It’s not Always Easy to Belong
by R. Gidon Rothstein

Parshat VaYigash

The Missing Member of Ya’akov’s Family

Ibn Ezra starts his comment to Bereshit 46;23 asking whether Chushim, the only son listed for Dan after the verse referred to benei, plural, was one or two. He thinks either possible.

He moves on to the much thornier problem of why the Torah says there were seventy members of Ya’akov’s family, 46;27, when a count shows only sixty-nine. Some thought the Torah rounds up final numbers, to which Ibn Ezra objects that it also “miscounted” Leah’s descendants, 46;15, saying there were thirty-three, when thirty-two are named.

He doesn’t like a Midrashic answer, Yocheved was born at the walls of the city of Egypt, because it would mean she gave birth to Moshe at age a hundred and thirty years. The Torah makes a big point of Sarah giving birth at ninety, Ibn Ezra thinks it definitely would have mentioned this.

Worse, paytanim, liturgical poets (whom Ibn Ezra takes to task in other places in his commentary as well), in a poem for Simchat Torah, claim she lived to 250!

He instead thinks Ya’akov is the missing family member, and is included with the first set of descendants counted. Verse seven supports his claim, when it says these are the names of Benei Yisra’el who came to Egypt, Ya’akov and his sons, Ya’akov part of the set. He dismisses Shemot 1;5, which says seventy offspring of Ya’akov came to Egypt, thinks it Scriptural inexactness, clear in 35;26, where Binyamin is counted among the sons born to Ya’akov “in Padan Aram.” Similarly, 46;27, in our context, says these were the offspring who came to Egypt, just like Devarim 10;22 says seventy forefathers went down to Egypt, when Menasheh and Efrayim were born in Egypt and never left.

Our missing person is Ya’akov, according to ibn Ezra.

Becoming Benei Yisra’el

On the way to Egypt, Hashem appears to Ya’akov, 46;3, and identifies Himself as the God of your Father. Sforno thinks Hashem was acknowledging His different commands to the two. Hashem told Yitzchak not to go to Egypt, is now sending Ya’akov there. Sforno spots an explanation in the continuaion, I will make you a great nation there.

Were he and his family to stay in Canaan, they would intermarry with the locals and assimilate. It’s not a worry in Egypt, because the Egyptians wouldn’t even eat at the same table .

Two verses later, the Torah says Benei Yisra’el carried Ya’akov, their little ones, and wives down to Egypt. Rather than sons of Ya’akov, a plausible reading of the verse, Sforno thinks the phrase shows this was the point where they began to act like a nation, Benei Yisra’el, to contend with challenges from God or people (emulating Ya’akov’s wrestling with the angel, where Ya’akov earned the name Yisra’el for this exact reason).

For Sforno, this was the moment. Hashem sends Ya’akov to Egypt to grow into a separate nation without mixing into the surrounding one, and Ya’akov’s sons here begin to function as the entity we still call Benei Yisra’el.

Conflicted Emotions

When he reveals himself to his brothers, 45;5, Yosef urges them not to be sad nor angry, emotions Or HaChayim thinks come from contradictory starting places. Sadness evinces a lowliness of soul, where anger comes from arrogance . To explain how the brothers could have conflicting emotions, Or HaChayim locates their origins.

The sadness starts with the brothers’ realization they had been wrong to sell their brother, as they had said amongst themselves in 42;21. Bereshit Rabbah 91 thought the brothers had brought significant funds with them, intending to redeem Yosef from whoever owned him. Yosef was now telling them they had achieved their goal, and no longer needed to be sad over the sale.

The anger was at themselves, for having caused all the trouble from selling Yosef. When people try to fix a problem and instead make it worse, self-anger is a common reaction. Yosef therefore told them they could now see the value they had in fact achieved with their act, his being in a position to support the family during the famine.

They need not be sad nor angry, it all worked out.

A Cheat and An Introduction

I have decided to add Emes Le-Ya’akov, the comments of R. Ya’akov Kamenetsky, to our weekly list. First, because too many times when I encounter him, I find him so thoughtful and interesting, why deny ourselves? Besides, the other commentators for this year write briefly enough to leave room for one more.

For this week, I’m going to cheat and use a comment of his from Mikeitz that’s still somewhat relevant to VaYigash, although I freely admit I’m cheating because I liked it so much. On 42;9, R. Ya’akov respectfully rejects Ramban’s theory of why Yosef pretended the brothers were spies.

Rav Ya’akov goes in almost the opposite direction, starting with a rejection of the premise, that it can ever be our responsibility to make sure a Divine plan comes true. He quotes a passage my teacher, R. Lichtenstein, Z”L, was wont to quote, Berachot 10a, where the Gemara has Yeshayahu (the prophet) upbraid Chizkiyahu for thinking he can know better than the predicted future. R. Ya’akov applies it here.

He suggests instead that Yosef was trying to show the brothers the fallibility of our best reasoning. They had judged him a danger to the family because of his dreams, and had every reasonable support to think so. From their perspective, they were absolutely right, R. Ya’akov thinks Yosef is saying to them. Yet they were wrong.

