. Sapirstein Edition/Artscroll].

-      Alter [The Five Books of Moses, page 201] and Sarna [JPS Torah Commentary.  Genesis, page 249] note that the language of these verses is similar to the separation of Abraham and Lot in Chapter 13.  Furthermore, Esau recognizes that the loss of his birthright does not entitle him to stay in Canaan, so he moves elsewhere.

-      Me’Am Lo’Ez, citing many commentators, lists six reason the Esau-Jacob split

*  The land could no longer support the herds of livestock both brothers owned (Rashi on 36:7 and Ramban).

*  Esau feared Jacob after learning of what his sons did to Sh’chem (Targum Yonatan).

*  Esau did not want to be enslaved for 400 years as a condition of inheriting the land according to the covenant in 15:13 (Midrash Rabbah 82:13).

*  He was ashamed and humiliated at having sold his birthright to Jacob (Midrash Rabbah 82:13 and Rashi).

*  Because of the “bastards among Esau’s children, [he] went to a place where he was not known” (Yafet Toar, page 458).

*  Esau and Jacob agreed to divide Isaac’s estate.  Jacob divided that estate into two parts: (1) gold, silver, and other treasure; and (2) land of Canaan and Cave of Machpelah. Esau as the elder had first choice.   He saw no gain from the land and thus took the gold and silver – i.e., Isaac’s movable assets -- because of his [short-term] materialistic tendencies.  Jacob knew of Esau’s desires and divided the estate accordingly – clever of him! (Zohar, Pirke Rabbi Eliezer 38, and other sources)

-      Wives are mentioned first.  In 31:1, Jacob took children before wives.  Esau thought more about his women than his children; this is a comment on righteousness; righteous people marry to produce righteous children; wicked people marry for the physical pleasure; children are by-products [Bereshit Rabbah 82:13].

·      36:8 – Esau goes to hill country of Seir.  This land got its name from the bushy (shaggy) vegetation, just like Esau’s hairy appearance as birth.  It’s near today’s Petra in Jordan.

-      Deuteronomy 2 – identified as territory of Esau; in v.12, formerly inhabited by Horites, whom Esau wiped out.

-      But Esau was already in Seir according to 32:4 and 33:14. He was a nomad who moved around; now he makes a permanent break from Jacob.

-      What about Seir?  Why this place?

*  Oholibamah is a descendent according to 36:20, 25; i.e., Seir is a dowry.

*  וַיֵּשֶׁב – does this imply permanent residency?

-      Munk on 36:6 and 8, citing Onkelos and Zohar– Esau’s destination is less important that just getting away from Jacob.  Did we go away to college to get away from our parents?  Separation looks like an economic necessity, but it’s more of a mental separation: Jacob priorities were spiritual; Esau’s motives were materialistic.

Munk writes, “Henceforth the paths of the two brothers separate definitively.  Esau goes ‘to another land’ to devote himself to material satisfactions, whereas Jacob, sheltered from bad influences, will become the people who are God’s portion, Jacob, the lot of His inheritance (Deuteronomy 32:9).” [italics in original]

Sons and Behavior and Consequences Later

(Howards Wonderful Notes from our class with Rabbi Marder 2/16!)

Who is the worthy author that will write a novel based on this episode?  Watch out, Anita Diamant!

·      More on 35:22-26

*      Verse 22 - “… and Israel heard [of it]” is a sentence with no object; what does Israel [Jacob] hear?  He says nothing in the text, but saves his admonition of Reuven for a deathbed speech in Chapter 49.

*      The use of “Israel” and “Jacob” seems random, although commentators have plenty to say about that; see above at 35:9-10.

*      There is an abrupt transition to “the sons of Jacob were twelve” with a gap or pause (פ) in the text itself.

+Munk – Jacob feared that he has one bad son, but Reuven’s transgression did not result in banishment from the clan, like Ishmael and Esau.

+The exact purpose of [what Sarna (JPS Torah Commentary) terms a paragraph that ends with the middle of a verse] is unknown.  There is much more to the story than this bit of text.

+Jacob was able to forgive his son; there was no split or rupture.  Is there a precedent here?   Shimeon and Levi killed many people but stayed in the family.

+Physical separation of the text suggests that parties involved needed time to recover from the incident, to settle down, gather their wits, to separate themselves from the incident and one another.

*      Twelve sons but Dinah is not mentioned.

+Midrash Rabbah 24 (cited in Munk’s commentary on this verse and on 46:27) - The number 12 is engraved on Creation.  The above-mentioned pause indicates that the “latter part of the verse a celestial response to Jacob’s anguish [that] was expressed before the pause …”

-Twelve signs of the zodiac

-Twelve months of the year

-Twelve hours of daylight [the average throughout the year]

-For the first time, the Torah uses this number to count the tribes of Israel.  Thus, the “Future Jewish nation was established on the same solid and immutable foundation as that which govern the laws of nature.” 

