Musar su Genesi 37:63

וישב . Jacob wished to dwell in tranquility. G–d reacted to this wish by saying: "Are the righteous not satisfied with their portion in the Hereafter that they also demand tranquility in this world?" If this is the way G–d reacted when a man of Jacob's caliber wished for tranquility, what can an ordinary mortal whose life is full of transgressions look forward to? How can anyone of us expect to become the beneficiary of the good G–d pours out into this world? When the likes of us experience all this goodness of G–d in our daily lives, must we not be afraid that this is ultimately to our detriment? Are we not consuming our few merits already in this world? In order to make certain that this will not be so, we must practice charity in a generous manner and return to G–d with all our hearts. We must be mindful of the Zohar's comment on the words 37,1) ,מגורי אביו) that Jacob was afraid all his days of having offended G–d, just as his fathers had been so concerned all of their lives.

Why does Rabbi Yoshiah say: "Do not read Matzot, but read: Mitzvot?" Furthermore, he applies the word ושמרתם to all commandments while this paragraph has dealt exclusively with matters related to Passover and Matzot! Another difficulty is the definition of the word ושמרתם by Rashi to mean not allowing an existing condition to continue. Normally the word שמירה means that an existing condition is to be preserved. When the Torah says of Jacob ואביו שמר את הדבר, "His father kept this matter in mind" (Joseph's dream Genesis 37,11), it certainly meant that this condition would be preserved. As a rule, whenever a commentator uses the phrase אל תקרי, "do not read, etc.," there is some proof in the text that would cause us to read it differently. What is the proof in this case?

והוא נער את בני בלהה ואת בני זלפה . We can learn from here how humble Joseph was. Although he was a son of one of Jacob's proper wives, Leah and Rachel, and was very dear to his father, more than all his other brothers, he was content to defer even to his half-brothers, the sons of the maids, as if these wives were נשי יעקב, full-fledged wives of Jacob.

First of all, the episode of the serpent, who spoke lashon hara of the Holy One Blessed be He and thereby brought death to the world. And (Bereshith 29:20): "If G-d will be with me and guard me," concerning which Chazal have said: "if He will guard me against lashon hara." And the episode of Joseph (Ibid. 37:2): "And Joseph brought their evil talk to their father," this being the catalyst of the descent of the Jews to Egypt. And (Shemoth 2:14): "In truth, the thing has become known" (see Rashi there and what we shall write below). There, too, (4:1) Moses our teacher, may peace be upon him, says: "But they will not believe me," and the Blessed L-rd counters (Ibid. 2): "What is this in your hand?" … (3) …and it became a serpent." Also there (6): "And, behold, his hand was leprous as snow." And (Ibid. 17:2): "And the people quarreled with Moses… (7) …over the quarrel of the children of Israel, etc." followed by (8): "And Amalek came and warred with Israel, etc." And (Ibid. 23:1): "You shall not bear a false report, which applies to both the speaker and the receiver [of lashon hara] (as we find in Makkoth 23a), followed by (2): "Do not be after many to do evil." And, in reference to the me'il [the outer robe of the ephod] (Ibid. 28:32): "A border shall there be to its mouth roundabout," and the entire section. And (35): "And its sound will be heard when he comes to the sanctuary, etc." And the entire section of Tazria and Metzora: the plague-spots of houses, the plague-spots of clothing, the plague-spots of men, (Vayikra 13:46): "Solitary shall he sit"— even outside of the camp of Israel. And his atonement— "chirping" birds. And (Ibid. 19:16): "Do not go talebearing among your people," (Ibid. 17): "Reprove, shall you reprove your neighbor, but you shall not bear sin because of him." And (Ibid. 25:17): "You shall not wrong, one man, his fellow," which relates to verbal wronging, which is also in the category of evil speech. And (Bamidbar 5:1): "And they shall send out of the camp every leper"— even if he were as great in Torah as Doeg. And (Ibid. 12:1): "And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses, etc." And the entire section of Shelach Lecha, which speaks about the spies. And (Ibid. 21:5): "And the people spoke against G-d and against Moses." And (Devarim 23:10): "When you go out as a camp against your foes, guard yourself against every evil thing [davar ra]," concerning which Chazal have said: "davar ra" may be read as "dibbur ra" [evil speech]. And in Tetze, the "giving out of an evil name [motzi shem ra]," and (Ibid. 24:9): "Remember what the L-rd your G-d did to Miriam, etc." And (Ibid. 27:24): "Cursed be he who smites his friend in secret," which refers to lashon hara. And it is known that all of the "cursings" were preceded by blessings; and they opened with blessing, saying: "Blessed is he who does not smite"— whence we derive that one who is heedful in this is blessed.

Just as it is said of the Ineffable Name "G–d is One and His Name is One," so Jacob and the twelve tribes are the parallel of the 12 permutations with which the Ineffable four-lettered Name of G–d can be written. The relationship between Jacob and the twelve tribes and Joseph and the twelve tribes respectively is analogous to the relationship between ה' אחד, on the one hand, and ושמו אחד, on the other. The Zohar has explained this on Parshat Vayetzei. We explained there the relationship between Jacob and Joseph, and the meaning of the emanation תפארת. On Genesis 37, 2, the Zohar goes on to explain that anyone who looked at the face of Joseph remarked on his uncanny resemblance to Jacob. The Torah purposely did not describe Reuben or any other brother as the תולדות of Jacob.