He taught them the lesson starting with himself, in his position because he was thought the wisest man in Egypt, who made the mistake of thinking them spies, which they knew was untrue. Where most rulers refuse to change their minds, he surprised them by changing his, letting them all but Shim’on free to bring food back to their family (for the idea of monarch’s refusal to admit error, R. Ya’akov cites Bava Batra 3b, where we also know the idea from the end of Megillat Ester, Achashverosh is willing to circumvent a previous decree, not revoke it).

At that point, the brothers began to recognize their guilt (it is there they say “But we are guilty,” R. Ya’akov points out).

Perhaps the drama with Binyamin was the last nail of the proof, R. Ya’akov says, because Shabbat 55b includes him among those who died completely sin-free, yet the brothers themselves were willing to believe he had stolen the goblet (a passage in Bereshit Rabbah 92;8 supports his view, he points out).

With Yosef’s big reveal, they finally saw it. All their best thinking, and they were powerful thinkers, took them down a path to error. Perhaps, he says, that’s what Bereshit Rabbah 93;11 meant when it detected a rebuke in Yosef’s words. For R. Ya’akov, it was all he had put them through, showing them again and again that even our best and brightest can get it wrong.

Rabbinic writers celebrate a remarkable insight with the words of Mishlei 24;26, lips should kiss those who give right (or good) answers. An insight as relevant today as it was in R. Ya’akov’s time, as it has been throughout history, too much confidence is the beginning of a bad road.

Ya’akov and his sons finding their places in the world, not an easy path to tread.

Joseph harnessed his chariot and rode to Goshen toward his father; he showed himself to him, fell upon his neck, and wept… (46:29)

But Jacob did not embrace Joseph and did not kiss him; our sages tell us that he was reading the 'Sh'mah'.

- Rashi's commentary

Jacob knew that never in his life would his love be aroused as it was at that moment, the moment of reunion with his most beloved son after 22 years of anguish and loss. So he chose to utilize this tremendous welling of emotion to serve His Creator, channeling it to fuel his love for G-d.

- chassidic saying.

In 1892, Rabbi Sholom DovBer of Lubavitch presented his twelve-year-old son, Yosef Yitzchok, with the manuscript of a ma'amar (a discourse of chassidic teachings) entitled Moh Rabu Maasechah1and said: "This is a chassidic kiss. In time I will explain." Four years later, he related the following incident to him:

The year was 1884. Late one night, Rabbi Sholom DovBer was studying with Rabbi Jacob Mordechai Bezfolov. Rabbi Sholom DovBer's family then lived in two rooms: one served as the bedroom, the other, as Rabbi Sholom DovBer's study. In this room also stood the cot of his only child, the four-year-old Yosef Yitzchok.

Little Yosef Yitzchok was an extremely beautiful child with a delicate and radiant face. Rabbi Jacob Mordechai, enthralled by the sleeping child, commented that the radiance of the child's countenance must reflect an inner purity of mind.

Rabbi Sholom DovBer was moved by a strong desire to kiss his son. But at that very moment he thought of the gold and silver that were used to beautify theHoly Temple in Jerusalem, transforming physical substances into something holy and spiritual. He decided to direct his overwhelming feelings of love for his son into a more spiritual gift: he would give his son a ma'amar instead of a kiss. He sat down and wrote 'Moh Rabu Maasechah.'

FOOTNOTES
1. "How great are Your works…"

Alive in Body and Spirit

In the Torah portion of Vayigash, we read that Yaakov “saw the agalos [the wagons] that Yosef had sent to transport him; the spirit of their father Yaakov was then revived.”1

The Midrash notes2 that the wagons were a sign sent by Yosef to his father, Yaakov; should Yaakov not believe that he was still alive, his brothers were to relate the following message: “When I left you… we were studying the portion of Eglah (a word related to agalos) Arufah ,” dealing with the “decapitated calf.”

The Midrash goes on to explain the next verse, wherein Yaakov said: “This is indeed much; my son Yosef is still alive!” Comments the Midrash : “Indeed, much is the strength of Yosef my son; he has experienced so much travail and still maintains his righteousness.”

The Midrash is obviously explaining3 that Yaakov’s statement, “my son Yosef is still alive!” refers not only to Yosef’s being physically alive, but spiritually alive — still living a life appropriate for a son of Yaakov.4

Since the Midrash juxtaposes the sign that Yosef gave Yaakov regarding the fact that he was physically alive with the fact that he was also spiritually alive, it follows that the two are related.

Simply stated, the very fact that Yosef remembered the section in Torah that he was learning with his father 22 years previously is the strongest indicator that he hadn’t forgotten the Torah, and was still righteous.5

This matter requires further elucidation. Understandably, the sign that Yosef gave Yaakov proving that he was still alive related specifically to the message that he was vitally alive, spiritually as well as physically. How was this conveyed by mentioning the portion of the decapitated calf?

The section of the decapitated calf reads as follows:6 “When a corpse is found… in the field, and it is not known who the murderer is…. Your elders and judges must go out…. The elders of the city closest to the corpse must then bring the calf….”