The problem is that twelve zodiac signs and twelve months of the year are human constructs, hardly laws of nature.

+The family is complete – Jacob no longer had intercourse with Leah -- so it’s time to count them; but where is Dinah?

+Sons of Leah are mentioned first; then Rachel, then Bilhah, then Zilpah – order of the marriage.  Compare this with episode before the encounter with Esau, where Jacob is preparing for battle: the order is reversed.  Concubines’ sons, Leah’s sons, Rachel’s sons.  Literary theory: the order is not random but is purposeful.

+Patterns of the ordering – a leitmotif – especially who is first in Jacob’s life; who takes precedence.  Jacob is driven to be first.  But at Isaac’s funeral, Esau is mentioned first.

+Order of Avot prayer: originally, Leah came before Rachel; she was Jacob’s first wife.  In latest Mishkan Tefillah, Rachel comes before Leah because:

-He met Rachel first and was his best love.

-From Rachel comes Joseph …

-What about Bilhah and Zilpah?

·      Verse 26 - יֻלַּד is a singular verb, suggesting the brothers were one tribe.

·      35:27 – story continues from before Dinah [alleged] rape

*      Jacob finally comes home to Hebron, the primary residence of the patriarchs.

*      Eric Auerbach – Torah leaves open spaces to reader to fill in. [lacunae?  I hope so; it’s such a cool word.]

*      Expectation of mentioning of Rebecca; where is she?  Commentators say she died.  Jacob loses the opportunity to say goodbye to her.

*      גָּר [from root גור] refers to temporary sojourn, not the same as ישב, dwell or reside.

*      Sforno – coming back to place where grandparent lived will get make you in high regard if the forebears were in good stead.

*      Isaac’s death may be out of chronological order.  Isaac lives much longer and establishes a relationship with Jacob.  Torah is not written in chronological order, but in thematic order.  This one concludes the theme of Jacob; next one is Joseph.

+Rashi explains this in his commentary to 35:27 and 28:9, but if you can follow it, you deserve an extra hammentaschen or latke, depending on who wins the debate.

+In JPS Torah Commentary.  Genesis, page 369 (footnote 17), Nahum Sarna has a much simpler explanation.

-Jacob was 91 when Joseph was born (28:6-9).

-Joseph was 17 when he was sold into slavery (37:2), making Jacob 91+17 = 108.

-Isaac was 60 when Jacob was born (25:26), making Isaac 108+60 = 168 when Joseph was sold into slavery.

-Isaac died at 180 (35:28) and thus lived 12 years beyond Joseph’s sale. Joseph’s story begins in Chapter 37 before Isaac’s death.

·      35:28-29 Isaac dies

*      He takes his last breath; dies; and then is gathered to his peoples.

*       Sarna (JPS Torah Commentary to Genesis 25:8)– the words “gathered to his kin” suggests that there is an afterlife.  Eli Munk’s commentary to 25:8 and 15:15 says much the same.

*      There is no reference to “he lived” (חי) as with Abraham (25:8).

Rachel dies in childbirth

      35:16-20 on Rachel’s birthing of Benjamin and her death.

·      35:16-17

-      הָאָרֶץ כִּבְרַת עוֹד – still some distance to go; between towns

-     Irony – Rachel is desperate for children, but dies giving birth to one.

-     Midwife says not to fear; it’s another son.  Talmud: birth pains are worse when it’s a daughter.  Also, she says, “have no fear; the son will live.”

-     Comparable passage in I Samuel 4, when Philistines capture Ark of the Covenant.  Daughter-in-law of Phineas also dies in childbirth …

·      35:18 – Rachel’s name for the boy is “Ben-oni”, son of pain, because of the birth situation (also like 1 Samuel 4); then Jacob renames to Benjamin, a radical idea.

-     But Jacob is actually translating Aramaic to Hebrew the name to son of strength, son of the right; the right hand is one of strength.

-     Ramban – Jacob translating is based on love, a good meaning.  Changing pain and future guilt to something more meaningful.

-     Rashi translates as son of the south; facing east means the right hand points south toward Canaan, a land that Israelites will soon take over.

-     Another translation; son of days, ימים בן, where the מ and נ were switched.

-     But Hebrew names are not usually made public until eighth day; not here, so the brit millah came from a later tradition.

-     Text reads that Rachel dies and then names the newborn; perhaps it was the midwife who did the naming?  Or, did the naming come as she was dying, so it is logical that Jacob should step in and rename.

-     Why does Rachel die?  A punishment of Jacob for delay in returning to Bet El?  Of Rachel for buying the mandrake and bargaining with Leah?  Of Rachel’s for here disrespect of older sister by speaking first?  Of Rachel stealing her father’s idols?