Adam ruined this state of affairs by interfering with the סוד היין, the mystical properties of the grapes. [I suppose that this is based on the tree of knowledge having been a grape bearing tree. Ed.] He followed an evil path by squeezing a cluster of grapes (and consuming its juice). Had he not done so, that "wine" would have remained in the state of what our sages call the יין המשומר בענביו, "the wine that remained preserved within its grapes (compare Berachot 34).” In that event he would have been like "the cistern that does not lose a single drop” [hyperbole for total recall, see Avot 2,11. Ed.]. He would have retained all the holiness that had been his when he was created. When Adam sinned, he did not only lose some of his former glory, fall from a "high roof" (to the ground), but he fell into a "very deep pit" (below the ground). This was a בור רק, an empty pit [allusion to the pit Joseph had been thrown in. Genesis 37,24], since it did not even contain the ingredients for the survival of the species. The species was wiped out at the time of the deluge as a direct consequence of Adam having polluted that "drop of sacred semen," and made it "evil smelling." Due to G–d's personal intervention, Noach was saved seeing he was righteous, and the righteous are the foundation of the universe. The present universe was founded by him as a result.

Something similar is true of Joseph. Although Joseph himself is a branch of Jacob, he did father two of the regular tribes, i.e. Ephrayim and Menasseh, whom Jacob compared in status to Reuben and Shimon (Genesis 48, 5). When we look once more at the word אחד, we will find that Joseph was unique in having a close connection with both the letter ח i.e. the brothers of Jacob's major wives, seeing he himself was one of those. He was also closely attached to the sons of Jacob's concubines, since the Torah describes Joseph as being raised primarily among the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah (37, 2). Considering the expression והוא נער, also stressed in that verse, we find in it an allusion to something I have previously mentioned, namely that יעקב contains an allusion to the letter ו in the four-lettered Ineffable Name. The name יוסף must then be viewed as a miniature edition of that same letter in G–d's name. The scriptural allusion to this concept is found in Isaiah 10, 19 ונער יכתבם, "and a lad will write them down." [This is probably an error, and should have been a quote from Isaiah 11, 6 ונער קטן נוהג בם. Ed.]

ויעש לו כתונת פסים . The Talmud in Shabbat 10b tells us that one must not treat any of one's children differently, since, on account of the extra two silver-coins-worth of money spent on Joseph's colored coat his brothers became jealous of him and this in turn led to the exile in Egypt.

ולא יכלו דברו לשלום . Rashi comments that we can learn the praiseworthy character traits of the brothers from the very criticism the Torah directs at them. The brothers were no hypocrites, fawning on Joseph to his face and cursing him behind his back. They were candid and frank. We have a parallel to this frankness in Samuel I 25,3, where Naval is described. Our sages say that he was just as evil as is implied by his very name [hardly a name given to him by his father at birth. Ed.], i.e. he did not bother to conceal his עין הרע, ill-will. The difference between Naval and the brothers was that whereas Naval was offensive to everybody, the brothers refrained from speaking to Joseph altogether. They did not want to be guilty of hypocrisy by speaking to him peacefully, hiding what was in their hearts; they also did not want to be guilty of hateful behavior towards him.

Esau was the exact opposite. He represented קנאה, jealousy, and שנאה, hatred. Jealousy is the exact opposite of truth. The attribute of truth is defined as a preparedness to admit that something is objectively so, without one denying it or misrepresenting it (even if one puts oneself in a bad light thereby). When the prophet Ovadiah in the verse quoted describes the house of Esau as becoming straw, קש, the letters in that word are the respective first letters of קנאה and שנאה. Now that the brothers had become guilty of being jealous of Joseph and hating him, as we know from 37,4 and 37,11, they became victims of Esau in this world. Since ten of the brothers were guilty of such feelings, the Romans tortured ten outstanding Jewish scholars to death, the ones commonly known as עשרה הרוגי מלכות, whom Jewish liturgy eulogized in the poem אלה אזכרה recited on the Day of Atonement. The ten scholars involved were re-incarnations of the ten brothers of Joseph who had taken part in selling him. This is stated in the book Heychalot. Rabbi Yishmael said: "The day the instructions came to torture Jewish sages to death was on a Thursday. Originally, four sages were to be arrested, Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha the High Priest, Rabbi Yehudah ben Bava and Rabbi Yehudah ben Damah. Eight thousand scholars in Jerusalem were prepared to offer themselves in lieu of these four leaders. When Rabbi Nechunyah ben Hakanah realised that the decree would not be revoked, he "lowered me" to the מרכבה, and I interceded with the שר הפנים in the Celestial Regions. The שר הפנים told me that the Supreme Court in Heaven had decreed that ten eminent scholars were to be handed over to Samael, the Celestial representative of Rome. The reason for the decree was to carry out on the bodies of leaders of Israel the penalty imposed on kidnappers as per Exodus 21,16: "If someone kidnaps a person, sells him and is found out, he shall be executed." [According to Sanhedrin 85, the words "found out" mean that there were witnesses to the deed already before the sale. Ed.]

Joseph accepted his father's mission with alacrity as we know from his immediate response: הנני, "I am ready!" Although Joseph had known intellectually that he faced deathly danger, he did not demur by saying to his father:"my brothers hate me, who knows what will happen when they merely see me." His father, who did not entertain such concerns, felt in a way that he complied with something decreed already since the time of Abraham. When the Torah describes Joseph as parting from his father in the valley of Hebron, (Genesis 37,14), the Talmud in Sotah 11 comments that the reason that detail is mentioned is to show us that this mission was the first step in the fulfillment of the prophecy which Abraham (who is buried in Hebron) had received that his descendants would be strangers and slaves in a land not theirs (15,13). Joseph obeyed his father's instructions despite the danger he knew himself to be in. Our sages have said in Yevamot 5 that when one is commanded by one's father to desecrate the Sabbath, one must not obey such an instruction, the reason being that both father and son are under G–d's orders to keep the Sabbath holy and thereby to honor G–d Himself. Such exceptions to the requirement to obey father or mother apply only when commandments between man and G–d are involved. When the father's command may jeopardize the son's life without, however, infringing on one of G–d's commandments, the son is not free to disobey his father.