In a spiritual context, a “corpse” refers to one who has ceased cleaving to G-d, the source of life, as the verse states:7 “You who are cleaving to the L-rd your G-d are all alive today.” The reason for the corpse-like state is that the person is “lying in a ‘barren field’ ” — he finds himself in a spiritual wasteland rather than in the “house” of living Judaism.

The Torah then exhorts the elders and judges to do everything in their power to see that such a state of affairs does not come to pass by teaching and providing their fellow Jews with protection against all the spiritual dangers that lurk in the “field.”

We can now understand the inner reason why Yaakov was studying this particular Torah portion with Yosef before the lad descended to Egypt — something that was known to G-d, and thus at least unconsciously felt by Yaakov in his soul’s essence, that part that always is one with G-d. Yaakov saw fit to study this portion with him because Egypt was the “abomination of the earth,”8 and Yosef was to be a captive there.

At that time it was necessary to give Yosef an additional measure of spiritual fortitude so that he could remain righteous even in Egypt. Yaakov thus studied with him the portion wherein the elders provide for the spiritual needs of the Jewish people so that they will be able to remain spiritually alive even while in the “field.”

Thus, when Yosef sought to show Yaakov that he was still spiritually alive, he employed the sign of the Torah portion that they had studied together — the portion that enabled him to remain righteous even under the most difficult circumstances.

Based on Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XXX, pp. 222-224.

FOOTNOTES
1. Bereishis 45:27.
2. Bereishis Rabbah 94:3, and similarly in Tanchuma, Vayigash 11.
3. See also commentary of MaHarzav on the Midrash.
4. See Alshich and Klei Yakar on this verse; Shach Al HaTorah and Or HaChayim supra 46:30.
5. See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. X, p. 161.
6. Devarim 21:1 ff.
7. Ibid., 4:4.
8. Bereishis 42:9, ibid., verse 12. See also Koheles Rabbah on the verse (1:4) “And the earth endures forever.”

The Torah then lists and counts Jacob’s family – children and grandchildren – noting that they totaled 70 people. The 70th and youngest in this census was Levi’s daughter Yocheved, whom we will meet later as the mother of Moses.
Feminine Power
כָּל הַנֶּפֶשׁ לְבֵית יַעֲקֹב הַבָּאָה מִצְרַיְמָה שִׁבְעִים: (בראשית מו:כז)
The total of Jacob’s household who came to Egypt was 70 persons. Genesis 46:27
By descending into the Egyptian exile, the Jewish people began the process of elevating and transforming the 70 nations of the world. Yocheved’s birth just before Jacob’s family entered Egypt brought their number to 70, thus enabling Jacob to begin the mission of refining the 70 nations.

The process of transforming the world is twofold: first, we must cure the world of its opposition to holiness, and then, we must transform it into holiness. The former is the “masculine,” assertive approach, whereas the latter is the “feminine,” nurturing approach.

Thus, the commandments entrusted to women – ensuring that the family is nourished in accordance with the Torah’s laws, ensuring the safety and spiritual warmth of the home (as exemplified by kindling the Sabbath candles), and sanctifying marital life – are all ways of transforming the mundane aspects of ordinary human life into expressions of holiness.1

FOOTNOTES
1. Likutei Sichot, vol. 20, pp. 218 ff.

I KINGS CHAPTER 17

To raise the people from the deep spiritual decline into which they had fallen in the time of Ahab required a figure of outstanding stature. Opinions differ as to which tribe Elijah came from: some rabbis said he was from the tribe of Gad, which inherited Gil'ad. Others darshened from I Chron. 8:27 that he was from the tribe of Benjamin, while others identified him (or his soul) with Pinchas son of Elazar the Cohen (pointing to Elijah's request in v 13 to the widow of Tzorphath to give him the first portion of her dough, corresponding to the priestly Hallah, Numbers 15:20-21).

Elijah received the Torah tradition from Ahiyah HaShiloni and gave it over to Yehoyada HaKohen and as well as being master of all the subsequent great prophets of Israel (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Introduction). After Elijah's ascent alive to Heaven in a chariot of fire, he became a legendary figure, making repeated miraculous appearances at moments of dire crisis.

"And through a prophet [Moses] God brought Israel up from Egypt, and through a prophet [Elijah] they were protected" (Hosea 12:14). While Moses was the agent of God's redemption of Israel from Egypt, Elijah will be His agent to redeem them in time to come (Malachi 3:23). There are numerous parallels between Moses and Elijah. Both are called "the man of God"; both ascended to Heaven; Moses killed the Egyptian while Elijah killed Hi-el (who built Jericho, Midrash on Hosea 13:1). Moses was sustained in exile by a woman (Tzipporah) while Elijah was sustained by the widow of Tzorphath. Moses fled from Pharaoh while Elijah fled from Jezebel. Both fled to a well (Ex. 2:I5; Kings 19:3). Moses brought about supernatural miracles (Numbers 16:29) and so did Elijah by stopping and starting the rains. God passed by both (Ex. 34:6; I Kings 19:11) and both heard "the voice" (Numb. 7:89; I Kings 19:13). Both came to Horeb (Ex. 3:1; I Kings 19:8) and both were hidden in a cave (Ex.33:22; I Kings 19:9). Moses assembled Israel at Mount Sinai, while Elijah assembled them at Mt. Carmel. Moses uprooted idolatry (Ex.32:27) while Elijah killed the prophets of Baal (I Kings 18:40) and so on (Midrash Pesikta Rabbasi).

