Rabbi Buchwald's Weekly Torah Message

“The Plague of Darkness”

by Rabbi Ephraim Z. Buchwald

In this week’s parasha, parashat Bo, we learn of the eighth, ninth and tenth of the ten plagues–locusts, darkness and the death of the first born.

As previously noted, the structure of the ten plagues is not arbitrary. In fact, their organization is most revealing (see Bo 5763-2003). Nine of the ten plagues are actually arranged into three groups of three plagues each. The tenth plague, death of the first born, stands alone.

The first plague of each triplet always takes place at the waterside. The second plague of each triplet usually takes place in Pharaoh’s palace. The third plague always comes without warning. Consequently, we find that the ninth plague, the plague of darkness, arrives without any warning.

In Exodus 10:21, we read that G-d tells Moses, “N’tay yahd’chah ahl ha’shah’mah’yim, vee’hee cho’shech ahl Eretz Mitz’ra’yim, v’ya’maysh cho’shech,” Stretch forth your hand toward the heavens, and there shall be darkness upon the land of Egypt, and the darkness will be palpable. When Moses stretches forth his hand toward the heavens, a thick darkness appears throughout the land of Egypt for a three day period. No man could see his brother, nor could anyone rise from his place for a three day period. But, for all the Children of Israel, there was light in their dwellings.

In response to the plague of darkness, Pharaoh summons Moses and orders him out of Egypt. This time the Israelites are permitted to take their children with them, but must leave their flocks and cattle behind. When Moses insists that the livestock must go with them as well, Pharaoh’s heart is hardened. Ordering Moses out of his presence, Pharaoh warns Moses not to see his face anymore (Exodus 10:28), “For on the day that you see my face, you shall surely die!” Confirming Pharaoh’s threat, Moses responds (Exodus 10:29): “I shall never see your face again!”

G-d then informs Moses to expect the arrival of the tenth, and most dreaded, of the plagues–the death of the first born.

Basing his interpretation on the Midrash, Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, 1040-1105, foremost commentator on the Bible) concludes that because the words “three days” appear twice in the verse, the plague of darkness lasted for at least six days. He notes, however, a difference between the first three days and the last three days. During the first three days there was a darkness of gloom, when “no man could see his brother.” During the second three day period, however, the Torah reports that “no man could rise from his place.” Rashi explains that the darkness of the second three days was so intense that it literally imprisoned the Egyptians, and that one who was sitting could not stand, while one who was standing could not sit.

Some of the commentators suggest that this intense darkness, which was like imprisonment, was intended to serve as payback, measure-for-measure, for the wicked Egyptians who had imprisoned the innocent Israelites.

Rashi suggests two additional reasons for the intense darkness. Again citing the Midrash, Rashi maintains that there were among the people of Israel of that generation some very wicked individuals, who did not want to leave Egypt.

The Avnei Azel (attributed to Rabbi Alexander Zusia Friedman, 1897-1943, rabbi and Torah commentator in pre-war Warsaw, author of the popular anthology, Wellsprings of Torah) explains this in more detail by referring to a Midrash that describes the darkness “as thick as a golden dinar, coin.” He explains that this alludes to those Israelites who were completely obsessed with money and became entirely self-centered and blind to the needs of others.

The Chidushei HaRim (authored by Rabbi Yitzchak Meir of Ger, 1799-1866, founder of the Ger Chassidic dynasty) expresses a similar thought. He understands the verse (Exodus 10:23) that states that during the darkness, “no man could see his brother,” to be a metaphoric description of blindness induced by egocentricity. When one can not sense his brother’s pain, that, says the Gerrer Rebbe, is true darkness.

These wicked, self-centered Jews, according to the Midrash, died during the three days of darkness. Why did this take place specifically during the plague of darkness? So the Egyptians wouldn’t witness their deaths and say, “Look, the Jews are being smitten as we are.”

Rashi also cites a second interpretation, maintaining that it was during the days of darkness that the Israelites went in to their Egyptian masters’ houses to examine their property. After the tenth plague, when the time came for the Israelites to leave Egypt, the Israelites went to their masters and asked for their vessels. If the Egyptians denied having any, the Israelite would say, “I saw it in your home, and this is where it may be found!” Others attempt to place a more favorable spin on this explanation, by saying that the Jews were now in a position to say to their masters, “We know that you have all these vessels, we saw them during the darkness, and yet we didn’t take them.” So impressed were the Egyptians by the Israelites’ honesty, that they voluntarily gave their precious belongings to the Israelites.