(Ibid. 37:2): "And Joseph brought evil report of them (the sons of Leah) to their father": He told him that they called their brothers [the sons of the concubines] "servants," and that they were suspect of illicit relations, and of eiver min hachai [(eating a limb torn from a living animal)]. The verse tells us that he told no one else but their father, and this, only in order that he reprove them — in spite of which he should not have done so, for he should first have reproved them himself; for the din of reproof applies even from a disciple to his teacher, and he should not have revealed it to his father. [(And perhaps he did reprove them first and they admitted to him that they should not have called them servants. For, in truth, before Jacob had married them, he had freed them and taken them as wives, as the verse states in respect to them (Ibid.): "the wives of his father." Or perhaps they had contested the suspicion itself saying that it was not true, i.e., that they had not called them servants. As to his suspecting them of illicit relations, this was an error on Joseph's part, for by means of the Sefer Yetzirah they had created a golem in the form of a woman.)]

And Chazal say concerning this in the Midrash (Midrash Rabbah): "(Mishlei 16:11): 'A scale and just balances are the L-rd's' — for all of them he was punished measure for measure. For 'they call their brothers servants' — Jacob was sold as a servant. For 'they are suspect of illicit relations' — all of Egypt suspected him with the wife of Potiphar. For 'they are suspect of eiver min hachai' because he did not see them perform shechitah — this was a mistake, and Scripture thus apprises us (Bereshith 37:3): 'And they slaughtered a kid of goats' (after having sold him) and did not eat it live."

And Chazal say concerning this in the Midrash (Midrash Rabbah): "(Mishlei 16:11): 'A scale and just balances are the L-rd's' — for all of them he was punished measure for measure. For 'they call their brothers servants' — Jacob was sold as a servant. For 'they are suspect of illicit relations' — all of Egypt suspected him with the wife of Potiphar. For 'they are suspect of eiver min hachai' because he did not see them perform shechitah — this was a mistake, and Scripture thus apprises us (Bereshith 37:3): 'And they slaughtered a kid of goats' (after having sold him) and did not eat it live."

(Bereshith 37:3): "And Israel loved Joseph more than all of his sons, for he was the son of his old age.": Scripture hereby apprises us that Jacob did not accept the lashon hara that Joseph brought to him, and loved him only because he was the son of his old age.

(Ibid. 5): "And Joseph dreamed a dream… (8) …Will you reign over us?": Scripture expatiates upon the dreams to rationalize somewhat the extreme hatred of the brothers to Joseph to the point of wanting to remove him from the world: They assumed that he desired to reign over them, for which reason he had brought "evil report" of them to their father, so that he should remove them from his presence [as Rashi explains (Ibid.): "for his dreams and for his words" — "for the evil report that he had brought to their father." And the robe that his father made him served as "supporting evidence" that he had accepted his report], and that perhaps, G-d forbid, he would agree with Joseph, so that he [Joseph] would be a "master" over them, as in Isaac's blessing to Jacob (Ibid. 27:29): "Be a master to you brothers, and your mother's sons will bow down to you." Or, [they thought,] G-d forbid, that he [Jacob] would banish them altogether, as Noach said (Ibid. 9:25): "Cursed is Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers." Therefore, they took counsel on how to rid themselves of him.

(Ibid. 17): "For I heard them [the brothers] saying: 'Let us go to Dothan [nelchah dotainah],' which Rashi interprets: 'to seek against you nichlei datoth [legal devices (suggested by 'nelchah dothainah')] to kill you with." The explanation: It was decided by them that Joseph was a man of lashon hara, who provoked their father to hate them. And who knows how much contention he would stir up among them? They, therefore, sought some pretext to rid themselves of him in a way which would not make them "murderers" legally. As far as his being killed indirectly through them, this did not concern them. And as to their saying (Ibid. 60): "Let us go and kill him," this was meant in the same indirect sense. As stated in the well known Gemara, Makkoth 23a): "If one speaks lashon hara, he is fit to be cast to the dogs, it being written (Shemoth 23:1): 'You shall not bear a false report,' preceded by (Ibid. 22:39): 'To the dog shall you cast it.'" And we find in the Gemara (Bava Kamma 24b): "If one sicked a dog against someone, he is not guilty [of murder]." And even though by the law of Heaven, he is certainly liable for "indirection," too, they thought that in this instance they would not be liable by the law of Heaven because Joseph was a man of lashon hara and contention.

From here on, Scripture begins to relate the punishments and the mortifications that they suffered for this, all "measure for measure." First of all, Judah was punished, who was the immediate cause of the sale. He became a mourner over his sons, and certainly also rent his garments over them, according to the din. And his brothers, too, were not exempt from the punishment of "rending" [k'riyah], for they, too, rent their garments on their day of woe [viz. Ibid. 44:13]. And because he [Jacob] mourned his son "many days," therefore, (Ibid. 38:12): "And after 'many days,' the daughter of Shua, Judah's wife, died." And because he deceived his father with a kid of goats, dipping Joseph's robe in its blood, they deceived him, too, with a kid of goats, as we find in the Midrash. And because they said (Ibid. 37:32): "Recognize, now," he, too, was punished through Tamar with (Ibid. 38:25): "Recognize, now, whose are this signet and cloak and staff? Who can imagine the greatness of the shame and the mortification that he suffered then!