"AND HE SHALL SHUT UP THE HEAVENS AND THERE WILL NOT BE RAIN" (Deut. 11:17)

The rabbis darshened from the SEMICHUS ("immediate proximity") of Elijah's stopping of the rains (ch 17 v 1) to the account of the death of the sons of Hi-el, who rebuilt Jericho, that Elijah and Ahab both went to visit Hi-el in his mourning. When Elijah said that Hi-el's sons had died because he had defied Joshua's curse in rebuilding Jericho, Ahab asked how it was possible that God would uphold the curse of the student (Joshua) while not fulfilling the curse of the master (Moses) who had said that if Israel turned aside to serve idols, God's anger would burn and He would shut up the heavens – yet idolatry was rampant in the time of Ahab and it still rained regularly (see Rashi on v 1).

It was as a rejoinder to this insinuation that everything is governed by chance and that there is no divine judgment or providence that Elijah brought about a drought through the power of his own words, showing that God gives over the very keys of creation into the hands of His prophets. Elijah hoped that drought and famine would chastise the hearts of the arrogant idolaters of the time and bring them to humble themselves before God. [The current protracted drought in Eretz Israel is also causing us to fear and turn to God. Pray for rain!!!]

Immediately after making his decree, Elijah had to flee – the wicked Jezebel, who obviously called the shots in Shomron, had instigated a reign of complete terror, killing all true prophets, in an effort to efface the Torah from the hearts of Israel.

When God commanded the ravens – the cruelest of birds – to nonetheless bring bread and meat to Elijah (which they are said to have taken either from the kitchen of Ahab, or more likely from that of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, which was more kosher), it was a hint that it was time for Elijah to have mercy on the people and soften his harsh decree. Rabbi Nachman teaches that the radical change the ravens made in their normally cruel attitudes is emblematic of the change every Jew must make in his normally selfish ways in order to force himself to give charity. When a person gives charity because he is naturally generous-hearted, this is not a real act of service. Charity is only service when we break our instinctive cruelty and selfishness in order to help others – and such charity opens up all the gates of holiness (Likutey Moharan Pt. II Discourse 4).

The widow of Tzorphath who courageously gave Elijah her last remaining food even at the height of a famine is symbolic of Knesset Israel – the Assembly of Israel – who had descended to the very bottom in the time of Ahab, yet were restored through the spiritual power of the prophet. Thus the widow's son (identified with the prophet Jonah) was if not actually clinically dead at the very least no longer breathing (v 17) when Elijah performed his miraculous resuscitation. The prophet's ability to revive the lifeless lad is a sign that God's Redeemer will save Israel from even the worst decline.

CHAPTER 18

Out of compassion for His suffering people God sent Elijah to bring down the rains. The dire famine forced the very king himself to go out in search of forage for the animals (v 5), which shows the tenderness of Ahab's Israelite heart compared to that of his foreign wife, who had instigated a murderous rampage against God's prophets.

Even more surprising than this compassionate trait of Ahab's is the fact that as officer over his royal household he had appointed none other than the saintly prophet Obadiah, whom the Biblical text praises even more than Abraham since of the latter God said "I know you fear God" (Gen. 22:12) while Obadiah is described as having "feared God VERY MUCH" (I Kings 18:3; Sanhedrin 39b). Obadiah was a righteous proselyte who originated from Edom, and he was so great that he alone of all the prophets was allowed to prophesy the downfall of Edom in the end of days. "Why did Obadiah attain prophecy? Because he hid one hundred prophets in a cave" (Sanhedrin ibid.)

When Obadiah encountered his master Elijah, he told him, "There is not a nation or kingdom to which my lord [Ahab] has not sent to seek you out… and he made the kingdom and the nation swear that they could not find you" (v 10). From the fact that Ahab had enough leverage over all the kingdoms and nations that he could force them to take an oath, the rabbis learned that Ahab presided over a global empire or sphere of influence. "Three kings ruled over the whole dome of the globe: Ahab son of Omri, Nebuchadnezzar and Ahashverosh" (Megilah 11a). The mere fact that later historians have turned a blind eye to if not intentionally tried to efface the fact that there was an extensive Israelite sphere of influence in Biblical times should not deceive us into underestimating its greatness.

