Genesis 44,18. “Yehudah came forward and said: ‘please my lord allow your servant to say something for your ears only, and do not become angry at your servant, for you are similar to Pharaoh himself.” When reading this introduction of Yehudah’s plea we are reminded of a statement in the Talmud Moed katan 16, when quoting Samuel II 23,3. [The following is misquoted in the Hebrew versions of several editions, and no Biblical source is given. Ed.]David is speaking in his final address; אמר אלוקי ישראל לי דבר צור ישראל מושל באדם צדיק מושל יראת אלוקים. “Israel’s G’d said: ‘concerning Me, Israel’s Rock: “be ruler over mankind; be righteous, be a ruler practicing the fear of the Lord.” The Talmud understands the unspoken rhetorical question of G’d as to who “rules” Him, by answering that the righteous does so when he is able to squash decrees issued by G’d. [As the author has mentioned several times already. Ed.]This also appears to be the meaning of the verse (psalms 48,5) כי הנה המלכים נועדו, “see the kings joined forces,” (strove against one another) quoted by the Zohar I, 206. The “kings” in our verse are understood as being Joseph and Yehudah respectively; Joseph is called there קדוש ברוך, whereas Yehudah is called כנסת ישראל, “the collective soul of the Jewish people.” In our verse the Torah describes the confrontation on a spiritual level of the collective soul of the Jewish people and the individual ruler represented by Joseph. The collective soul of the Jewish people, Yehudah, confronts G’d represented by Joseph. This collective soul of the Jewish people seeks to overturn an evil decree issued by G’d by prayer (concerning the detention of Binyamin in Egypt as a slave). When the tzaddikim, i.e. people normally content to live by the stringent standards of the attribute of Justice, resort to an appeal to the attribute of Mercy, they do so when they plead on behalf of others. Hence Yehudah prefaces his words with the word בי, an appeal not to justice but to do something beyond justice. These tzaddikim are at pains not to create the impression that they have lowered their standards concerning their own conduct. The category of tzaddikim to whom such power of squashing G’d’s decrees is attributed are the ones who relate to G’d from the vantage point of אין, “naught” [explained by the author as a negation of “self,” one’s own dignity, opposite Hashem.] This total negation of self is rewarded by G’d when they intercede on behalf of others in an effort to squash or soften a negative decree.The sages, (introduction to the Zohar 10,) when commenting on Jeremiah 10,7 כי בכל חכמי הגוים ובכל מלכותם מאין כמוך, “for amongst all the wise men of the gentile nations and amongst all their kings there is none comparable to You,” the implication is that “but amongst the Israelites” there is someone comparable to You. When the prophet Elijah as well as the prophet Elisha revived the dead, this was considered as proof that the חכמי ישראל, the wise men of Israel, can perform acts that only G’d can perform. When the just succeed in squashing decrees of G’d that were meant to kill the victims, they too compare to G’d by that same criterion, i.e. they revive those that were “dead,” were it not for the prayers of the righteous. G’d is perceived of granting life or denying life just as He provides rainfall, without which we would not survive for long; the righteous’ prayers for rain when granted achieve exactly the same result.According to the writings of the Ari’z’al the “attribute” אין is described in the Hebrew alphabet in the Holy Scriptures as the letter כ, whereas the “attribute” יראה, “awe and reverence” is represented by the letter י. The word כי in the verse from Jeremiah quoted in the previous paragraph therefore alludes to this quality of אין, total negation of self, that characterizes some of our tzaddikim in their relationship to G’d, and in their service of Him, when they completely deny their ego, or “self.” This very denial of self, obliteration of one’s ego, is capable of resulting in a commensurate degree of התגלות ה', “revelation” of aspects of G’d’s essence. When Yehudah described Joseph as כ-פרעה, where the כ symbolizes this negation of self found in the most exalted ruler, (who does no longer need to impress his peers with his “superiority,”) who can therefore reveal a different virtue, the revelation of an attribute superior to that of Justice, the attribute of Mercy. Another approach to the first sentence in Yehudah’s plea for the release of Binyamin: Why did Yehudah add the plea that Joseph not become angry at his trying to spare his brother from becoming a slave in Egypt? The very mention of Joseph’s becoming angry at him seems most undiplomatic, as hearing this Joseph would presume that Yehudah would make an unacceptable request. Moreover, in his entire speech Yehudah did not once say anything that could be interpreted as capable of arousing Joseph’s anger. He only appeals to Joseph’s compassion throughout his lengthy speech. Rashi also already noticed this, and this is why he may have interpreted the whole speech of Yehudah as a single long accusation. Nonetheless, I prefer to explain the speech according to the peshat, the plain meaning of the text as well as the words כי כמוך כפרעה, words that have presented great difficulties to many other commentators.I believe that Yehudah was concerned throughout to awaken any feelings of mercy that Joseph, i.e. the ruler who claimed to have been convinced that Binyamin was not only a thief but had stolen something of great value to him, possessed. [If Yehudah had considered Binyamin guilty of the accusation, something that the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 92,8) does believe, as it quotes the brothers saying that just as Binyamin’s mother stole the idols of her father, her son had now done something