-     Ben Johnson’s poem on death of his son

Farewell, thou child of my right hand, and joy ;

    My sin was too much hope of thee, lov'd boy.

Seven years thou wert lent to me, and I thee pay,

    Exacted by thy fate, on the just day.

Oh, could I lose all father now ! For why

    Will man lament the state he should envy?

To have so soon 'scaped world's and flesh's rage,

    And if no other misery, yet age !

Rest in soft peace, and, asked, say, Here doth lie

    Ben Jonson his best piece of poetry.

For whose sake henceforth all his vows be such

    As what he loves may never like too much.

-     Isaiah 57:1 – Rachel wasn’t punished; she suffered because she was righteous.  There is often no reason for death…

·      35:19

-     Why is Rachel not buried in Cave of Machpelah, as are other matriarchs and patriarchs?

*  Logistical problem of traveling to the Cave

*  Shame on entering the Land, where two wives are frowned upon

*  Jacob as a prophet – Jeremiah passage read in traditional synagogues on 2^nd day Rosh Hashanah – “Rachel weeping …” Exiles will return to this place.

*  Why Rachel’s pleading so effective? Her yearning to be a mother; she gave her life to be a mother.  Her desperation, her sacrifice.

*  From 1 Samuel, the tomb is a landmark, a known site, even today.

*  בְּדֶרֶךְ –on the way; a no-man’s land; a possibly dangerous place, such as Benjamin getting harmed “on the way” to Egypt.

-     Tradition of Joseph praying at this grave (from some Midrash in Ginzberg’s Legends of the Bible).  A poignant prayer about comfort, consolation, pleading to be relieved of suffering.

-     Dying in childbirth – does this speak to her life?  It’s her ultimate sacrifice, considering her desperation to have children.  After all, most of a woman’s worth in those days was based on ability to bear children.

*  In developed world, dying in childbirth is rare, almost shocking and not considered “sacrifice.”

*  Adults walk closer to street with their children, so they’d be struck first by an out-of-control car.  That’s their “sacrifice.”  But child could say, “if you die, that would do me no good with you gone.”

*  Who lives in this situation? Mother or child.

Building a Pillar at a Holy Place

Torah Study

Genesis 35 13-15

Pillar of stone. Beth El

Marking the place where God has made manifest,

God departs...goes up.

What does this mean?

Midrash... Even God takes Gods leave ...say goodbye. 

Gods presence comes from the patriarchs..the patriarchs are the "chariots of God"

Also a hint of the future when there will be the golden calf built...God leaves.

Repetition about Beth El and building a pillar.

Place is important... There is a place where you meet God...because of what happened there.  But the modern interpretation emphasizes that the place can be anywhere God communicates with people. 

Pillar anointed with oil...

Ch 28 Jacob already built a marker... Story repeats...

Is it the same place or not? Or does Jacob call it Beth El but it is a different place.

Ritual act is the anointing.,, problem in that you are only supposed to do this type ritual on an altar...it is tied to idol worship so dangerous... Hirsch  setting up a matsevah...holy to a person but difference between appreciation for what God did for you vs giving of a sacrifice.  Not enough just to set up stone...but have to do things in the world to make it a holy place to truly make it a Beth El.

Marking of a particular place as a place to remember...place of graves.  Is it important to have a particular place?  For a holy place or as a place of remembrance. 

Modern technology..photos have the ability to mark in place and time...permanent documentation.   

Return - BethEl - Name Change Reminder

Torah study 1-19 Rabbi Sarah Wolf

Jacob goes back to BethEl. The text mirrors the previous time he was there

Genesis 35: 1-2

Plural form of God...confusing because they just told the people to get rid of their idols in favor of One God...so why is it in the plural form here?  

v8. Insertion "Deborah, Rebekah's nurse died"

Deborah is the nurse of Rebecca…previously…before she was married.

Here she is with the family...midrash that it is the same Deborah and she was sent to get Jacob...  Another version says it is a suggestion of Rebecca's death..the oak of weeping...but not clear ... Concern if the name of Rebecca is focused on the connection to Esau...very confusing. Because we know that Isaac is still alive...but the midrash says that Isaac is blind...and Esau is estranged from her...so no one there to bury her..

v9 -13 

Name change reminder again...and the land promise verified once more ...confirmation of the information with repetition.

Looking at the different name change scenes...Avram to Abraham  is complete. Jacob's name change only happens when he "earns" it...not permanent as Abraham's name change...

Jacob is about to change his life...now he is where is is supposed to be.

Appropriate that the name that means "struggling with God" is a changing name...more reflective of the struggle.

Name change is something that is earned.

Hirsh commentary on diversity of the tribes..and diversity is to show that everyone can worship the same God no matter your background.  It should be praised... (Ironic because Hirsh was anti reform Jews). Diversity in occupation... 