"How long will you go limping between the two opinions" Elijah asked the people (I Kings 18:21). To raise the people from their spiritual collapse, a KIDDUSH HASHEM (Sanctification of God's Name) of the greatest magnitude was required. As discussed in the commentary on I Kings 16, since the building of the Temple in Jerusalem it was forbidden to sacrifice on any outside BAMAH ("altar") on pain of KARES (early death and spiritual excision). Elijah's decision to sacrifice on Mount Carmel was HORA'AS SHA'AH, a one-time legal ruling necessitated by the spiritual peril facing the nation. Elijah was not entirely uprooting the prohibition against sacrificing outside the Temple from the Torah (which would have been a sign of false prophecy) but simply suspending it for one time (Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 9:3) for the very purpose of HEALING THE ALTAR (v 30). "He built an altar in order to remind Israel that God's Altar should have their foremost attention in their hearts and should constantly be mentioned on their lips, because it had been destroyed and its name and memory had become defunct as far as the Ten Tribes were concerned [ever since Jeraboam made the golden calves]" (Rashi on v 30).

Initially Elijah told the prophets of Baal to CHOOSE (v 25) one of the oxen (both were twins from the same mother that since birth had been together constantly in the same manger), but when it came to it, the false prophets "took the ox WHICH HE GAVE THEM" (v 26). Why did he have to GIVE it to them? The Midrash tells that after Elijah and the false prophets cast lots for their oxen, the ox that fell to the lot of the false prophets ran to Elijah and took shelter under his cloak, refusing to move because his twin brother was going to sanctify heaven while he himself would be sacrificed to an idol. Only when Elijah assured this ox that God's name would be sanctified equally by both of them did it agree to go to the false prophets, and this is why it says "WHICH HE GAVE THEM". It is said that the false prophets hid Hi-el (builder of Jericho) under their altar with instructions to secretly light a fire at the requisite moment, but he was bitten by a snake and died before he could do so.

The great miracle that all the people witnessed when fire came down from heaven to consume Elijah's sacrifice caused them to fall on their faces declaring "HASHEM – He is God! "HASHEM – He is God!" (v 39). This phrase is solemnly repeated at the very climax of the concluding Yom Kippur NE-EELA service and on other occasions when we wish to affirm and accept upon ourselves the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Jacob was overjoyed to hear that Joseph was still alive and that he had remained true to Jacob’s ideals. Although he looked forward to joining Joseph, he regretted having to leave the land promised to his forebears. G d therefore appeared to him and assured him that his family would grow into a nation while in Egypt.
Healthy Regret
אַל תִּירָא מֵרְדָה מִצְרַיְמָה כִּי לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל אֲשִׂימְךָ שָׁם: (בראשית מו:ג)
[G-d said to Jacob,] “Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt, for it is there that I will make you into a great nation.” Genesis 46:3
G‑d was not trying to soothe Jacob’s regret over leaving the Promised Land, for a Jew should regret not living in the Land of Israel. Rather, G‑d was telling Jacob that his regret over going into exile was the key to not becoming intimidated by it, and therefore, the key to overcoming it.

Since G‑d put us in exile, it follows that He has given us all the strength we need to overcome its challenges. As long as the exile continues, it is the optimal setting for our individual and collective growth and development. Here, however, lurks a great danger. When we realize that we have no reason to be intimidated by exile and that we benefit so greatly from it, we can fall into the trap of becoming habituated to it. As a consequence, we can become vulnerable to exile’s negative effects on us, and it goes without saying that we can no longer elevate it properly.

Therefore, like Jacob, we should always cultivate regret over the fact that we are not in our proper environment, the Land of Israel in the Messianic Redemption. As long as we remember who we really are and the lives we are really meant to lead, we need not fear exile; we will overcome it.1

FOOTNOTES
1. Likutei Sichot, vol. 30, pp. 234–235.

I KINGS CHAPTER 15

With the death of Solomon's son Rehav'am, the latter's son Aviyam (also called Aviyah – II Chron. 13:1) became king of Judah. Our text states that Aviyah followed in the sinful ways of his father Rehav'am, who "did evil for he did not prepare his heart to seek out HaShem" (II Chron. 12:14). Yet despite the recurrent failings of the kings of Judah, David's line was never extirpated: this was his reward for his outstanding and unwavering loyalty to God. Although there were many ups and downs in the history of the House of David, all were part of the long-drawn out process of BIRUR ("sifting and selection") that is to lead eventually to the final ascendancy of MELEKH HAMASHIAH.

The exact nature of the evil for which the various kings are criticized in the Bible is often hard to pin down definitively and can sometimes only be inferred from the most subtle of hints in the text, some of which are elaborated in the Talmud and Midrashim. Our most important source for a wider perspective on many of the laconic comments contained in our present text lies in the parallel account of the exploits of the kings of Judah and Israel in the Book of Chronicles, which often provides crucial supplementary details.

Thus our present text passes over Aviyah's war against Jeraboam in complete silence, but it is described in great detail in II Chronicles ch 13, which records Aviyah's public call to the tribes of the northern kingdom to submit themselves again to the hegemony of Judah on the grounds that Judah alone had remained faithful to the Torah tradition under which only the Levites and the Cohen-priests descended from Aaron were authorized to minister to God in Jerusalem and nowhere else. On the face of it Aviyah's speech seems impeccably righteous, yet the Midrash Seder Olam points out that he scathingly denounced the prophet Ahiyah HaShiloni as one of the "worthless people" who supported Jeraboam (II Chron. 13:7); he also publicly castigated the tribes of Israel for keeping the golden calves (ibid. v 8) – yet after all his criticisms, the Midrash says that when he came to Beit El and saw them, he almost joined in worshiping them, which is why he was "hit" by Jerabo'am's armies even though he eventually subdued them (ibid. v. 20, see Rashi ad loc.)