According to the Kabbalists the Heavenly objective was to wipe out the residual guilt of the brothers which had not been atoned for when they sold Joseph. We can find numerous allusions in our פרשה, which relate to the manner in which these Ten Martyrs were killed. According to tradition, Rabbi Yehudah ben Bava had three hundred לונכיות, lances, stuck into his body. The word ויתנכלו להמיתו, in 37, 18 is an allusion to this; the letters are simply a re-arrangement of the word לונכיות.

And it was, therefore, brought about by Heaven that the first to open his sack and find the money was Levi, as explained by Rashi. For he was the first who said to his brother Shimon (Ibid. 37:19-20): "Behold this dreamer of dreams is coming, and now, let us go and slay him."

(Ibid. 42:37): "And Reuven said to his father: 'You may kill my two sons if I do not bring him [Benjamin] back to you… (38): And he said: 'My son shall not go down with you.'" The Midrash relates that Yaakov said about him [Reuven]: "He is a foolish bechor [(first-born)]. Are they his sons and not my sons?" The words of Reuven must, indeed, be understood, but, essentially, this is the explanation: Whatever issues from a man's mouth [(aside from what relates to fear of the L-rd, which is a function of man's free will)] is brought about by Heaven. This is the thrust of Chazal's statement: "All is in the hands of Heaven except the fear of Heaven." And the Midrash tells us that this ejaculation of Reuven's [("You may kill my two sons, etc.")] was fulfilled in his sons, [i.e., descendants], Dathan and Aviram [(in the episode of Korach)]. And, in truth, he [Reuven] himself was the cause of this, by saying (Bereshith 27:32): "Cast him into this pit which is in the desert." The act was extremely evil, for which reason they [Dathan and Aviram] descended, living, to Sheol, to the midst of the pit. As to his intent, being good, as it is written (Bereshith, Ibid.): "in order to rescue him from their hands to return him to his father," he merited that one of his descendants, On ben Peleth, be saved, by returning in repentance to His Father in heaven (wherefore he was called "On," his being in aninuth ["mourning" (for his sin)] all of his life, as Chazal have stated.

And see another extremely awesome thing which unraveled itself in the course of time, measure for measure. For Joseph stumbled in the sin of lashon hara [against his brothers] as related in the Torah. And his brothers did not want, by any means, to forgive him, relating to him in the extreme of din, saying (Bereshith 37:20): "Let us go and kill him (that is: "Let us sic the dogs on him" and the like,) and they wished to sell him as a slave because of this, though Judah defended him and did not allow them to kill him, as it is written (Bereshith 37:26): "What profit if we kill our brother, etc." Still, he by no means wanted to forgive him, saying (Ibid. 27): "Let us go and sell him." And because of this, in the succeeding generations, when one of the seed of Judah stumbled in the issur of accepting lashon hara, the distinctive one of the seed of Joseph would by no means forgive him. And who is it that stumbled in this way? No less than our lord, King David, may peace be upon him, who believed the evil that Tziva spoke of Mefibosheth, and said (II Samuel 19:30): "You [Mefibosheth] and Tziva shall divide the field" — at which a Heavenly voice came forth and said: "Rechavam [of the seed of Judah] and Yaravam [of the seed of Joseph] shall divide the kingdom." And, as it is written in Scripture, that after the death of Solomon, Yaravam and all of Israel came to Rechavam and besought him to ease somewhat his yoke upon them and they would serve him, and he answered them (I Kings 12:14): "My father [Solomon] chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpion-thorns" — whereupon all of them answered (II Chronicles 10:16): "Each to your tents, O Israel," and they crowned Yaravam. And the underlying cause was David's acceptance of lashon hara. As our sages of blessed memory said: "If David had not accepted lashon hara, the kingdom of the house of David would not have been divided and Israel would not have served idolatry, and we would not have been exiled from our land." And all of this is "measure for measure," as we have written.

And see another extremely awesome thing which unraveled itself in the course of time, measure for measure. For Joseph stumbled in the sin of lashon hara [against his brothers] as related in the Torah. And his brothers did not want, by any means, to forgive him, relating to him in the extreme of din, saying (Bereshith 37:20): "Let us go and kill him (that is: "Let us sic the dogs on him" and the like,) and they wished to sell him as a slave because of this, though Judah defended him and did not allow them to kill him, as it is written (Bereshith 37:26): "What profit if we kill our brother, etc." Still, he by no means wanted to forgive him, saying (Ibid. 27): "Let us go and sell him." And because of this, in the succeeding generations, when one of the seed of Judah stumbled in the issur of accepting lashon hara, the distinctive one of the seed of Joseph would by no means forgive him. And who is it that stumbled in this way? No less than our lord, King David, may peace be upon him, who believed the evil that Tziva spoke of Mefibosheth, and said (II Samuel 19:30): "You [Mefibosheth] and Tziva shall divide the field" — at which a Heavenly voice came forth and said: "Rechavam [of the seed of Judah] and Yaravam [of the seed of Joseph] shall divide the kingdom." And, as it is written in Scripture, that after the death of Solomon, Yaravam and all of Israel came to Rechavam and besought him to ease somewhat his yoke upon them and they would serve him, and he answered them (I Kings 12:14): "My father [Solomon] chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpion-thorns" — whereupon all of them answered (II Chronicles 10:16): "Each to your tents, O Israel," and they crowned Yaravam. And the underlying cause was David's acceptance of lashon hara. As our sages of blessed memory said: "If David had not accepted lashon hara, the kingdom of the house of David would not have been divided and Israel would not have served idolatry, and we would not have been exiled from our land." And all of this is "measure for measure," as we have written.