In trying to understand the origin of the light that illuminated Egypt for the Jews during the plague of darkness, some commentators refer to the story of creation of light on the first day of creation. Rashi in Genesis 1:4, cites a Midrash that teaches that since the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day, the original light of the first day of creation was not a physical light, but rather an intense spiritual light. When G-d foresaw that the wicked would be unworthy of enjoying this spiritual light, He set it aside for the righteous in the future.

Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk (1787-1859, one of the leading Chassidic rabbis in the mid-nineteenth century, known for his pithy comments) says that this is the light that the Children of Israel had in their dwellings during the plague of darkness, when the wicked Egyptians had no light.

It may be argued that the plague of darkness should not be considered alone, but rather as joined with the final plague, death of the first born. Together, they constitute one plague–a plague of physical darkness followed by “ultimate” darkness, death.

Darkness, whether it strikes physically or metaphorically, is a most severe plague. To live in darkness is surely a very painful and lonely existence. May all good people be spared this plague and be enveloped in G-d’s light and beneficence.

May you be blessed.

“The Decline and Collapse of the Egyptian Magicians”

by Rabbi Ephraim Buchwald

In this week’s parasha, parashat Va’eira, we learn of the first seven plagues that strike the Egyptians.

G-d instructs Moses to tell Aaron to take his staff and wave it over the waters of Egypt, over the rivers, over the canals, over all the reservoirs and over all the gatherings of water. Moses and Aaron do as G-d had commanded, and the waters of the Nile turn to blood in the presence of Pharaoh and his servants.

In Exodus 7:22, the Torah reports, “Va’ya’ah’soo chayn char’too’may Mitz’ra’yim b’lah’tay’hem,” Pharaoh’s magicians did the same by means of their magic [turning the waters to blood], and Pharaoh’s heart was hardened and he did not pay heed to them, as G-d had predicted.

When Aaron waves his staff over the waters a second time, an infestation of frogs ascends from the river covering the land of Egypt. The Torah, in Exodus 8:3, once again states, “Va’ya’ah’soo chayn ha’char’too’mim b’lah’tay’hem, va’ya’ah’loo et hatz’far’d’eem ahl eretz Mitz’ra’yim,” the magicians did the same thing through their magic, and brought up the frogs upon the land of Egypt.

Clearly, the magicians’ actions seek to demonstrate to Pharaoh that what Moses and Aaron have done was simply slight of hand, which they could easily replicate through their own common magic.

When the third plague, lice, is visited upon Egypt, Scripture in Exodus 8:14 states, “Va’ya’ah’soo chayn ha’char’too’mim b’lah’tay’hem, l’ho’tzee et ha’kee’neem v’loh ya’choh’loo, va’t’hee ha’kee’nahm bah’ah’dahm oo’va’b’hay’mah,” The magicians [attempted to] do the same with their magic to draw forth lice, but they could not. And the lice infestation was on man and beast. At this point, the magicians cry out to Pharaoh, Exodus 8:15,”Etz’bah Eh’lo’him hee,” It is the finger of G-d. But Pharaoh’s heart was nevertheless hardened, and he did not pay heed to them [Moses and Aaron] as G-d had predicted.

Even though, by duplicating the first and second plagues, the magicians only added to the severity of the plagues, the fact that they were able to replicate the plagues encouraged Pharaoh’s defiance.

The fourth and fifth plagues consist of a swarm of wild beasts and an epidemic that killed the animals in Egypt. During these two plagues the Torah does not report any reaction from the Egyptian magicians. Apparently, they watched the plagues in silence and in complete helplessness.

The last we hear of the magicians is during the sixth plague, boils. G-d instructs Moses and Aaron to take handfuls of soot, and to hurl them heavenward before Pharaoh’s eyes. They do so, and the dust becomes boils, erupting into blisters on humans and beasts throughout the land of Egypt.

When the plague of boils strikes Egypt, the Torah in Exodus 9:11, reports, “V’loh yach’loo ha’char’too’mim la’ah’mohd lif’nay Moshe mip’nay ha’sh’cheen, kee ha’yah ha’sh’cheen bah’char’too’mim oo’v’chol Mitz’rah’yim,” the magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils, because the boils were on the magicians and on all of Egypt.

This time, not only could the magicians not replicate the plague and were forced to watch helplessly as the plagues struck Egypt, now they themselves were personally smitten by the plague. The magicians were utterly defeated, and could no longer serve as a source of support for Pharaoh’s defiance. It should have been quite the opposite, their collapse should have given Pharaoh serious cause for concern.