"AND ASA DID RIGHT… LIKE DAVID HIS FATHER" (v 11)

King Asa is the first example of the various righteous descendants of King David (such as Hezekiah and Josiah etc.) who succeeded in bringing about a greater or lesser spiritual revival during their reigns. Although our text (v 10) states that Asa's mother was Maachah daughter of Avishalom, the commentators agree that she was actually his grandmother, the wife of Rehav'am and mother of Asa's father Aviyah (see v 2). It is unclear whether she was actually the daughter of David's rebellious son Absalom, but this is quite possible as she bore the name of Absalom's mother. In the time of Asa she was the Queen Mother, and she had evidently played a prominent role in spreading idolatry in Judah (v 13), having set up a MIFLETZES. Until today this Hebrew word literally means a "monster", but the sages (Avodah Zarah 44a) darshened it as a compound of MAPHLIA ("wondrous", "astonishing") and LEITZANUSA ("mockery"). According to Rashi (on v 13) she attached a large phallus to her idol and made daily use of it as a dildo.

Despite the fact that she was the Queen Mother and Asa's own grandmother, the king displayed his Davidic righteousness in showing no compunction about removing her from her royal position and grinding up her monster and casting it into a valley where nobody would have any benefit from the dust.

Our text notes that in spite of Asa's whole-heartedness with God, he did not remove the BAMOTH ("high places"). It is necessary to bear in mind that throughout almost the entire turbulent 410 year history of the Kingdom of Judah, the Holy Temple actually functioned every day and remained the main focus of the people's spiritual life. Ever since the inauguration of the Temple in Jerusalem, it had been forbidden to offer sacrifices to HaShem anywhere else: this is an explicit Torah prohibition that carries the penalty of KARES (early death and spiritual excision, see Lev. 17:3ff). The sages associated the practice of sacrificing at a BAMAH with pride and arrogance, as if the celebrant was reluctant to submit to the authority of the Cohen-priests and wanted to be his own priest. The fact that for most of the period of the kings of Judah the BAMOTH were not eliminated indicates that the blemish of pride and arrogance persisted behind this outer display of religiosity and devotion.

Our present text does not mention the invasion of Judah by Zerah HaKushi ("Zerah the black man") during the reign of Asa (II Chron. 14:8ff). This was apparently an invasion from the south west by hordes of Nubians and Libyans, which Asa heroically repelled with the same faith and trust in God displayed by the Judges (ibid. v 10). Unfortunately Asa failed to display similar faith and trust when confronted by a serious blockade on Judah by Ba'sha king of Israel (our present chapter v 17). Asa took the Temple and royal treasures and sent them to the king of Aram as a bribe to make trouble for Ba'sha on his northern flank in order to force him to dismantle his blockade against Judah (vv 18-21). The ploy worked, but Asa was severely castigated for paying a foreign king to attack his Israelite brothers. According to Seder Olam this war took place thirty-six years after the death of Solomon. Solomon had married Pharaoh's daughter in the fourth year of his reign and lived for another thirty-six years. The decree of the division of his kingdom was originally intended to last only thirty-six years after his death, and had Asa trusted in God alone to save him from Ba'sha's blockade, the rabbis said that he would have been able to restore his hegemony over all the tribes of Israel. His bribing of the king of Aram was a lapse of faith that lost him the opportunity to restore David's united kingdom, which will not return until the coming of Mashiach (see II Chronicles 16:7ff, Seder Olam).

Asa sought to build a strong Judah, and even called bridegrooms from their marriage celebrations and Torah scholars from their study halls in order to fortify its cities (I Kings 15:22; see RaDaK). For the sin of interrupting the studies of the scholars – the supporting "legs" of the Torah – Asa was punished with illness in his legs (this is said to have been an extremely painful "podagra" or gout, which felt like needles pricking into raw flesh, Sota 10b), but instead of going to the prophets to find out what he needed to correct, Asa went to the doctors instead – and found no cure (II Chron. 16:12).

CHAPTER 16

The concluding section of Chapter 15 turned from the history of Judah to that of the northern kingdom, summarizing the brief two-year reign of Jeraboam's son Nadav, who in fulfillment of Ahiyah's prophecy was overthrown in a bloody coup while campaigning against the Philistines (who despite having been routed by David were now able to raise their heads again as God's staff of chastisement on account of the Israelite idolatry).

The Biblical narrative about the succession of bloody military coups and regime changes that characterizes the history of the northern kingdom may make the leading actors seem like nothing more than a bunch of brutal gangsters. In order to correct this impression, we would do well to note the comment of our rabbis that the wicked king Jeraboam was able to expound the book of Leviticus in one hundred and three different ways, while Ahab – who prostrated to the Baal in Sidon and built Temples for Baal and Ashera worship in Shomron (vv 31-3 in our present chapter) – could expound Leviticus in eighty-five different ways (Sanhedrin 103b). It would appear that these wickedly wise leaders must have had the power to totally entrance their Israelite constituencies with the profoundest kabbalistic theorization, despite the fact that the Israelites had always shown themselves to be exceptionally sharp and critical people.