similar, seeing that Joseph had used his silver goblet in a manner similar to Lavan’s using his teraphim, at the time, his entire speech would have been a farce. Ed.] He had to give the impression that he thought Binyamin was indeed guilty, but that his punishment would cause other innocent parties great grief, all of which would be Joseph’s fault. He did not believe Joseph guilty of planting the goblet in Binyamin’s sack. He was convinced that, as our sages are fond of saying, דברים היוצאים מן הלב נכנסים ללב, “words spoken sincerely, clearly emanating from the heart and not merely from the lips, find their way to the heart of the person or persons to whom they are addressed. [not found in the Talmud, but something similar is found in B’rachot 6. Ed.]I believe that Yehudah was concerned throughout to awaken any feelings of mercy that Joseph, i.e. the ruler who claimed to have been convinced that Binyamin was not only a thief but had stolen something of great value to him, possessed. [If Yehudah had considered Binyamin guilty of the accusation, something that the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 92,8) does believe, as it quotes the brothers saying that just as Binyamin’s mother stole the idols of her father, her son had now done something similar, seeing that Joseph had used his silver goblet in a manner similar to Lavan’s using his teraphim, at the time, his entire speech would have been a farce. Ed.] He had to give the impression that he thought Binyamin was indeed guilty, but that his punishment would cause other innocent parties great grief, all of which would be Joseph’s fault. He did not believe Joseph guilty of planting the goblet in Binyamin’s sack. He was convinced that, as our sages are fond of saying, דברים היוצאים מן הלב נכנסים ללב, “words spoken sincerely, clearly emanating from the heart and not merely from the lips, find their way to the heart of the person or persons to whom they are addressed. [not found in the Talmud, but something similar is found in B’rachot 6. Ed.] Genesis 45,12. “and behold, your own eyes can see as well as the eyes of my brother Binyamin, that it is my mouth that is speaking to you.” My sainted teacher the tzaddik Rabbi Dov Baer, said that just as light and darkness exist in the universe [i.e. opposites live side by side, Ed.] so there is light and darkness within each human intellect.I believe that what he had in mind was that when words are heard emanating from the mouth of a tzaddik the intellect to whom they are addressed undergoes a refinement, and the eyes of the person concerned light up. This is what Joseph referred to when he said to his brothers: “here your eyes see that my mouth is speaking to you.” Genesis45,22. “he gave to each of them a change of clothes; to Binyamin he gave three hundred silver pieces and five changes of clothes.” Our sags in Megillah 16 ask: “is it really possible that Joseph erred in the same way as had his father when he showed Joseph preferential treatment? Was Joseph not aware that by what the Torah describes him as doing for Binyamin, he would arouse the brothers’ jealousy?” They answer that the Torah alluded to the five Royal garments that Mordechai, a descendant of Binyamin would be dressed in as we read in Esther 8,15.Our author, clearly not too enthused with the Talmud’s answer, suggests a different way of understanding the Talmud’s answer. Our sages, understood that Joseph foresaw and hinted to Binyamin that Mordechai, a distant descendant of his brother Binyamin, would play a great part in the miracle of Purim. He intimated that he and Binyamin shared a similar experience, seeing that they were both the sons of the same mother, Rachel. He had attained high rank as a result of someone’s dream (Pharaoh’s) and Mordechai also rose to eminence as a result of a dream, as our sages in the Targum on the Book of Esther (chapter10) have told us. According to the Targum, on the night when the king could not fall asleep (again), he had been dreaming that Haman wanted to assassinate him. This is why he became angry at Haman and commanded him to dress Mordechai in the Royal robes, and paraded him throughout the capital on the king’s horse. Joseph had been paraded similarly. (41,43) Just as Joseph remained under the rule of Pharaoh at the time, so Mordechai would remain under the rule of Achashverosh. (Compare Rashi on 41,40)This is another example of the approach of our sages to the details the Torah has revealed about the lives of our sainted forefathers, i.e. that they always were at pains to perform deeds that foreshadowed future, critical, events in the lives of their descendants. (Our author lists more examples of this theme when relating to Shimon and Levi’s killing the inhabitants of Shechem as being a forerunner of the Hasmoneans in the Chanukkah story). [I will omit the balance of the paragraph as, seeing this portion is also read sometimes on Chanukkah, the author felt compelled to introduce this subject here, although those events occurred in post-biblical times. It is somewhat forced, as it requires us to see in Levi rather than Shimon, the principal activist, otherwise the connection with the Hasmoneans who were priests is too tenuous. Ed.] Genesis 45,24. “do not quarrel on the way.” Rashi does not follow the traditional translation, but says that Joseph told the brothers not to engage in halachic discussions, and the subsequent differences of opinions resulting while you are on the journey. If Rashi is correct, we must try and understand why the brothers’ father, Yaakov, did not give the brothers similar instructions governing their conduct during their journey to Egypt?Besides, how could Joseph arrogate to himself the right to give such instructions, when we have it on the authority of Kidushin 30 that a person should strive to divide the activities he performs (equally) into the three parts of his life, devoting one third to the study of the written part of the Torah, another to the study of the oral part of the Torah, (Mishnah) and the third part to the discussions on the oral part of the Torah in the Talmud. One difficulty of that statement is that we do not know how long we are going to live, so how can we make the correct division? The Talmud therefore corrects itself, saying that what is meant is the way we divide each day of our lives. It follows that each one of us is duty bound to study some halachah on a daily basis. So how could Joseph forbid this to his brothers?The statement in the Talmud can be seen as plausible if we first consider two premises upon which it is built. 