It is interesting to note that the magicians never attempt to save Egypt and its people from the plagues. Their primary intention is to support Pharaoh’s resistance by discrediting Moses and Aaron. By showing how easily the plagues could be replicated, they demonstrate how duplicitous Moses and Aaron were. Obviously, if the magicians really wanted to help Pharaoh and the Egyptian people, they would have shown Pharaoh that they could do away with the plagues or heal the victims. Failing to do so, now makes it apparent to all that the magicians themselves were frauds.

The decline of the magicians in Pharaoh’s eyes is only part of the function that the plagues were intended to fulfill. The greater purpose of the plagues was to discredit the Egyptian beliefs and their gods. The Nile, which served as the source of so much blessing for Egypt and was itself regarded as a foremost Egyptian deity, now became a primary source of ruination for much of Egypt. Instead of water, the Nile produced blood and frogs that ravaged Egypt and its people.

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888, the great Bible commentator and leader of German Jewry), cogently points out that even though the magicians were unable to replicate the third plague, they remained steadfastly defiant. By stating that the plague of lice was the “finger of G-d,” they imply that the ultimate impact and power of G-d is rather limited. After all, it was only a finger, not a hand. As compensation for their brazen skepticism, the magicians themselves are now made to feel the full impact of the plagues. They are themselves soon stricken by boils despite the fact that the priests, magicians and sacred animals of Egypt were always kept painstakingly clean, their bodies shaven in order to protect against disease. Now, their obsession with personal hygiene is of no avail. The magicians are utterly helpless in face of G-d’s plagues. It is at this point that the magicians lose their status, and are thoroughly discredited.

The plagues accomplish their purpose. Not only do we see the decline and collapse of the magicians, but also, the decline and collapse of the Egyptian gods, and the people’s faith in these gods.

After the conclusion of ten plagues, Pharaoh comes desperately running, looking for Moses and Aaron, beseeching them to rise up, to take the people and depart from Egypt. He begs them to take the Children of Israel and to worship G-d. He even entreats them to bless him as well. Pharaoh’s faith in the magicians has been crushed. Pharaoh’s faith in himself as a divinity has also been undermined, and his pagan ideas of god have been discredited. Instead, all the people acknowledge Hashem as the one true G-d.

A new era, celebrating the reign of Hashem, has begun.

May you be blessed.

“A Truly Moral Man Goes Out To His Brethren”

by Rabbi Ephraim Z. Buchwald

In this week’s parasha, parashat Shemot, we learn how Moses is saved from certain death after being placed by his mother in a basket in the Nile River.

Pharaoh’s daughter comes to bathe in the river, sees the floating basket and draws the child out of the water. Recognizing that it is a Jewish child, Pharaoh’s daughter agrees to call a Jewish woman to nurse the child. When the child grows older and is weaned, he is brought to Pharaoh’s daughter and becomes her adopted son. She calls the child Moses, because he was drawn from the water.

We have no idea how many years passed from the time Moses is returned to Pharaoh’s daughter until Moses begins to play his role on the world’s stage. Some rabbis suggest that at least twenty years had passed.

Describing the public emergence of Moses, the Torah, in Exodus 2:11 states, “Vye’hee ba’yah’meem ha’haym, va’yig’dahl Moshe, va’yay’tzay el eh’chav, vah’yahr b’siv’lo’tahm,” and it occurred in those days, when Moses grew up, he went out to his brethren and looked upon their burden. Moses sees an Egyptian striking a Hebrew slave. Moses looks this way and that, and when he sees that there is no one to help, he strikes the Egyptian down and hides his body in the sand.

Our commentators say that when Moses looked upon his people’s burden, it was no mere external gazing with the eyes. Surely, a Jewish slave being beaten by an Egyptian taskmaster was quite a common occurrence. Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, 1040-1105, foremost commentator on the Bible), therefore, states that when Moses looked, he directed his eyes and his heart in order to share the distress of his brethren.

The Torah does not inform us how a child, raised as a prince in Pharaoh’s palace, was able to develop such an exalted identity as a Jew despite having spent the vast majority of his formative years in an intensive Egyptian environment.