Ba'sha had destroyed Nadav and with him the entire house of Jeraboam. Ba'sha was succeeded by his son Eylah, but this inept drunkard was killed in another coup after only two years (v 9), and the coup leader, Zimri – an army general – went on to wipe out the whole house of Ba'sha. Zimri's rule lasted no more than seven days (v 15) as it did not find favor with the people, who preferred another general -- Omri – who was busy fighting the Philistines ("security is everything"). Omri left off fighting the Philistines and laid siege to Tirzah – a town about 10 kilometers north of Shechem (Nablus) that had served as the capital of the northern kingdom since the days of Jeraboam (see I Kings 14:17). After an initial division among the people as to whether to go after Omri or his rival Thivni son of Ginath (v 21), the Omri faction gained sway and after the death of Thivni, Omri ruled over all the Ten Tribes.

"Why did Omri attain the kingship? Because he added one great city in the Land of Israel" (Sanhedrin 102b). This was Shomron (verse 24 in our present chapter), which was about 15 kilometers north east of Shechem and which subsequently became the royal capital of the northern kingdom. Archeological remains found at the site of Shomron attest to the very great magnificence and cultural sophistication of this capital city of the kings of Israel.

Omri continued in the path of Jeraboam, refusing to allow the Israelites to go up to the Temple in Jerusalem (until just before the exile of the Ten Tribes, heavily armed police were posted on all the paths leading to Jerusalem with instructions to break the bones of anyone who tried to go up). Yet even the evil of Jeraboam was exceeded by Omri's son Ahav, who added to the existing worship of Jeraboams golden calves the new element of Baal worship imported from the Canaanite city-state of Sidon, the daughter of whose king – the accursed Jezebel – Ahab took as his wife.

If Ahab "did evil IN THE EYES OF GOD more than all that were before him" his evil was apparently not seen at the time by most of the human Israelites: this paradoxical figure, who was like a brother (AH) and a father (AB) to all his people, was a lover of the Torah – he could darshen Leviticus in 85 ways – and a supporter of Torah scholars. He knew and spoke with Elijah the Prophet, and no less than Jehoshaphat king of Judah entered into a marriage alliance with him, marrying his sister. Yet despite all this, "he wrote on the gates of Shomron, 'Ahab denies the God of Israel'" (Sanhedrin 102b) – "and he therefore has no share in the God of Israel" (ibid.).

The ultra-sophisticated spiritual decadence into which Israel had sunk by the time of Ahab was epitomized by the rebuilding of Jericho despite Joshua's severe curse against anyone who would dare to do so (Joshua 6:26). Jericho was in the territory of Benjamin, who had remained faithful to the House of Judah – which indicates that Ahab himself was not necessarily the initiator of this despicable project; rather, it was Ahab's influence that created the climate in which it could come about. It is said that after Hi-el of Beit El, who rebuilt Jericho, lost all his sons one by one because of Joshua's curse, King Ahab and Elijah the Prophet went to visit him as he sat in mourning, and it was there that they had the conversation in which Elijah delivered the grim prophecy with which the following chapter opens (Rashi on I Kings 17:1).

Ways Around Disowning a Child with a Vow
by R. Gidon Rothstein

Yoreh De’ah 223

AH opens this chapter with a quick reminder of an idea from Siman 218, we interpret vows by combining the intent of the person who took the vow, the context and wording. Nedarim 38b imagined a father who had wanted to free his son of filial duties to be able to study Torah unencumbered, and therefore vowed to prohibit himself benefit from said son.

Still, the Gemara allowed the son to fill a barrel of water, light a candle, or fry a small fish for his father. Such brief services do not interrupt his study to the extent we think the father intended to include them in the original vow. Even if done daily. Nor are we letting intent overpower the words (which said, no services), because compared to the services the son in theory owes the father, these do not count. “Service” meant the big stuff.

Rambam, Nedarim 6;17, flipped the whole discussion, took the Gemara to refer to a vow prohibiting the son’s benefit from the father because the father thought he was not studying sufficiently well. Here again, the father can fill a barrel with water, light a candle, and/or fry him a fish because the vow only sought to exclude the son from big benefits, not minimal ones like these.

While AH thinks the two opinions options rather than arguments, he knows important acharonim (Shach, Taz, and more), who detected a debate and therefore thinks we should be stringent, not let the son have such benefits where the father barred him from benefit in general, to focus him on Torah study.

Skipping his discussion of the proofs either side would bring, in se’if four AH raises an idea from Yerushalmi Bikkurim, a son whose parent bound him to study Torah and not serve the parent may still bring home items from the market, if the parent is not one to go to the store him/herself. AH is not sure why Rambam and Shulchan Aruch omitted the idea, inferring they may have doubted the idea.