In Genesis 44,17, Joseph said to his brothers: ואתם עלו לשלום אל אביכם, "As for you, go up in peace to your father." The word אתם, in that connection was used advisedly. Joseph meant that the brothers themselves could come to their Father in Heaven safely, i.e. they would not in this world suffer the execution as kidnappers who sell their prey. On a future occasion, however, their re-incarnates would have to pay for the crime with their lives. The Ten Martyrs mentioned were the ones who had to pay with their lives for that sin which had gone unpunished for so long. The allusion in the verse just quoted serves some Kabbalists as the reason why Reuben, who had not been a party to the sale of Joseph, was included among those who were executed for the crime. His sin had been of a different nature, namely the incident described in Genesis 35, 22, involving Bilhah. Reuben's own words provide us with a hint of this when he said after discovering that Joseph had been removed from the pit (37, 30): ואני, אנה אני בא, "Where can I go to?" Rabbi Abraham Saba in his Tzror Hamor comments on this that the letters in the words and אני and אנה are the respective first letters of א-ל נקמות י-ה-ו-ה נקמות הופיע, "G–d of retribution, Lord, G–d of retribution, appear!" (Psalms 94, 1) The reincarnations of Joseph and Benjamin were not among the Ten Martyrs described.

We can now better understand Jacob mourning for his son Joseph, and his refusal to be comforted (37, 35). Tractate Sofrim 21 teaches that one does not accept תנחומים, condolences, for the living. It is a Heavenly decree that twelve months after his death, a person is apt to recede in one's memory to the point where one forgets him. In view of this people ask how could Jacob fail to have remained aware that Joseph was alive, since he, Jacob could not be reconciled to his loss? [In a gloss the author mentions something he has heard about this problem in the name of the famous פוסק Rabbi Moses Isserlis. He explained the matter על פי הפשט, according to the plain meaning of the text. During the first year of Joseph's absence, Jacob mourned him in the manner one mourns a deceased person for he was convinced that Joseph was dead. When the year had passed and he found himself unable to be consoled, he realized in retrospect that the news of Joseph's disappearance had never meant that Joseph was dead. Since Joseph had failed to return after all this time, Jacob had to assume that he had died in the interval. He kept thinking along that line for many years. The whole matter of "forgetting" the deceased has to do with the tradition that the soul of the deceased "commutes" between Heaven and earth during the first twelve months after the body's death. After that, seeing that the soul has severed contact with earth, the deceased recedes into the remoter regions of the memory of his next-of-kin. To sum up: Jacob had accepted comfort regarding the terrestrial dimension of Joseph's death. He had not, however, accepted condolences regarding the demise of the spiritual dimension of Joseph.]

Remember that Abraham's principal attribute was his characteristic of חסד. The mystical element of חסד is found in the מים העליונים, pure unpolluted waters of the Celestial Regions. The attribute of חסד is also the mystical domain of אהבה, love, as we shall explain. Once Abraham had acquired the virtue of חסד he could enter the domain of אהבה, love, and that is why G–d called him אוהבי. We are told in Song of Songs 8,7 that even מים רבים, many waters, cannot extinguish love. The waters referred to are the מקור מים חיים, the source of truly life-giving waters. There are, however, many cisterns, broken and yet filled, which cannot retain the waters in them. In Kabbalistic jargon these are called קליפות; they are alluded to in Genesis 37,24 as והבור רק אין בו מים, "the pit was empty it did not contain any water." We know from Psalms 52,3: חסד אל כל היום, that "G–d's חסד lasts all day long," though we also have a verse in Psalms 7,12 which appears to contradict this, namely א-ל זועם בכל יום, "G–d pronounces doom each day." The answer is simply that G–d pronounces doom over these קליפות, negative forces, reducing them to impotence. This is the חסד G–d performs all day long. Ezekiel 36,25 may have alluded to this when he says: וזרקתי עליכם מים טהורים וטהרתם מכל טמאותיכם, "I shall sprinkle on you pure waters and you will be cleansed from all your impurities. These waters wash off the accumulated pollution known as קליפות, the result of sins. It is these waters which are called מעטים, little. The reason that "a little water" is sufficient is that קליפות do not increase or multiply naturally, as opposed to קדושה, which increases and multiplies naturally; that is why מים רבים, many waters, are unable to extinguish the "fire" of love, and love continues forever. The principal aspect of the virtue of kindness is deeply rooted in the mystical domain of those מים רבים discussed above On occasion some of these waters have to be used in order to rinse off the קליפות and to "humble" such outgrowths due to sins. This is why Abraham spoke about "a little water to be taken."

This is an allusion to דין, i.e. Justice. It is not the function of Justice to uproot or to destroy, rather it is the function of Justice to treat each person on his merits. The very letters of the name רבקה reflect this even-handedness of the attribute of Justice. The two letters רק allude to a person who is Reyk, empty of merits, whereas the two letters בה allude to someone who has content. Together this is what Justice is all about. G–d pays man כדרכו כפרי מעלליו, "according to his way with the fruit of his deeds” (Jeremiah 17,10). Abraham alluded to this when he used the word רק when he forbade Eliezer to take Isaac back there. Eliezer, in recognition of that hint, used the word בה when he described the kind of girl he considered suitable as a marriage partner for Isaac. He also referred to Abraham's attribute of חסד when he said: 24,14) בה אדע כי עשית חסד עם אדוני).