The Midrash states, that like his relative Joseph, Moses was also blessed with charisma and was beloved in Pharaoh’s palace. The rabbis say that the Torah’s expression, Exodus 2:11, “Va’yig’dahl Moshe,” when Moses grew up, indicates that he grew not only in physical stature, but that he also grew in terms of rank in the palace. As Pharaoh appointed him over his household, it appeared obvious to everyone, that this gifted young lad would not be just another prince, speeding around the streets of Cairo in fancy sports cars, or taking private flying lessons, but that he would undoubtedly emerge as crown prince. In the palace of Pharaoh, he had all the markings of a future Pharaoh of Egypt.

The Torah does not disclose what caused Moses to abandon his steadfast trajectory toward a brilliant “career” as a member of Egyptian royalty, to instead throw his lot with his persecuted brethren, about whom he knew so little. (For those who are interested, please see Shemot 5760-1999 “Commitment to Judaism–A Lesson from Moshe” and Shemot 5763-2002, “The Making of a Concerned Jewish Leader”)

The Ibn Ezra (R’ Abraham Ibn Ezra, 1098-c.1164, Spanish Bible commentator) underscores that Moses’ background as a prince was extremely important in making him acceptable to his brethren. His superior education, at a time when his brethren were infused with an inbred “slave mentality,” provided Moses with the capability to act as a leader. Had he been brought up among his own people, they would have had little respect for him, regarding him as just another Jew.

The fact that Moses had a heightened Jewish identity despite spending years in Pharaoh’s palace, seems to indicate that he had an innate passion for his people. Otherwise, why would he have gone out to see their burdens?

The Midrash says that Moses would actually reach out to help the Hebrew slaves when he saw them falling under their burdens, and that he even succeeded in convincing Pharaoh to give the slaves a day off, obtaining for them the Sabbath as a day of rest.

Expounding on the strong Jewish identity and highly tuned moral sensitivities that Moses possessed, the brilliant Professor Nehama Leibowitz (famed Israeli Bible scholar and teacher 1905-1997), suggests that it should come as no surprise that Moses would get involved when he sees an Egyptian smiting a Jew.

What is surprising, says Professor Leibowitz, is that on the very next day, when Moses sees two Jews fighting, he says to the wicked one, “Why do you strike your fellow?” Without this second intervention, there could be no claim to the purity of Moses’ motives. Perhaps, when seeing a Jew being beaten by the Egyptian, rather than pure justice, Moses was inspired by a sense of chauvinistic solidarity with his own people, and a hatred for those stronger overlords who were oppressing his brethren. However, were we presented with only the second example of two Jews fighting, we might have thought that Moses was revolted by the disgrace of witnessing internal strife among his own people, and that his actions were motivated by national pride, rather than by pure justice.

But then we learn of the third confrontation. Moses flees to Midian, where the Midianite shepherds chase away the daughters of Jethro, the High Priest of Midian, preventing them from watering to their flocks at the community well. Moses stands up, chases the Midianite shepherds away, saves the women, and personally waters their flocks.

Here we see proof that Moses’ sense of justice is exclusively motivated by his ethical sense and not by chauvinism or national pride. This third instance, of Moses championing the cause of justice, is further revealing. He does this even though when he had intervened previously he had to flee for his life. He does this even though as a result of his previous intervention he was separated from everything and everyone that he had previously known and loved. Because he always stood up for what he believed was just and correct, the first thing Moses does after being forced to flee to the land of Midian is to protect the defenseless, intervening again, and once more championing the weak.

It is then not surprising, that later in his life, Moses consistently stands up for the weak and the defenseless. Time and again, Moses prostrates himself before G-d, begging Him to forgive the Children of Israel for rebelling, for worshiping the Golden Calf, for demanding meat, for crying out for water, for wanting to return to Egypt, and for looking for a new leader.

When we view the life of Moses through the panorama of his years, we see that Moses’ actions are based on more than just being an ethical human being who craves justice and abhors unfairness. Even as a young man, we see that Moses is much more than merely another kind-hearted individual. He is a rare person endowed with the instincts of a parent caring for his children. But even as a parent, Moses assumes a responsibility that is far beyond what is expected. For Moses, it is not just every Jew, but every human being who is his child. Moses sees all of G-d’s children as his own progeny, who are entitled to justice and fairness.

Although we might justifiably relish seeing Moses exclusively as the leader of the Jewish people, Moses really emerges as the shepherd of all humankind.

May you be blessed.

“The Scepter Shall Not Depart from Judah”

by Rabbi Ephraim Z. Buchwald

In this week’s parasha, parashat Vayechi, Jacob calls his sons together in order to bless them before he dies.

