S.A.L.T. – PARASHAT VAYECHI

By Rav David Silverberg

Motzaei Shabbat

            Parashat Vayechi begins with Yaakov’s request that he be brought to Canaan for burial after his death, and not be buried in Egypt.  Yosef promises Yaakov that he will bury him in Canaan, and upon hearing Yosef’s promise, Yaakov “bowed at the head of the bed” (47:31).  Rashi offers several different explanations for Yaakov’s bowing, including the Gemara’s comment (Masekhet Megila 16b), “A fox, at his moment [of greatness] – bow to it.”

According to the Gemara, Yaakov bowed to Yosef as a sign of submission and respect.  Although it would generally be inappropriate for Yaakov to bow before his son, it was justified and warranted under the circumstances, given Yosef’s position of authority as the Egyptian vizier, and as the one capable of fulfilling Yaakov’s wish to be buried in his homeland.  The Gemara explains this concept by way of an analogy to a fox.  Although kingship in the animal world generally belongs to the lion, if a fox happens to slyly seize authority, it should be given respect.  If the “fox” happens to be in a position of influence, then it is acceptable, and advisable, to show it respect if and when this is necessary.  Similarly, Yaakov would not ordinarily bow to his son, but since Yosef was in a position of leadership, authority and influence, Yaakov did not hesitate to prostrate himself before Yosef and treat him with honor and deference.

It seems that Chazal here seek to warn against the tendency to place pride before reason when dealing with people who hold positions of prominence that they perhaps do not deserve.  One might naturally feel resentful toward such people, or too proud to lower his head to accept their authority.  The Talmud here teaches us that there is no shame in accepting or seeking the assistance of people capable of lending it, even if they do not necessarily deserve their position of influence.  Just as Yaakov treated Yosef with deference when he needed his assistance, one should not allow his pride to get in the way of seeking assistance from those who are able to provide it.

Sunday

We read in Parashat Vayechi of Yaakov’s final remarks to his sons before his passing, which include scathing condemnations of several of his children.  Addressing Shimon and Levi, Yaakov berates them for their violent tendency, proclaiming, “kelei chamas mekheiroteihem” (literally, “their weapons are weapons of violence” – 49:5).  Rashi initially explains the word “mekheiroteihem” to mean “weapons,” but then suggests a different reading, claiming that this word means “homeland” or “place of residence.”  According to this interpretation, Yaakov decries the fact that Shimon and Levi use weapons of violence “in their land of residence.”

Rav Eliyahu Meir Bloch understood Rashi’s comments as referring to something more than a geographic location.  What troubled Yaakov was that violence became for Shimon and Levi part of their “land of residence,” of their normal, ordinary state of affairs.  It was within their comfort zone, within the parameters of their routine, day-to-day condition.  Yaakov did not condemn the use of weapons per se; he undoubtedly acknowledged the need to take up arms and to fight with fierce determination under certain circumstances.  He himself was required to “wear the clothing” of his brother Esav, and to engage in devious schemes to seize his brother’s blessing and to struggle against his corrupt uncle, Lavan.  And, as we read earlier in Parashat Vayechi (48:22), Yaakov waged war against Canaanite tribes and conquered territory.  Yaakov was no stranger to “kelei chamas,” to weapons and military strategy.  What he condemned, however, was the presence of “kelei chamas” in “mekheiroteihem,” as part of Shimon and Levi’s normal, natural state of affairs.

Yaakov insisted that even when we don the “garments of Esav,” they must remain just a “disguise,” rather than part of our essence.  Even if rare, extenuating circumstances demand exceptional measures, these measures must never become part of our repertoire of acceptable conduct.  We must always know how to distinguish between the rule and the exception, and never confuse extraordinary measures warranted under exceptional situations with our normal, natural mode of conduct.