Considering all the foregoing, the verse: אלה תולדות יעקב-יוסף, that the true descendants of Jacob are Joseph, makes perfect sense. Just as the holy body of Jacob was transported to the holy soil of the land of Israel and buried there, so the holy remains of his son Joseph also were eventually interred there. Both their respective bodies had become thoroughly refined, cleansed from impurities, prior to that. Even though their respective bodies did not recapture the state of innocence of Adam before his sin, and could not therefore be clothed in the כתנות של אור, the garments woven out of light, yet their bodies recaptured a large measure of the purity that had been lost in גן עדן.

Bereshit Rabbah 68,10, quotes Rabbi Pinchas in the name of Rabbi Chanin of Tzipporin as offering a strange comment on 28,11, where the Torah reports Jacob camping overnight in an open field, because the sun had set unexpectedly. He claims that Jacob had overheard the ministering angels saying: "The sun has set, the sun has set." When Joseph told his brothers and his father about the dream in which eleven stars, sun and moon bowed down to him (Genesis 37,9), Jacob proclaimed: "Who has told him that my name is "sun"?! This sounds very strange. Why should the fact that Jacob's name was שמש be considered a secret? Considering what I have written, this Midrash makes sense.

The second category of wine causes drunkenness, is the cause of evil in our world. It certainly does not contain or confer דעת, knowledge. We have a tradition that דעתן של נשים קלות, "the minds of women are fickle" (Shabbat 33 et al.). The "woman" who serves as the role model for this statement in the Talmud is Eve. She had squeezed the cluster of grapes [according to the opinion that the tree of knowledge was a grape vine. Ed.], converted it into wine, and by spoiling it (spiritually) made יין נסך, forbidden wine out of it. The halachic status of such wine is that it is considered as originating in a polluted environment, and the touch of a Gentile makes it unfit for Jews to drink. Women's minds are treated as suspect because the first woman was guilty of creating this category of wine. The Hebrew expression קל, for women's state of mind, is alluded to in the 130 years, i.e. the numerical value of קל, that Adam did not have marital relations with Eve after their expulsion from גן עדן (Rashi on Genesis 5, 3, quoting Bereshit Rabbah). During the 130 years that Adam lived apart from Eve, he emitted קרי, semen which did not fertilize an ovum. This was frivolous and demanded rectification as we shall explain later. The Jewish people suffered 130 years of enslavement in Egypt to make up for those years that Adam separated from his wife. These 130 years were the ones before their redeemer Moses was born. Yocheved, Moses' mother, had been born when Jacob and his clan arrived in Egypt; she was 130 years old at the time she gave birth to Moses (cf. Rashi on 46, 26). Exile itself was a solution chosen by Abraham whom G–d had shown Torah, Gehinnom, sacrifices and exile as possible venues for atonement. Abraham chose exile for his descendants as preferable to purgatory, as explained in Shemot Rabbah 51, 7. The same subject is treated in the Midrash in Parshat Lech Lecha. The main reason Abraham chose exile over purgatory was to prevent his descendants from being within the domain which is full of the spiritual pollution resulting from Adam's sin. The exile experience would serve as a refining process, after which the Jews would merit the proximity of the Divine. They would then merit this יין ישן, the aged wine, which would benefit their spiritual and intellectual development instead of the wine that represented דעת ק"ל.

The moral lesson is that just as strangers must not take for granted their right to live in their host country, so Jews must not take for granted their entitlement to the Holy Land not even after they have settled there. When our sages criticise Jacob of whom the Torah said: וישב יעקב בארץ כנען, "Jacob settled down in the land of Canaan," this is exactly what they had in mind. The fact that the Torah underlines in that very verse that Jacob's fathers had only sojourned there, only reinforces our sages' criticism (compare Genesis 37,1 and Bereshit Rabbah 84,1). An allusion to the fact that the tendency of Jews who display a vested interest in their residence in the Holy land can be counter-productive is found in the description of the land by the spies as ארץ אוכלת יושביה היא, "It is a land that consumes those who settle in it" (Numbers 13,32). This is expressed more forcefully in connection with someone selling his house in the Holy Land permanently. The Torah states clearly that the land cannot be sold permanently by ignoring the laws of return to the original owners in the Jubilee year, when G–d goes on record in Leviticus 25,23: כי גרים ותושבים אתם עמדי, "For you are strangers and settlers with Me." The moment Jews want to treat the Holy Land as the Gentiles treat their soil, i.e. for merely secular enjoyment, the land is liable to react by "consuming" those who presume to "own" it. The spies portrayed the land of Canaan in a derogatory manner and thus profaned something sacred; their mouthings had no effect on the land. The Torah has seen fit to quote their words in order to instill in us a positive teaching:

We explained that those letters signified death, i.e. the spilling of man's blood. The removal of the letter א caused the substitution of the letter ע. This meant that עור ובשר, skin and flesh, replaced the entity previously called אדם, and death in the form of blood entered the world. Expressed differently, Adam's כתונת was removed. When Jacob provided Joseph with a כתונת, this symbolized the reversal of that negative development. When the brothers dipped that כתונת, coat, in blood, they symbolically nullified Jacob's intention. As a result of this, the Holy Spirit departed from Jacob; he remained in mourning, and until he received the news that Joseph was alive the Presence of the שכינה did not return to him. Only then does the Torah state: ותחי רוח יעקב אביהם, "Jacob's (holy) spirit revived" (45,27). Onkelos translates those words as: "The prophetic spirit again came to rest on their father Jacob." It is reasonable to assume that the Holy Spirit departed from Joseph at the time it departed from Jacob. No doubt Joseph experienced emotional distress, if only because he felt the distress his father must have experienced by not knowing his favorite son's whereabouts. Besides, how could Joseph, who was the spiritual extension of Jacob, not be sensitive to his father's anguish? Jacob's descent to Egypt must also be seen from this angle, i.e. two parts becoming re-united. [It was politically impossible for Joseph to return to the land of Canaan while alive, since we know that he could not even be buried in Canaan after he died. Ed.]