Not all of Jacob’s words can be easily understood as blessings. The Torah, however, in Genesis 49:28, assures that Jacob’s words were indeed intended as blessings: “Kol ay’leh shiv’tay Yisrael sh’naym ah’sahr, v’zoht ah’sher dee’ber la’hem ah’vee’hem, va’y’vah’rech oh’tahm eesh ah’sher k’vir’chah’toh bay’rahch oh’tahm,” All these are the twelve tribes of Israel, and this is what their father spoke to them and blessed them; he blessed each according to his appropriate blessing.

While the longest blessing is reserved for Jacob’s beloved son, Joseph, the most important blessing is directed at his older son, Judah. Judah’s blessing opens with the words (Genesis 49:8): “Yehuda, ah’tah yo’doo’chah ah’cheh’chah,” Judah, you shall your brothers praise.” It continues with a prediction that Judah would defeat his enemies, and that his brothers will bow down before him. Jacob describes Judah as a lion cub, who springs up from the prey, and crouches like a lion. Asks Jacob: Who dares rouse such a ferocious beast?

Jacob’s blessing of Judah continues with the pronouncement of the immortal words, Genesis 49:10: “Lo yah’soor shay’vet mee’huda, oo’m’cho’kake mee’bayn rahg’lahv, ahd kee yah’voh Shee’loh, v’loh yik’haht ah’meem,” The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until Shiloh arrives, and his will be an assemblage of nations.

The commentators are divided over whether Jacob’s statement, that the scepter shall not depart from Judah, was intended as a decree or as a promise. The Abarbanel (1437-1508, Spanish statesman, philosopher and commentator) sees the entire ritual of blessing his sons as Jacob’s way of designating Judah as the future king of Israel. The “blessings” to his other sons was Jacob’s way of indicating that none of the others are worthy of this lofty position.

From Jacob’s words to Judah, the Abarbanel identifies four special qualities that Judah possessed that qualify him to serve as the leader of Israel.

1) Judah’s brothers clearly acknowledge his superiority, and are not jealous of him. 2) Judah’s hand is on the neck of his enemies, and is so strong in battle, that all his enemies turn their backs and flee. 3) Judah rose from the prey, in the sense that he was superior to his brothers spiritually and ethically. It was after all, Judah who saved Joseph from certain death when he said to his brothers, “What gain is there if we kill our brother?” 4) Judah crouches as a lion–he has the required strength and, particularly, the persistence, to be king.

The Abarbanel points to a substantial list of events in the life of Judah and the tribe of Judah that indicate that Judah was always well ahead of all his brothers in every respect. It was Judah to whom his brothers listened, rather than proceed with their original plan to kill Joseph. It was Judah who spoke up first to Joseph, when he encountered the fearsome ruler in Egypt. Judah was the son who succeeded in convincing his father, Jacob, to send Benjamin with him down to Egypt. When Jacob himself went down to Egypt, he sent Judah before him to facilitate the family’s relocation. The tribe of Judah was always the first camp to travel in the wilderness. Nachshon, the son of Aminadav, the prince of the Tribe of Judah, was the first leader to bring his sacrifice at the consecration ceremony of the Tabernacle. The list goes on.

Even when in exile, the leader of the Jews, the Exilarch (Resh Galuta), always descended from the Tribe of Judah. In the time of the Second Temple, the head of the Bet Din (religious Supreme Court) was always from the Tribe of Judah. The Abarbanel points out that even in his time (16^th century), many of the Jewish leaders of France and Spain were from the house of David.

Although the Abarbanel initially argues that the Maccabees, who assumed the monarchy in their time, were not really monarchs because they were subservient to other nations, the Abarbanel does acknowledge that there were times when the Maccabees were not dependant on outside forces. The Abarbanel therefore explains that Jacob did not necessarily mean that Judah would serve as a monarch, but rather that the power to rule and bear authority, both in Israel and outside of the land, would be bestowed upon Judah.

The Ramban, Nachmanides (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, 1194-1270, Spanish Torah commentator), disagrees, and claims that Jacob’s words to Judah were not a promise but a decree, that no other tribe would ever rule Israel until the time of the Messiah. Nachmanides claims that the monarchy of Saul was based on the improper request of the Israelites who inappropriately demanded a king. That is why Saul’s kingdom was temporary, and why he and his son, Jonathan, were killed in battle. The ten tribes who set up the Northern Kingdom of Israel, were also not an authorized kingdom, as the prophet Hosea 8:4 says of them, “They have set up kings, but not by Me.”