Monday

            We read in Parashat Vayechi that when Yaakov took ill shortly before his death, Yosef came to visit him together with his two sons, Efrayim and Menashe.  Upon seeing Yosef’s sons, Yaakov asked, “Who are these?” (48:8).  According to the simple meaning of the text, as explained by several commentators (Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Radak and Chizkuni), Yaakov, due to his impaired vision, could not identify from afar the young men who came with Yosef.  Rashi, however, based on several Midrashic sources (Tanchuma, Pesikta Rabbeti), explains that Yaakov asked a different question.  He planned on giving them a blessing, but suddenly the Shekhina, the divine presence that empowered him to administer blessings, departed.  The Midrashim explain that this was a result of two sinful Jewish kings – Yerovam and Achav – that would later descend, respectively, from Efrayim and Menashe.  Yaakov thus wondered whether Yosef’s sons were perhaps unworthy of his blessing, and this is what is meant by his question, “Who are these?”  Yosef prayed to the Almighty and the Shekhina returned to Yaakov, enabling him to bless his grandchildren.

            Rav Menachem Kasher, in his Torah Sheleima (note 61), cites a slightly different version of this Midrashic account from the work Ba’alei Berit Avraham by Rav Avraham Azulai:

When Yosef brought Menashe and Efrayim before his father to bless them, Satan came and brought a picture of the [golden] calves that Yerovam would in the future erect [as objects of worship], and the statues that Achav would in the future erect, and [Satan] placed them before Yaakov.  The Shekhina then departed from him… The Almighty then reprimanded Satan, and it removed the calves, and the Shekhina then immediately returned and rested upon Yaakov.

The introduction of the “Satan” into this story could perhaps shed some light on Yaakov’s sudden inability to bless his grandsons.  The “Satan” in Midrashic literature generally refers to a manifestation of the yetzer ha-ra, a negative tendency that commonly affects us, a spiritual obstacle that often stands in the way of religious observance and to which the Sages sought to draw our attention.  In this instance, the “Satan” came to attempt to dissuade Yaakov from blessing his righteous grandsons, and it did so by shifting Yaakov’s focus onto the problematic figures that these men will produce centuries down the road.  The “Satan” in this story is the all-too-common tendency to focus one’s attention on the less favorable aspects of those around him, a tendency that hinders one’s ability to give “blessing,” to genuinely wish for other people’s success and wellbeing.  Once we concentrate on and highlight the faulty qualities of other people, we are unable, or at least less able, to treat them with kindness and love, and be a source of blessing for them.

            This is the “Satan” which the Sages of the Midrash urge us to struggle against.  We should not be utilizing our analytical skills and insight to find fault in others, to dig deep beneath the fine, upstanding image of our peers to identify their points of weakness.  Our attention should be focused on their favorable qualities, so that we can be a source of abundant blessing and genuine goodwill for everyone around us.

Tuesday

            The Torah in Parashat Vayechi tells the famous story of the special blessings given by Yaakov to Yosef’s two sons, Menashe and Efrayim.  Yosef assumed that the older son, Menashe, should stand on Yaakov’s right side, the side which is generally reserved for the more distinguished person.  Yaakov, however, crossed his hands to place his right hand over the head of the younger brother, Efrayim, while placing his left hand over Menashe’s head.  He explained to Yosef that the tribe that would emerge from Efrayim would surpass the tribe of Menashe in prominence, and thus he placed his right hand on Efrayim’s head.

            In describing this episode, the Torah says in reference to Efrayim, “hu ha-tza’ir” (“he was the younger one” – 48:14).  The Yalkut Shimoni notes that we have already been informed that Efrayim was the younger of the two brothers.  The Torah records the births of Yosef’s sons in Parashat Miketz (41:50-52), where we are clearly told that Menashe was born before Efrayim.  It is thus unnecessary, the Yalkut comments, for the Torah to inform us here in Parashat Vayechi that Efrayim was the younger brother.  The Yalkut therefore suggests a homiletic reading of the word “tza’ir” in this verse, commenting, “she-haya matz’ir et asakav,” which literally means, “that he would downplay his dealings.”  The Yalkut then adds, “For this reason, he earned the birthright.”

            Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his Yalkut Yehuda, explains the Yalkut’s comments as follows:

There are people who magnify everything they do, and say regarding every small thing they do that they achieved something great.  Efrayim, however, was not like that – he would downplay his great achievements and say that they were small matters, that they were not especially significant.

            In our desperate need for fulfillment and satisfaction, we often magnify our minor accomplishments, and invest them with exaggerated significance.  We convince ourselves that our modest achievements are far more valuable than they really are, so that they can serve for us as a source of pride and gratification.  The Sages here instruct us to do just the opposite – to keep our attention focused on how much more remains to be accomplished, on how small our achievements are in comparison to our potential.  Efrayim earned the distinction of the birthright because of his ambition, because he looked to fulfill his need for satisfaction by working toward greater achievement, rather than convincing himself of the value of minimal achievement.  True honor is earned by being a “tza’ir,” by focusing on what we have yet to accomplish rather than on what we’ve already accomplished.  The respect one achieves through ambition and hard work is far more genuine and fulfilling than the artificial feeling of satisfaction achieved by deluding oneself into investing one’s minor accomplishments with exaggerated importance.

Wednesday

            The Torah in Parashat Vayechi records the blessings that Yaakov bestowed upon his sons just before his death.  Yaakov blessed his son Dan by prophesying that this tribe would “judge [or ‘lead’] his nation, like the singular one of the tribes of Israel” (49:16).  The majority of Midrashim and classical commentators (the Rashbam being one of several notable exceptions) explain this prophecy as a reference to Shimshon, a member of the tribe of Dan who fought against the Philistines.  We find, however, many different explanations for the phrase, “ke-achad shivtei Yisrael” (“like the singular one of the tribes of Israel”).  The Gemara in Masekhet Sota (10a) cites Rabbi Yochanan as commenting that Yaakov here compares Shimshon to the Almighty: “Shimshon judged Israel like their Father in heaven.”  In his view, “the singular one of the tribes of Israel” refers to God, and it is to Him that Shimshon is likened.

            In what way is Shimshon’s rule compared to God’s governance over the world?

            Rashi explains that Shimshon judged the people fairly and justly, like the Almighty’s judgment, which is always impeccably just.

            In several Midrashic texts, however, we find the comparison between Shimshon and God taken in a different direction.  Bereishit Rabba (99) comments that Shimshon resembled the Almighty “who does not need any assistance in war.”  Shimshon’s campaign against the Philistines was characterized by independence.  He never mobilized a proper army or devised a comprehensive strategy.  Shimshon’s attacks against the enemy came in sudden, erratic spurts of violence that dealt a significant blow to the Pelishtim.  He is thus compared to God, who wages His “battles” against His enemies independently, without relying on any outside assistance.

In a somewhat similar vein, the Pesikta Zutreti explains this verse to mean that “just as the Almighty does not excessively burden Israel, similarly, Shimshon judged Israel but did not overburden them.”  Shimshon’s independent approach meant that he did not make any demands on the people.  They reaped the military benefits of his heroic, independent assaults on the Philistines, without having to serve in an army or pay taxes to support his operations.  Indeed, the Gemara comments in Masekhet Sota (10) that Shimshon never asked other people for any assistance – not even to move his staff from one place to another.

            According to these sources, Yaakov applauds Shimshon’s selflessness in independently assuming and bearing the responsibility of fighting the ruthless Philistines.