Place...makom....  This place of BethEl. Where God meets Jacob then ascends...

The notion of a sacred place...to remind Jacob ...then God leaves the place...important message from this as well... 

More next week.

Jacob finally goes where he was told to go...

Torah Study 1-12 with Rabbi Sarah Wolf

Backing up...the massacre...it is unsatisfying because there are no answers about why this happened in Torah...what are the repercussions?  Find out later at the end of Jacobs life and how the tribes are placed in the new land.  This was their delayed "punishment".

Is the dis-proportionate response to Dinah's rape warranted? Is there more to the story that just isn't included?

Move on chapter 35...

Reflects back to previous episodes in Jacobs life...

The conditional vow Jacob made before...now the fulfillment of that vow...

Avila Zornberg...Jacobs flaw is that he held back and didn't return sooner...(theory that the rape of Dinah is his punishment...or how he hid her from Esau). Jacob is punished for his withholding.  His non fulfillment if his vow created. Danger...

This is the third reminder for him to return home...  This is a debt that needs to be paid...

Command...get rid of foreign gods... No information on where this came from...

Commentators blame the Schemites ... 

But this represents a rue dedication of Jacob and his family to the one true God.

Change clothes clean...relates to the scene at mount Sinai ... Cleaning to be ready to face God.  

This is a reminder of his previous encounters..

"Who responds to me  in time of distress". Eli Munk commentary..Jacobs relation with God is continuing... After times of trouble.  God of mercy.

All the people were willing to hand over their idols and even more so by adding the earrings... 

Is there any hint that God approved the massacre?   But even if the actions of Simon and Levy were not approved..the covenant to protect them is kept.

End of the Jacob narrative - a contrast...

Genesis 35:1-

End of the Jacob narrative. Shift to the stories around Joseph. 

Birth of Benjamin...

Theme focus on purity and holiness...

Chapter 34 is rape and destruction. No mention of Godin this chapter.

Chapter 35 is renewal and purification. God is a focus in this chapter.

Jacob goes up to BethEl to settle

Get rid of false gods and build an altar to Adonai

Gen 28 is where Jacob had previously built a pillar to God...now he goes back.

He goes UP... Both physical and spiritual.  Jacob's pilgrimage spot.

Transforms it from a flight in fear to a flight of spiritual repair.

Was Dinah's abduction a punishment of Jacob... For delaying his return to BethEl?

Remain and dwell there.  Emphasizes the idea of total being there with focus. For this is where there may be Devine presence.

Purification....35:2. What actions do they need to take?

Get rid of offending items

Clean yourself

Change clothes.

Literally...get rid of the spoils of Shechem... (separate alien gods of other places...competes with Israel God).

 Cleanse self literally. When in contact with impure things...death.  Idea of self cleansing.

Even clothes that are in contact with that which is unclean...the dead of Shechem.

Also needs to change the mental state as well as the physical cleansing...

All about how we enter sacred space... Both physical and mental/spiritual preparation.

We also need to be accountable for our actions... This is not thoroughly addressed in this episode.

They All Agree to be Circumcised?

Genesis 34:15-24

How would Hamor convince the men to circumcise themselves?

Hamor says They need to be circumcised to gain the value of Jacobs family..

Focus on identity ...individual vs community wants...

This is like a mass conversion... This is how they could become part of their community...

To the Shechemites

Everyone should be circumcised...,"if you become like us".

To get what they want.  But it turns around. 

Question of who is the stronger community.

Audacious request... Did not think they would agree... But would use as a way to get Dinah back. 

The suggestion that they will become part of them if they get circumcised...but this was not the plan...it was just a strategy to get Dinah back.  But it went terribly wrong.

V21. What would the Schemites get from this?  V23 they plan to steal everything from the Israelites...   They are already rich and powerful....but they must see the Israelites were very wealthy also.

Was it all the brothers or just two if them? Shimone and Levy..

It is supposed to be an absurd request...

Why would the rest of the tribe go along with this?  Implied that they were servants of Shechem and Hamor... Otherwise why would they agree? 

The first of the Helm stories!  Just seems stupid...that Hamor would agree to this at all.

Note...this chapter has no mention of God.

Story shows the perversion of the children of Jacob.  It is a perversion of the covenant of circumcision... Other cultures did circumcision but without religious significance.

Dinah's reaction after the massacre ... She had to be dragged out... Implies that she was also in love with Shechem. 

V25.  Dinahs true brothers, Levy and Shamon after third day... kill all the males.  The other brothers then go in and plunder...  Questions of the pain or the psychological pain and rage.

Irony of plundering the town.

Jacob is not happy... He sees this as a burden...practical response...

Sons remind Jacob of why they did it...  Can't let them get away with raping their sister.

Some interpret it that this is punishment for Jacob..,