1) Yaakov had a tradition that he need not fear ever being consigned to gehinom provided that none of his children died during his lifetime. (Rashi 37,35 based on a Tanchuma Vayigash 9. 2). A statement by our sages that the combined lifetimes of the patriarchs would be 500 years, corresponding to כימי השמים על הארץ, (Deut.11,21). [According to a number of commentators this verse describes the “distance” between earth and the celestial regions through the intervening רקיע, outer space, being equivalent to 502 “years.” The combined lifetimes of the patriarchs, were 502 years, though more than half of these overlapped, and we do not know the criteria applied here, i.e. “light years,” i.e. the time it takes light to traverse this distance, or whatever other criteria are referred to. Ed.]If a human being were to know how long he was going to live on this earth, he would be able to apportion one third of his life to the respective study of Torah, Mishnah, and Gemara. Based on the above calculation, when Yaakov saw that Joseph had disappeared, he concluded that he must be dead, so that one of the premises, i.e. that he would not have to worry about spending time in gehinom had already lost its comforting meaning. From that moment on he became afraid that the second premise we have mentioned could also be compromised, as he had no idea how long he would live. He was therefore unable to instruct his sons to leave out the study of halachah, i.e. gemara, for a single day. Joseph, who was aware that his father had no reason to worry, as all his sons were alive and well, was able to issue such a command without endangering the spiritual future of his father. The brothers would have lots of time to make up for the halachot they had not studied while on the journey to bring good news to their father. Genesis 45,26. “when he saw the carriages that Joseph had sent, etc.” Joseph had hinted to Yaakov that he should not be concerned about his family going into exile, as what was occurring now was a forerunner of the eventual redemption from exile. Temporary hardship, such as their having to leave the Holy Land now, would result in much greater good in the end. Both the word עגלה, carriage, which is a chair or couch on circular wheels, i.e. עיגול, circle, and the word סיבה, the cause of Yaakov been transported to Egypt on wheels into “exile” is related to this revolving nature of fate, סבב, spinning, revolving. Joseph wished to indicate to his father that temporary residence of his family in Egypt would result subsequently in his descendants inheriting the whole land of Israel. Genesis 45,28. “my son Joseph is still alive.” These words, though apparently unnecessary, reflected Yaakov’s joy that his son after these 22 years of being alone in Egypt had remained true to his tradition and the teachings of his father. In spite of his having been exposed during all these years to every perversion known to mankind, he had remained a tzaddik. The word עוד, in this verse emphasizes that the “cultural” influence exuded by Egyptian society, though powerful, was relatively secondary, peripheral, an “also ran,” seeing that Joseph had absorbed the largesse that originated from G’d in heaven, a predominant, and more powerful influence. Genesis 46,1. “he offered meat-offerings in honour of the G’d of his father Yitzchok.” The Midrashim offer many different explanations of this verse.The reader’s attention is directed at the commentary of Nachmanides (very lengthy). He concludes that Yaakov, personally, (if it had been up to him) did not really want to descend to Egypt. It was only because he realized that it had been decreed for him to be exiled in Egypt, (compare Shabbat 89) according to which Yaakov should actually have descended to Egypt in iron chains. Under the circumstances, Yaakov realized that he was very fortunate to travel to Egypt in style, instead. When he addressed G’d as the G’d of Yitzchok, he implied that his father Yitzchok had not been forced to leave the Holy Land, even though there had been a famine there in his lifetime also, G’d had commanded him to remain there. (Genesis 26,2) He may have hoped to change G’d’s decree so as to enable him to remain in the Holy Land. Another way of interpreting the peculiarity of the verse citing specifically “the G’d of Yitzchok his father,” addresses the statement of the Talmud on the same folio, when it quotes a verse in Isaiah 63,16 כי אתה אבינו כי אברהם לא ידענו וישראל לא יכירנו אתה ה' אבינו גואלנו מעולם שמך, “for You are our Father, for though Avraham did not know us and Israel has not recognized us, You O Lord, are our Father.” The Talmud explains the background to this perplexing verse. It states that in the future, when G’d would say to Avraham: “your children have sinned against Me,” Avraham’s response was “let them atone by having to die for the sanctification of Your name.” The Talmud quotes Yaakov at that time as adopting a similar attitude. Only Yitzchok is quoted as challenging G’d, describing the Jews as the children of Avraham and Yaakov and himself, without at the same time describing them also as His children. When