            Yaakov concludes his remarks to Dan by exclaiming, “Li-yshu’atecha kiviti Hashem” (“I await Your salvation, O Lord!” – 49:18).  Many commentators (see Rashi) explain that when Yaakov foresaw Shimshon’s eventual downfall, that he would die at the hands of Pelishtim without achieving complete victory, he cried out for the Almighty’s salvation.  It is perhaps significant that Yaakov then turns his attention to Gad, foreseeing this tribe’s seminal role in Benei Yisrael’s battles.  In a sense, the military role played by Gad stands in direct contrast to Shimshon’s campaign.  While Shimshon launched a haphazard series of independent, impulsive, spontaneous attacks, Gad represents the value of nationwide participation in an organized military effort.  The Midrash Lekach Tov explains Yaakov’s blessing to Gad (“Gad gedud yegudenu ve-hu yagud akeiv”) as referring to two campaigns in which Gad participated – the conquest of Canaan under Yehoshua, and the battles of King David which secured the nation’s borders and established Am Yisrael as the regional power.  Gad did not initiate or even lead these battles; this tribe was simply an active and faithful participant in both successful campaigns.  Moreover, Gad had already settled east of the Jordan River prior to the nation’s entry into the Land of Israel.  And yet, despite having received its permanent territory, Gad took part in the battles across the river to help the other tribes take possession of their territories, and fought valiantly during this effort.  The tribe of Gad thus signifies cooperation, the model of different parties working together to achieve a common goal.

            The model of Shimshon, it appears, has its place, but the ultimate “salvation” for which we await requires following the model of Gad.  Situations arise when a single individual must take bold, independent initiative to respond to a crisis which others are unable or unwilling to address.  But the complete “salvation” for which Yaakov yearned on his descendants’ behalf demands the cooperation of the entire nation, as represented by the selfless devotion of Gad.  When people work together, not alone, in addressing the problems that Am Yisrael faces, and to form a team of mutually committed members willing to divide up roles and cooperate, we will then find ourselves along the route to the yeshu’a for which we all yearn.

Thursday

            In Yaakov’s blessing to Yosef before his passing, he notes the hostility to which Yosef had been subjected earlier in his life (49:23).  He then proclaims, “Va-teishev be-eitan kashto” – “His bow sat firmly” (49:24).  Many Talmudic and Midrashic sources interpret this ambiguous phrase as referring to Yosef’s resistance to the advances of Potifar’s wife.  The term “keshet” (“bow”) in these sources is explained as a poetic or euphemistic reference to the male reproductive organ, and this phrase thus describes Yosef’s overcoming temptation and refusal to sin with Potifar’s wife.  (Within this general approach, we find different explanations for the precise meaning of “Va-teishev be-eitan kashto.”  See Sota 36b and Yerushalmi Horiyot 2:5, among other sources.  As for the metaphor of a “bow” in this context, see Rashi’s commentary to this verse, where he explains why the term “keshet” is used in reference to the male reproductive organ.)

            Several classical commentators, however, explained this phrase as describing the power and prestige which Yosef achieved.  Rashi, for example, interprets the term “keshet” to mean “strength,” or power, referring to Yosef’s rise to power and authority.  The Rashbam elaborates on this usage of the term “keshet,” claiming that Yaakov speaks of a bow in which the string is very tightly affixed to the rod, this requiring immense physical strength to draw the arrow.  Yaakov therefore describes Yosef’s power through the image of a mighty archer capable of pulling the string far back so he could fire the arrow at a long distance.  (See also Radak, who similarly explains “Va-teishev be-eitan kashto” as describing Yosef’s victory over his adversaries.)

            Chizkuni, however, suggests a much different explanation (after first citing the Rashbam’s approach).  In his view, Yaakov speaks here of Yosef’s restraint in dealing kindly with his brothers despite the crimes they committed against him.  In the previous verse, where Yaakov mentions the hostility that Yosef suffered at the hands of his foes, he refers to Yosef’s adversaries with the term “ba’alei chitzim” (“men of arrows”).  Yaakov contrasts their hostility with Yosef’s restraint.  While they mercilessly fired their “arrows” at him, his “bow” remained firmly in place.  And, as the verse continues, even when “va-yafozu zero’ei yadav” – when he was adorned with gold ornaments upon rising to a position of power, he still treated his brothers kindly, supporting them through a harsh famine.

            Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch also follows this general approach to interpreting this verse.  He writes:

They had treated him most bitterly, had talked themselves forcibly into enmity against him, had set him up as the target to be destroyed by their hatred, they, the owners of the arrows they thus laid ready to his hand – they had even sold him to slavery in Egypt, and that very act which they themselves had perpetrated had resulted in making him master of their fate and placed them completely in his power.  But he did not take his bow down from where it rested on his shoulder to destroy his brothers with the arrows they themselves had provided…

According to this interpretation, Yaakov depicts here the compelling image of an archer with a full supply of arrows in his quiver, and with his bow strung, capable of taking direct aim at his nemesis – but desists.  This verse thus conveys the lesson of using discretion with regard to our “ammunition,” knowing when and when not to make use of the “arrows” in our “quiver.”  We can find many fights that we could initiate with our family members and peers; our quiver contains many arrows of harsh criticism that we could, if we so choose, direct at those around us.  But we learn from Yosef’s example how to keep these “arrows” in place.  Not every fight should be waged, and not every critical remark should be made.  We all carry around “arrows” of one sort or another – but, more often than not, we are best advised to leave them “firmly in place” in their quiver, and follow Yosef’s example of forgiveness and unconditional sensitivity.

Friday

            We read in Parashat Vayechi the famous account of Yaakov’s blessings to Yosef’s two sons, Efrayim and Menashe.  Yaakov not only blesses Yosef’s sons, but also proclaims that they, unlike their cousins, will be accorded the status of independent tribes of Israel: “Efrayim and Menashe shall be for me like Reuven and Shimon” (48:5).  Yosef is singled out from among his brothers for the privilege of constituting two separate tribes among the emerging Nation of Israel.

            Some writers questioned the prudence of this special distinction accorded to Yosef, in light of the family’s unfortunate history of jealousy and strife.  It was Yosef’s favored status that led the brothers to despise him and eliminate him.  The Sages (Shabbat 10b) even point to this favoritism as an example that we are bidden not to follow: “A person should never distinguish his son from among his sons, for on account of the extra material weighing two sela’im that Yaakov gave to Yosef over his other sons, his brothers were jealous of him and the matter led to our ancestors’ descent to Egypt.”  Didn’t Yaakov recognize his mistake?  Why did he continue singling Yosef out by granting him an extra tribe?

            A similar question perhaps arises concerning the story of Yaakov resting his right hand on the head of the younger son, Efrayim, while granting his blessing.  Once again, Yaakov appears to repeat the same mistake that nearly tore his family asunder many years earlier, by giving preferential status to the younger brother.

            Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky zt”l (as cited and discussed by Rav Yissachar Frand at http://torah.org/learning/ravfrand/5767/vayechi.html) suggested a surprising answer, namely, that there are exceptions to this rule.  He claimed that although the Gemara stated that one “should never distinguish his son from among his sons,” this should not be taken as an ironclad directive.  There are certain exceptional circumstances in which a certain child requires extra care and attention.  The Gemara established that as a general rule, parents must ensure perfect equality when dealing with their children.  Under special circumstances, however, it might become necessary for parents to invest extra time or effort, or perhaps even grant certain privileges, to one child.  In the case of Yosef and his brothers, Rav Yaakov suggested that having been born and raised away from the family, in Egypt, Efrayim and Menashe required this special status.  And as for the special stature afforded to Efrayim over Menashe, Rav Yaakov suggested that as Efrayim was born after Menashe, after Yosef had “settled in” and come to terms with his role in Egypt (as reflected in the name “Efrayim” – see 41:52), Efrayim perhaps needed special encouragement.

            Regardless, in Rav Yaakov’s view, the blessing to Efrayim and Menashe expresses the fact that when it comes to education and child-rearing, there is virtually no rule that does not have an exception.  Certainly, there are many general guidelines and principles that should be followed, many of which appear in the Talmud and other sources in Chazal.  However, the process of building and nurturing a young soul is far too complex to allow for a monolithic, one-size-fits-all approach, or for the strict, unyielding adherence to a particular set of methods.  Even the obvious and intuitive rule that a child should not receive preferential treatment may have to be suspended under certain extenuating circumstances.  When it comes to the area of educating youngsters, rules cannot be followed absolutely.  Parents and educators must remain flexible and prepared to shift gears in situations where the conventional modus operandi is not the most preferred option.