Inheritance and Loans

Rambam in Nedarim 5;6 pointed out the difference between a father who bans a son from benefit from his possessions and one who adds “in my lifetime and after my death.” In the first case, the son inherits as usual, since the possession cease being the father’s the moment he passes. Where the father included “after death,” he was putting the ban on the items themselves. The son would not be able to use them; he could pick which brothers or sons get his share , and/or use those items to pay off a loan or a ketubah.

Tur (cited by AH in se’if six) rejected Rambam’s view, because paying off a loan is a benefit, even if (as Rambam prescribed) the banned person says “these are from my father’s property that he prohibited to me.” Tur thought the only option Bava Kamma 108b accepted was for the man to borrow and the lenders of their own accord to collect from the father’s property.

Se’if seven has other views of Rambam’s position. Ran suggested he meant the court would take these properties/possessions to pay off his loans, and that the man couldn’t give the items to his sons/brothers, he could show them where they were, a sort of hefker, for them to then take themselves. Bach thought Rambam could have meant this all bedi’avad, if the person already did it, we will not revoke the gift or repayment.

AH rejects these and several other answers, giving his own in se’if ten. He argues—as he has earlier, he tells us, although I didn’t find it—that no vow can stop inheritance. Rather, for reasons of chillul Hashem, because it will look as if the son is ignoring the vow, Chazal instituted other strategies. He can give it as a gift or pay off a loan, if he notes why he is using these assets in particular. The items are really his, just that his obligation to honor his father’s wishes bars him from taking them himself.

Grandsons Can Make It Better

In se’if twelve, AH notes another exception Rambam carved out, 5;7, where the father discussed the possibility his grandson would be a Torah scholar. Then, he allows the father to bequeath it to the vow-prohibited son, for him to pass on to the grandson. The middle generation (son/father) may not use those assets, because the vow still applies to him, but may serve as conduit, if the grandson turns out to be a Torah scholar, in line with the grandfather’s stipulation.

Should the grandson fail to meet expectations, he certainly does not inherit the properties, because the grandfather sent them his way, with a kinyan, an act of acquisition. Most think the grandson incurs no prohibition, where Bach and Taz thought the grandfather’s basing the inheritance on his Torah scholar status implicitly included him in the vow on his father, should he turn out poorly.

Except Where They Can’t/Don’t

AH doesn’t think either view captures what Rambam meant. In se’if thirteen, he argues Rambam would have thought that if the grandson missed expectations, the banned son would be expected to follow the spirit of his father’s wishes, and give the inheritance to another son, brother, lender, someone who qualified for what he could safely assume would have been his father’s wishes.

Some worried about the kinyan sudar, the handkerchief agreement, the grandfather had performed, often seen to create ownership. If the grandson has already been given the assets, how could the son divert them? AH dismisses the issue, because the handkerchief didn’t transfer the properties to the grandson, they solidified the grandfather’s intent, and when the grandson missed the mark, the handkerchief ceremony was no longer in force. Rosh, Ran, Tur all held that way, and AH notes Rambam did not speak of a kinyan, a creation of new ownership, but of heter, the son being allowed to take it and give it to his son (the ill-fated grandson).

When I learned Nedarim with the Daf Yomi, I kept noticing how infrequently a vow presents the best way of dealing with a problem. In our siman, disinheritance apparently helps a father express his deep distaste for a son’s choices, yet his hopes to send bounty his grandson’s way again show us the complex problems that arise with radical solutions.

Next time, AHH Halachot Shonot 11, when a person vows to become a nazir in two different ways.

Sharing Light
By Tzvi Freeman

When you share material things, you have less than when you started.

When you share a flame, you lose nothing at all.

When you share wisdom, understanding, knowledge, kindness, courage, and beauty, you only gain and everyone else also gains.

Joseph then told his brothers to return to the Land of Israel and bring their father Jacob to Egypt. He arranged for the family to settle in the luxurious province of Goshen, which was also removed from the negative spiritual influence of the idolatrous Egyptians.
Manifest Destiny
שָׂמַנִי אֱלֹקִים לְאָדוֹן לְכָל מִצְרָיִם רְדָה אֵלַי אַל תַּעֲמֹד: (בראשית מה:ט)
[Joseph told his brothers to tell their father,] “G-d has made me master of all Egypt; Come down to me; do not delay.” Genesis 45:9
The primary purpose of the Egyptian exile was for the Jewish people to elevate the sparks of holiness that were trapped in Egypt. Since Egypt was the economic superpower of that era, the wealth of the whole civilized world was tied to that of Egypt. Thus, when the Jewish people took the wealth of Egypt with them when they later left, they were not only elevating the wealth of Egypt but that of all the nations of the world. This is why Joseph told his father that he was the master of Egypt: He was saying, “Now that I have become ruler over Egypt and gathered the world’s wealth, the Egyptian exile can begin, since the fulfillment of its purpose is now possible.”

Similarly the purpose of our present exile is to elevate the physical world by revealing the G‑dliness inherent in it.1

FOOTNOTES
1. Likutei Sichot, vol. 3, pp. 823 ff.