Yaakov presented his offerings at Beer Sheva in honour of the G’d of Yitzchok, he meant to remind G’d of this concern of his father Yitzchok for his children even if at the time they were sinful. Genesis 46,4. “I will descend to Egyt with you, and I will also ascend with you.” In order to understand this verse properly, we must remember the pedagogic rule that when a teacher is confronted with a student of limited intellect, he must endeavour to rein in his superior intellect and descend to the level of the student. When faced with a student who has a brilliant mind, the teacher need not impose any restrictions on himself when teaching such a student. As long as Yaakov resided in the Holy Land, his intellect was very strong; he was afraid that now that he would “descend” to Egypt, he would experience a reduction in intellectual capacity so that G’d would “restrain” Himself when communicating with him, so that he would not be able to serve Him in the manner he was used to. G’d reassured him here that he need not have any such concerns, as the Shechinah would remain at his side as long as he would be in Egypt.G’d promises Yaakov that upon his return to the Holy Land, he will have attained great spiritual stature. This is the meaning of the words: גם עלה. When the Shechinah which had accompanied him “down” to Egypt, would return to the Holy Land, [which had not contained any Jews during the interval, so that these had not been deprived of its Presence, Ed.], Yaakov would participate in this elevation, עליה. Looking at our verse from a different perspective, we need to remember that pious Jews serving G’d, experience a constant ascent, elevation in their spiritual level. Still, they do not, in their lifetime, begin to properly understand the workings of G’d’s mind, much less His greatness. When the Torah (Numbers 12,3) tells us that והאיש משה עניו מאד וגו', “the man Moses was extremely humble, etc.,” such a compliment could only be paid to someone who had attained almost superhuman stature. It does not take a great effort for the ordinary individual surrounded by people of far greater accomplishments, to remain humble. When one has attained the stature of a Moses with whom G’d carried on conversations as if he were His equal, the challenge to remain humble is incomparably greater. The meaning of ואנכי אעלך גם, is a reminder to Yaakov, that regardless of where he finds himself, the task of climbing the ladder of spiritual ascent ever higher will remain with him for as long as he lives. Just as G’d is known as the אין סוף, inexhaustibly profound, beyond our comprehension, so the task of serving Him is never one that one may “retire” from, thinking that one has done one’s duty. Yet another approach sees in the words אנכי אעלך גם עלה, an allusion that just as G’d gives man the opportunity to constantly ascend to higher spiritual levels, as opposed to both the animals and the angels, so even the satisfaction one may feel in one’s achievement should never become a predominant feeling, but one must continuously strive to ascend ever higher. G’d teaches Yaakov this lesson as one to pass on to his children, and for them to pass on to the Jewish people. Seeing that they are known as “G’d’s people,” it is their task to emulate G’d’s ways, i.e. to strive for ever higher levels of holiness. Another way of understanding the line: אנכי ארד עמך מצרימה ואנכי אעלך גם עלה will be appreciated when we first examine the meaning of Numbers 11,21 שש מאות אלף רגלי אשר אנכי בקרבו, “I am an integral part (בקרבו) of 600,000 foot soldiers, etc.” According to the Talmud Makkot. 24, this peculiar expression for Moses needs to be understood as follows: The first two of the Ten Commandments were addressed by G’d directly to the whole people, whereas the remaining 8 Commandments spoken by G’d at the revelation at Mount Sinai, were spoken to the people by Moses after he had been chosen by them to act as their interpreter. [The word תורה has a numerical value of 611, i.e. the number of Commandments Moses taught the people, the remaining two G’d having taught them directly. Ed.] Seeing that the people heard the first two commandments directly from G’d’s mouth, these are more deeply engraved upon their hearts than the others. Moses is overwhelmed that a people, i.e. comprising 600,000 foot soldiers who had been privileged to hear the Lord speak to them could face such a fate. While G’d had told Moses that He would meet their demand and give them meat, He had also predicted that many of the people in their greed for meat would die as a result of eating too much of it for too long. (Compare Rashi on Numbers 11,22) Moses was aghast to hear from G’d’s lips that a people who had attained such a level of spiritual excellence would be killed instead of being given an appropriate reward.)If we understand the word אנכי as an oblique allusion to the Redemption and subsequent giving to the people of the Torah, and we apply this to our verse here, G’d would be explaining to Yaakov that although the present stage of his life, and his descendants appears to herald negative experiences ahead in Egypt, this would prove to be only a temporary situation leading up to the redemption and G’d revealing Himself personally to the entire people with the words אנכי ...אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים” I am the Lord your G’d Who has brought you out of Egypt, etc.” Genesis 46,29. (normal translation) “Joseph harnessed his chariot and ascended towards Israel his father;” [The reason why the author presents an allegorical commentary first, as if it were the obvious meaning, is presumably, that if the Torah had merely wanted to tell us that Joseph traveled in the direction of his father to welcome him, these details would have been irrelevant. The same reason applies elsewhere where he chooses the allegorical or mystical approach as his first choice. Ed.] The word ויאסור, refers to Joseph “harnessing” his body in anticipation of meeting his saintly father; the word מרכבתו is an allusion to the four basic components (raw materials in terms of the creation) of which the physical universe is composed. Joseph considers the forthcoming encounter with his father as almost like making a pilgrimage to the Holy Temple. This is reflected in the Torah’s choice of his name Yisrael at this point, although his father is entering “exile.” His father had the name Yisrael added to his name as recognition that he had elevated his body through service of the Lord to come closer to his Creator. The first three letters in that name, i.e. ישר, “upright,” straightforward, are also reflected in the location where Israel would reside from now on, in גשנה, a word reflecting הגשה, bringing something close, in order to unite it with something or somebody else. In this case it reflects rapprochement to G’d in heaven. The letter ה at the end of the word גשן, meaning five, alludes to the One and only G’d Who holds the other 4 parts of the universe together, without Whom it would implode. Here on earth this world is held together by the tzaddik, in our case by the righteous Joseph. A different way to understand the phrase:ויאסור יוסף את מרכבתו ויעל לקראת אביו. Why did the Torah bother to add the word ויאסור, i.e. that Joseph harnessed his chariot? It would have sufficed to report: ויעל יוסף לקראת אביו, “Joseph went up towards his father to welcome him.”I believe that the Torah teaches us appropriate behaviour by writing this verse in the way it did. Every human being is expected to keep his eyes open by using his intelligence so that he will not be perceived as acting like a dumb animal, G’d forbid. He is to consider each of his actions as if he weighed something very precious. If he does so, his peers will give him credit for relating with equal concern to fulfilling his obligations toward his Creator directly. The wording of our verse proves that Joseph was one of those individuals who do not commit hasty actions nor engage in sloppy, careless work. Joseph would doubtless derive great pleasure from being reunited with his father. When that time came, he would reflect on how much greater would be his pleasure if he were to be allowed to see the face of G’d. The word ויעל, he ascended, already reflects this spiritual aspect of Joseph’s journey to welcome his father.Actually, the kind of gradually distancing oneself from material concerns inherent in being a human being on this earth so that one is literally “ascending” ויעל, [much like the angels depicted in Yaakov’s dream of the ladder, Ed.] will occur only if in addition to performing the commandments, intense prayer and the physical effort involved in all this, one has reached the point of utter exhaustion. If and when this occurs, one becomes part of the domain of אצילות, a domain mentioned in the Torah in connection with the elders and Nadav and Avihu at the time of the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. (Exodus 24,11) Joseph’s father Yisrael had glimpsed this domain, and without a doubt his son Joseph the tzaddik, had also been granted a glimpse of it. As a result, both of them were able to see in the physical carriage, מרכבה, an allusion to the Divine מרכבה supporting the throne of the Almighty. Joseph’s seeing his father after all these years triggered this spiritual ascent. I have added a few words of my own to make this concept clearer. Ed.] Genesis 47,19. “and provide us with seed so that we may live and not die.” See Rashi’s commentary on this verse who explains that since the arrival of Yaakov in Egypt and his blessing, the people had begun to sow seed again although the famine had been predicted to last for seven years. Compare also the answer to the question of Nachmanides how Yaakov was able to annul an interpretation given by his son of Pharaoh’s dream according to which the famine would last for seven years. After all, Joseph had spoken in the name of G’d when he had told Pharaoh: את האלוקים עושה הגיד לפרעה, “G’d has revealed to Pharaoh that which He is about to do.” (Genesis 41,28) Joseph had implied that no tzaddik could interfere with this decree of G’d, although the Talmud in Moed Katan 16 told us of the ability of the tzaddik through his prayer to bring about a cancellation of harmful decrees. We must answer that what Joseph had told Pharaoh at that time concerned the existing circumstances, when there was no tzaddik in Egypt whose prayer could influence G’d to rescind part or all of His decree. With the arrival of Joseph’s father in Egypt, circumstances had changed, as there now was a tzaddik of sufficient caliber to bring about a cessation of this decree. This is why Joseph could hand out seed and this was not a waste. At the time when Joseph advised Pharaoh to appoint wise and insightful men to collect parts of the harvest of the good years and store it for use during the seven years of famine, thus implying that the hardship of these years could be counteracted by human endeavor, (Genesis 41,33-36) all the commentators question who had appointed Joseph to volunteer advice to Pharaoh?However, we must examine Pharaoh’s dream and the manner in which he related it to Joseph in greater detail. The Torah’s objective report of the dream describes him as dreaming that he stood “above” the river. (41,1). This was an arrogant Pharaoh, who, according to our sages, considered himself as a deity, owner and creator of the Nile river, economic mainstay of the whole land of Egypt. In 41,17 this Pharaoh had humbled himself by telling Joseph that in his dream he had been standing on the banks of the river. Joseph, who knew what Pharaoh had really seen in his dream, realized that this king had undergone a change of heart