Let us now examine in what way the different Rabbis quoted in this Midrash differ. What nuances in the verse did each Rabbi find that he based his comment on? The central theme mentioned in the verse is "ועשיתם אתם." The word אתם seems superfluous. Even the word ועשיתם, is not needed, since the Torah could simply have said ואת מצותי תשמרו ותעשו. Why did the Torah have to say: ועשיתם אתם? Rabbi Chanina seems to explain this verse in the sense that I have written, that preoccupation with Torah should be לשמה, as I have defined; he will then be considered as having done the many things that he was unable to actually perform. The word תשמרו which precedes the word ועשיתם, would refer to study of Torah just as Rashi explained in Deut. 4,6: ושמרתם refers to study, ועשיתם to performance. The word שמירה would even include someone waiting patiently for the opportunity to perform a certain מצוה to present itself.

The message of the Midrash is clear. While our activities may appear as hurling the world towards destruction, G–d may utilise these very activities to further His plans. Even Jacob, who mourned Joseph and was inconsolable, and who prophesied that he would descend to the grave still mourning for his son (37, 35), did not realise that Joseph's fate was the catalyst that triggered positive historic developments. The same was true for Reuben who mourned Joseph's disappearance from the pit and his share of the responsibility. Jeremiah teaches us in the above quoted passage that we cannot evaluate the true significance of step by step historical developments until the whole cycle has been completed.

The Torah next exhorts us not to bottle up our hatred against a fellow jew in our heart (19,17), but to tell him openly if we wish to criticize his conduct, i.e. הוכח תוכיח. Proverbs 27,5 provides the rationale, namely that a rebuke reveals loving concern for the person so rebuked. This is a virtue as explained by Rashi on Genesis 37,4 that Joseph's brothers, rather than concealing their dislike of Joseph and flattering him, spoke out about it. One must not contrast this with the statement of our sages who condemned Naval for saying what was in his heart. They even changed the reading of the name of his ancestor from נבל to כלבו so as to emphasize that every evil thing in his heart he expressed with his lips (Samuel 25, Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 2,3). His was a special case; he should not have spoken at all instead of using his power of speech only to denigrate others. Joseph's brothers, on the other hand, had to maintain relations with him. Rather than pretend to like him they chose to say what was on their minds.

The next difficulty is: How could a righteous son loved by his father not inform his father that he was alive and save him an untold amount of anguish? Even if Joseph had found himself at the end of the world, instead of in a country bordering on the land of Canaan, was he not duty bound to let his father know that he was alive instead of letting him suffer pain for twenty-two years?

We perceive Eliezer setting out on his mission with Mattaron hovering over him, invisibly. Whenever the Torah employs the word עבד in this narrative, the reference is to Eliezer the earthly עבד. Whenever the Torah mentions the word האיש in the narrative, the reference is to the עבד עברי של מעלה, to Mattatron. We have other examples when such an angel is referred to by the Torah as איש, and our sages have defined such an איש as מלאך, an angel. One such example is Genesis 37,15. Rashi, quoting Midrash Tanchuma, says that this was the angel Gabriel. In 24,17, we find “וירץ העבד לקראתה, followed in verse 21 by והאיש משתאה לה.” Onkelos translates this latter verse as meaning that Eliezer remained standing looking on silently. He was reflecting on whether the Heavenly input indicated that his mission was succesful or not. The word לדעת, to know, in verse 21 is a veiled reference to the tree of knowledge.

There are five בתי אבות, family-sources, which have to be viewed as "above" the concept of land distribution. They are the three patriarchs, to whom the land was promised, but who never took possession of it even though they pined for it and were buried in it. Then there is Joseph, who is described as the direct continuation of Jacob in Genesis 37,2: אלה תולדות יעקב, יוסף. [there was no other reason for the Torah to tell us this fact which we all knew. Ed.] Joseph expressed an ardent desire to be buried in the land of Israel, and made his brothers swear an oath that they would take his bones with them at the time of the redemption from Egypt (Genesis 50,24). There is also Levi, whose descendants did not share in the land, for the Torah describes G–d Himself as their inheritance (Deut. 18,1). We must realize that these five people (or groups of people) were on a spiritual level where they did not need their share of land on earth in order to have their share of the land of Israel in the Celestial Domain. That region is the root of the terrestrial ארץ ישראל. The letter ה in the words במקום ה-זה, alludes to these five categories of people who spiritually outranked the other twelve, i.e. 12 =זה. There is also a special significance in the number five when we consider the five manifestations of G–d's Presence that were missing during the time of the second Temple. This means that there was a residual presence of חרב, i.e. חורבן, destruction, during the entire period of the second Temple. Our sages expressed this in terms of the missing letter ה, in the word ואכבד in Chagai 1,8, where the word should have been the same as in Exodus 14,4, ואכבדה בפרעה (cf. Rashi on that verse in חגי). In the future (third Temple) these five manifestations of G–d's שכינה will be restored. Not only will they be restored, but such a future will herald new spiritual heights when the original light that permeated the universe immediately after the Creation will also be restored. It is the time described in Isaiah 25,9 as: זה ה' קוינו לו, "This is the Lord whom we have hoped for." At that time the promise in Leviticus 26,12: והתהלכתי בתוככם, "I will be walking among you," will also be fulfilled.