since the time he had had the dream. Joseph had not offered an interpretation of the dream as related by Pharaoh, but as dreamt by Pharaoh. He had therefore left himself an opening, allowing for a change in G’d’s decree on the basis of Pharaoh no longer being as arrogant as he had been at the time when he had dreamt the dream. When Joseph spoke about an איש חכם ונבון, “wise and full of insight,” this was hyperbole for a tzaddik. He meant that when the need arises such a man would intervene on behalf of Egypt at G’d’s court and plead for G’d to rescind the decree of such a disastrous famine.He explained to Pharaoh that G’d is not interested in bringing disasters on His creatures, but in order to prevent such disasters there had to be at least one tzaddik who would pray to Him for deliverance of the people among whom he resided. This was the reason that Joseph brought his father to Pharaoh so that Yaakov could bless him. Yaakov assured Pharaoh that in spite of Joseph having predicted seven consecutive years of famine, this decree would be changed so that in the following year seed planted would grow as the Nile would again overflow its banks as was customary in normal years. The reason that Joseph himself, also a tzaddik had not personally prayed for a cancellation or softening of G’d’s decree, was that he was in the employ of the Egyptians, and as such he was not independent but bound by Egyptian laws. His father Yaakov, was a free agent. Moreover, when Yaakov arrived in Egypt he had brought with him a whole clan of monotheistic people, all of whom were obedient to G’d’s laws so that Yaakov, when praying, could point with pride to the number of G’d fearing people he had raised, all of whom would be directly affected by return to normal life in Egypt after cessation of the famine. Genesis 47,23. “here is seed for you to sow the land; and you shall give one fifth (of the harvest) to Pharaoh whereas the other four fifths are for you to feed your families.” A glance at Rashi’s commentary on verse 45,6 that there would be five more years of no ploughing and no harvesting, poses a problem. As soon as Yaakov had arrived the people had noticed an improvement in the condition of the soil, so that they began using some of the seed they had, and sowed it instead of using it for food as instructed. (45,5) The Egyptians prepared themselves to eat the seed that they had been keeping in reserve until better times would make planting more propitious. Since they had violated Joseph’s instructions, he had decreed that any harvest from such seed would wither and be useless; this is why the Egyptians accused Joseph of decreeing to let them die. This also explains why Joseph did not need to appoint overseers to ensure that the Egyptians who gathered in an unauthorized harvest had delivered one fifth of it to Pharaoh for storage. In the third year Joseph did not decree such a curse on any crop grown, stipulating that their efforts would be successful only if they would deliver one fifth of their crops to Pharaoh. Anyone shortchanging Pharaoh would stand to lose his entire harvest.. This enables us to understand Rashi. Joseph’s prediction of seven consecutive years of famine was based on the people trying to grow food without Joseph’s blessing. (verse 19) Even after Yaakov’s arrival, the decree of another five years of famine would be cancelled only if Joseph withdrew his decree against planting. Another way of understanding the words ונתתם חמשית לפרעה, “if you give one fifth to Pharaoh,” is based on the well known interpretation of psalms 145,19 by my sainted teacher Rabbi Dov Baer. On the words: רצון יראיו יעשה, “He fulfills the wishes of those who fear Him,” my teacher explained that the subject here is first and foremost G’d. He does things for the tzaddikim that they appreciate, (רצון) so that they in turn are encouraged to request further favours from Him. When G’d feels that the time is appropriate for Him to shower His people with His largesse, He first gives some indication to those who fear Him that He is well disposed to His people at that time. This will trigger the appropriate prayers requesting G’d’s largesse. Bearing this in mind, we are dealing here with two separate aspects, בחינות, of how G’d deals with His creatures. 1) An initiative by G’d; 2) a response by G’d to an initiative by His people. This is hinted at by the Talmud in Yevamot 34 where it is stated that a woman does not become pregnant from the first time she has marital relations with her husband as the Hebrew word ביאה for such relations is derived from התחברות, a mutual joining together. The Jewish people, by definition are similar to the wife, i.e. they are at the receiving end, do not initiate. In their relations to G’d, the Jewish people is similarly always perceived as female, i.e. as a כלה, bride, or similarly in the parlance of our prophets, a “wife”. G’d’s שפע, “largesse,” is similarly perceived as female, seeing that it is a gift, something received. When G’d is desirous of canceling an unwelcome decree, He must be placed in the position of responding to an appropriate request originating from the victims. He cannot do more than allude to this by a hint, else He will be perceived as initiating rather than responding. As an example of G’d “hinting” that He wished a tzaddik to intervene on behalf of the Jewish people by prayer, the author quotes Exodus 32,10 when immediately after informing Moses that the people had made a golden calf and had worshipped it, G’d says to Moses: ועתה הניחה לי ויחר אפי בהם ואכלם ואעשה אותך לגוי גדול “and now, Leave Me be, so that I can get angry and destroy them and make you into a great nation.” According to Rashi this whole line was a broad hint to Moses to intervene on behalf of the people by praying for their survival. We find this same interpretation of that verse (earlier) in Midrash Tanchuma as well as in Targum Yonatan ben Uzziel.The two בחינות of the G’d-Israel, or Israel-G’d relationship we have mentioned on page 239, are known respectively as the יראה or אהבה relationship. Each of these relationships consists of two elements. We have explained earlier that the largesse when it comes also comes in two different ways, depending on whether the recipients are the gentiles or the Jewish people. When it is granted to the gentiles it is immediately recognizable as such, whereas when it is bestowed on the Jewish people it is not always recognisable as such immediately. When Joseph speaks of ארבע הידות [instead of ידות without the letter ה alluding to G’d. Ed.] he alludes to these four different manifestations of G’d’s largesse. The word לאכלכם in the same verse (page 239,23) is an alternate for the word לטובה, i.e. beneficially. A different exegesis of the line: ונתתם חמשית לפרעה וארבע הידות יהיו לכם לזרע השדה ולאכלכם ולאשר בבתיכם, “you are to give one fifth to Pharaoh and the other four fifths are for seed in the field and to eat, for you and the members of your households,” is based on the Talmud in B’rachot Mishnah in chapter 8. The school of Shammai and Hillel argue about the correct version of the benediction in the havdalah the prayer recited at the end of the Sabbath. On folio 52 the school of Shammai acknowledges G’d as having created the light by referring to the word ברא, “He created the light of the fire, (in the past tense”), whereas the school of Hillel uses the present tense, i.e. בורא, claiming that this also includes the past. It is noteworthy that the same two schools do not quarrel regarding the formula of the benediction when it comes to blessing the Lord for the fruit of the vine, or the fruit of the trees. They are all agreed that the present tense, i.e. בורא, is appropriate in those benedictions.One may argue that when speaking of such benedictions as בורא מיני מזונות or בורא פרי הגפן, and similar benedictions pertaining to natural products that keep regenerating themselves, that even the school of Shammai would agree that a formulation stressing the present tense is acceptable to them, whereas in the havdalah benediction we speak of a onetime creation of light and fire, something that did not “die” and had to be “resurrected” like trees or other plants after every winter. The school of Shammai may have based themselves on a statement in Bereshit Rabbah 11,2 and the Talmud in Pessachim 54, according to which “fire” as we know it first resulted when G’d gave man the intelligence to produce fire, something that remained constant ever since. According to the Talmud there, although the concept of fire and how to make it existed during the 6 days of creation, it was not put to use until after the first Sabbath, when Adam knocked two stones together and the resulting sparks became a source of fire for him. This was termed a בריה an act of “creation” performed by man. A reminder of this act is aptly refereed to as ברא in the past tense, as “light,” and aspect of fire, had been created already on the first day of creation. What was new was that the ability to “produce” fire had been given to man, to a creature. Man’s intelligence had commenced at the time the first human being was created and has continued without interruption ever since. Concerning the phenomena produced by nature, the school of Shammai agrees with the formula בורא in the present tense as this process cannot be equated with the one that resulted in man producing fire.One may argue that when speaking of such benedictions as בורא מיני מזונות or בורא פרי הגפן, and similar benedictions pertaining to natural products that keep regenerating themselves, that even the school of Shammai would agree that a formulation stressing the present tense is acceptable to them, whereas in the havdalah benediction we speak of a onetime creation of light and fire, something that did not “die” and had to be “resurrected” like trees or other plants after every winter. The school of Shammai may have based themselves on a statement in Bereshit Rabbah 11,2 and the Talmud in Pessachim 54, according to which “fire” as we know it first resulted when G’d gave man the intelligence to produce fire, something that remained constant ever since. According to the Talmud there, although the concept of fire and how to make it existed during the 6 days of creation, it was not put to use until after the first Sabbath, when Adam knocked two stones together and the resulting sparks became a source of fire for him. This was termed a בריה an act of “creation” performed by man. A reminder of this act is aptly refereed to as ברא in the past tense, as “light,” and aspect of fire, had been created already on the first day of creation. What was new was that the ability to “produce” fire had been given to man, to a creature. Man’s intelligence had commenced at the time the first human being was created and has continued without interruption ever since. Concerning the phenomena produced by nature, the school of Shammai agrees with the formula בורא in the present tense as this process cannot be equated with the one that resulted in man producing fire. Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, (231,1) states that a human being when eating or drinking or performing other “human necessities,” must keep in mind that he performs all these acts in order to enable him to better serve the Lord, his Creator. By doing so he performs the commandment (Proverbs 3,6) of בכל דרכיך דעהו, “know Him in the process of performing all your activities.” Man is not to concentrate on the physical satisfaction he experiences as a result of performing these activities. The statement in the Shulchan Aruch may be seen as similar to that of our sages according to which G’d created four categories of creatures, in ascending order. The lowest ranking is the דומם, mute and inert, followed by the vegetation, creatures only mobile in a vertical direction but still mute; this is followed by all living and vertically and horizontally mobile animals, capable of some form of communication with one another by means of sound. At the top of this pyramid is the human being. When the human being consumes lower ranking living creatures as his nourishment, every one of the lower creatures experiences a “spiritual” promotion by becoming an integral part of the highest form of living creature, man. When man eats such creatures or even fruit, he “elevates “ them to a higher level, a form of “creative” activity, appropriately referred to in the use of the present tense for the word ברא, i.e. בורא, as we explained about Adam making fire for the first time. The benediction is an act of gratitude for the pleasure experienced in the process. When a person eats he automatically converts lower ranking “creatures” to his level as through not only ingesting them with his mouth, but converting them to his bloodstream, blood being described by the Torah as the essential of man’s life-force, נפש. (Deut. 12,23). The conversion of man’s food intake to become one with the highest category of creature, man, certainly justifies our referring to the creative process commenced by G’d when these creatures were first created to their being alluded to in our benedictions as being part of an ongoing creative process.There remains only fire as something that though man had been endowed with taking part in the creation by means of his intellect, has not been ingested by man and thus not become an integral part of him, so that the word בורא, instead of ברא would not be an appropriate description of what Adam did when he struck two pieces of rock together. On the other hand, the fact that we perform a commandment every week by lighting the havdalah candle, fire which is another one of the creatures that is subordinate to man, becomes “spiritually” elevated by the use man makes of it. It therefore is perceived as if it were a new creation. This, at least is the view of the school of Hillel, who therefore feel that this idea be reflected in the formulation of the benediction we recite when performing this mitzvah. Going back to the Talmud Pessachim 54, which we quoted at the beginning of this subject of the creation of the “light/fire, which is the subject of the benediction recited at the end of the Sabbath, in the first chapter of the Talmud B’rachot, folio 10 the question is raised why King David in psalms 103-104 uses the expression ברכי נפשי no fewer than five times. The answer given is that David refers both to G’d and to man’s soul. David sees a comparison between G’d and our soul, G’d filling the whole universe and the soul permeating the entire human body. G’d sees all without being seen, and the soul similarly sees without being seen by a human eye. G’d provides nourishment for all His creatures, and the soul provides spiritual nourishment for the whole body. G’d is ritually pure, and the soul remains ritually pure. G’d’s domain is in the innermost holy place, and the soul’s abode is also in the innermost part of the body. David appeals to G’d Who possesses these five attributes to bless his soul that also possesses five comparable attributes. At the same time we have a saying in the Zohar III 73 that just as the Torah is supernatural and contains revealed and hidden aspects, so it contains both hidden and revealed names of the Lord. The four hidden aspects of G’d are that G’d sees while Himself invisible, He provides nourishment, (though unseen); G’d resides in the innermost part of the celestial regions is another one of His hidden aspects. His is pure and incapable of becoming impure; one of His hidden features is His ability to feed the universe without His requiring nourishment Himself. However, the fact that He fills the entire universe is the visible aspect of G’d. When Joseph spoke about the four parts out of five that would belong to the Egyptian farmer to use for himself and his family, this was an allusion to the four hidden aspects of G’d, whereas the fifth part that would be given to Pharaoh was an allusion to the visible part of G’d. It is possible that on occasion this fifth aspect of G’d becomes revealed as the letter ה=5 is the last letter in the tetragram, the holiest of G’d’s names. It is accepted in kabbalistic circles that the last letter in the tetragram alludes to G’d when He manifests Himself. Genesis 47,27 “Israel (not Yaakov), settled in the land of Goshen,” [here the name Israel, for the first time, refers to the Jewish people, in its infancy, Ed.] “They acquired holdings in it and became fruitful and multiplied greatly.” It is an accepted principle that when a tzaddik (for whatever reason) is forced to reside among pagans, some of the cultural values of the people surrounding him confuse him, and when it comes to the stage that he entertains love for the forbidden or awe of the idols worshipped by the people surrounding him, some “tzaddikim” become totally corrupted, whereas others succeed in utilizing alien philosophies and turn them to good use through sublimating them in their service of the One and Only true G’d. The reason that the latter type of tzaddik is able to do this, is that he says to himself that if cultural values that are evidently vain and ultimately useless, have attracted so much love and esteem by their supporters, how much more love and esteem must he, the tzaddik, bring to the service of the true and everlasting G’d! When the Torah writes in our paragraph that the Israelites “adopted” i.e. were taken captive, ויאחזו, by the prevailing cultural values of the Egyptians, the meaning is that they were able to sublimate these values and yet remain Yisrael at the same time.