We can now understand these verses on two levels. 1) Part of Jacob would die first, and only the Israel part of Jacob would survive. This condition would exist until the news that Joseph was still alive. This is why G–d hinted to Jacob at the time when he mourned the death of his mother that he would experience a punishment for not observing the commandment of honoring father and mother during the twenty-two years he had remained at Laban's. As a matter of fact, Joseph's separation from his father, during which time his father continued mourning for him, lasted twenty-two years (as explained by Rashi on Genesis 37,34, where he refers to Jacob's statement to Laban in 31,41: זה לי עשרים שנה בביתך, "these twenty years I have spent in your house, etc."). Jacob explained to Laban that in the end he would be punished for not having left Laban's house much sooner. According to Rashi the words זה לי, mean that "this is my sin."

There is a comment by the Midrash Hagadol on the words וישמע ראובן, in 37,21 which illustrates that the brothers did not understand Joseph's true motives. We are told there that the objective of the Torah in telling us of the purity of Reuben's motive, though he dared not express it at the time, was to tell us how highly G–d rates the performance of a good deed when such deed is performed without ulterior motives. Had Reuben known that his deed would be recorded by the Torah and be read in public for millennia, he would have carried Joseph back to his father on his shoulder without delay. Another example of the same idea is Aaron's meeting Moses when the latter returned from Midian to assume the leadership of the Jewish people. Aaron's joy and lack of envy of his younger brother is extolled by the Torah in Exodus 4,14. The Midrash adds that if Aaron had known that the Torah would compliment him on his deed, he would have organised a musical band to welcome Moses home to Egypt instead of merely going to meet him all by himself. The Midrash goes on with a similar comment about the way Boaz treated Ruth amongst the gleaners (Ruth 2,14). Boaz is reported there as inviting Ruth to dip her morsel in vinegar. Had he known that this gesture would have been recorded in Scripture for all to know, he would have offered her all kinds of delicacies.

When at the beginning of פרשת וישב, we are told that Jacob made an attempt to settle in the land of Canaan to live a quiet undisturbed life, G–d objected to Jacob at that stage wanting to enjoy both the present world and the Hereafter. This world is not slated to recover from the original sin, the time when the serpent polluted Adam and Eve, until the arrival of the Messiah. Ever since that sin our world operates on the principle that the קליפה, peel, precedes the פרי, fruit. It is this principle which forms the background of Bereshit Rabbah 2,4. We are told there by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish that the reason that the Torah begins the story of Creation with the statement that there was Tohu Vavohu, in other words imperfection similar to the imperfection of the world experienced by the Jewish people in exile, was that imperfection has to precede perfection. The Midrash describes several such exiles as being alluded to in that verse. The word Tohu refers to the exile in Babylon; the prophet Jeremiah (4,23) describes the country thus. The word Bohu supposedly refers to the exile under the Medes, since we have a verse in Esther 6,14 where the king's messengers are described as ויבהלו להביא את המן, the word ויבהלו containing the letters of the word ובהו. The word חשך, which follows in Genesis 1,2, refers to the exile under the Greeks who blackened the eyes of Israel by demanding that the Israelites inscribe on the horns of their oxen that they had no further share in the G–d of Israel. Finally, the words על פני תהום, refer to the exile under the Romans, Edom, which seems bottomless like the תהום, Deep. When the Torah continues ורוח אלוקים מרחפת על פני המים, "The spirit of the Lord hovered over the expanse of the water," Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish views this statement as an allusion to the spirit of the Messiah of whom it was said in Isaiah 11,2 that: "the spirit of the Lord rested on him." How does one merit that the spirit of the Lord comes to rest on one? By the merit of repentance which is compared to water, as we know from Lamentations 2,18: "Fair Zion, shed tears like water day and night!"

There is a deep significance in the fact that the two words כף and פך consist of the same letters. The only difference between them is that the letter כ in the word כף is כפופה, bent over, closed, whereas the same latter in the word פך is open. The former shape is an inferior one, as it alludes to a closed palm, someone who is tight-fisted. The letter פ alludes to the mouth above. When the letter ך is open, it reminds us of open-handed charity, i.e. פתח את ידך, "open your hand." Having opened one's hand, it is important to keep one's mouth closed as indicated by the shape of the letter פ, when it is כפופה, closed. There is no greater virtue than silence (Avot 1,17). Thus the combination of an open ך, and a closed פ, is an excellent one. Both Joseph and the brothers committed an error. Joseph talked too much by bringing evil gossip about his brothers to his father (37,2). The brothers erred by being greedy for money and stooped low enough to sell their brother Joseph for twenty pieces of silver.

Some commentators even claim that the tribe of Yehudah had already begun its journey, but was forced to return in her honour. The author of צרור המור writes at the end of Parshat Beha-alotcha, that there was an element of מדה כנגד מדה in this, since it was Yehudah who had exclaimed at the time the brothers wanted to kill Joseph "מה בצע כי נהרוג את אחינו … לכו ונמכרנו" "what profit is there in killing our brother, let us rather sell him!" This comment was held against him (Genesis 37,26). Miriam, by her very nature ignored material gains, as is evident from the danger she put herself in when defying Pharaoh's instructions to kill all male Jewish babies. On the contrary, she actively helped them survive. The repetition of the statement ותחיינה את הילדים in Exodus 1,18, suggests that she provided victuals for them out of her personal funds. This is why she experienced the honour of the tribe of Yehudah returning to wait for her until she had been healed of her צרעת.