With respect to the Maccabees, Nachmanides declares that they, in fact, violated two principle rules. Not only did they assume the kingship that belonged to Judah, but, as priests, they neglected the service in the Tabernacle that was their primary responsibility. Nachmanides suggests that is why four of Mattathias’ five sons died in battle.

Clearly, Judah was the outstanding leader among his brothers, and was destined to assume the leadership of Israel, whether by promise or decree. The kingdom of Judah, the monarchy of Judah, and the leadership of Judah was to last for millennia, longer than the monarchy or leadership of any other nation.

Jacob was correct in saying about his gifted son, “Judah, you shall your brothers praise.”

May you be blessed.

“Joseph and Judah: A Confrontation for Posterity”

by Rabbi Ephraim Z. Buchwald

In this week’s parasha, we read of the dramatic and powerful confrontation between Judah and Joseph. (For an alternative analysis, see Vayigash 5766-2006 )

In parashat Mikeitz, we learned that Benjamin had been accused of stealing Joseph’s royal goblet. Demanding that Benjamin remain in his palace as a slave forever, Joseph agreed that the other brothers could return to their father in Canaan to attend to their families’ needs. Numbed by the horrific developments, all the brothers were dumbfounded except for Judah, who approached the Egyptian viceroy, Joseph, in an attempt to win the release of his brother, Benjamin.

Scripture in Genesis 44:18, states, “Va’yee’gahsh ay’lahv Yehudah va’yo’mer: Bee ah’doh’nee, y’da’behr nah ahv’d’chah dah’vahr b’ahz’nay ah’doh’nee, v’ahl yee’char ahp’chah b’ahv’deh’chah, kee cha’moh’chah k’Phar’oh,” Judah approached him [Joseph] and said, “If you please, my lord, may your servant speak a word in my lord’s ear, and may your anger not flare up at your servant-–for you are like Pharaoh.”

Our sages tell us that the confrontation between Judah and Joseph was not merely intended to free Benjamin, but, in fact, was a confrontation that would impact profoundly on the destiny of Israel. The commentators explain that the other brothers refused to get involved, not only out of fear, but because the confrontation was, in essence, a struggle between Judah and Joseph for the leadership of the People of Israel. Two kings are wrestling with one another. How could others intervene?

In hindsight, we know that it is Judah who would eventually emerge as the leader of the Jewish people. It is from Judah that the dynasty of King David, which rules for thousands of years, is established. Joseph is also destined for monarchy. His descendant, Jeroboam the son of Nevat from the tribe of Ephraim, leads the ten tribes away from the Kingdom of Judah, to establish and assume the leadership of the breakaway Northern Kingdom. The new Northern Kingdom of Israel would last until the year 722 BCE, when the ten tribes are led into exile by the Assyrian forces.

The rabbis of the Midrash state that the word “Va’yee’gahsh,” (literally, and he, Judah, approached him,) means much more than approached. According to the Midrash, three primary biblical references using the word “Va’yee’gahsh,” may be found. From II Samuel 10:13, we learn that it can mean drawing near for the purpose of engaging in battle. The context of Joshua 14:6, implies a conciliatory approach. In I Kings 18:36, it denotes coming near for prayer. The Talmudic sage, Rabbi Elazar, combines all three meanings and suggests that when Judah approached Joseph he was prepared for all eventualities: battle, conciliation and prayer.

Rabbi Nison Alpert (1927-1987, European born, American bred Torah scholar) in his teachings on the Sidrah, questions what the Bible’s purpose was in noting that Judah “approached” Joseph. Why didn’t Scripture simply state that Judah spoke to Joseph? Rabbi Alpert suggests that “approaching,” whether for war, appeasement or prayer, implies both physical and emotional preparation.

Rabbi Alpert explains insightfully, that when anticipating battle, it is vital to know the enemy well, their strengths and vulnerabilities, so that the enemy’s shortcomings may be exploited. Without this vital knowledge, one can hardly expect to succeed in battle.

Similarly with prayer, one must conduct inward “reconnaissance” in preparation for prayer. Those who pray must be aware of their own strengths, weaknesses, and the nature of their relationship with G-d. Says Rabbi Alpert, “Only after careful consideration of one’s inner self and proper emotional composure, might one begin pouring out his heart to his Creator.”

With respect to appeasement, it is important to know the nature of the person one is trying to appease. What makes that person tick? How can that person’s feelings be penetrated to make the appeal successful?

Whether for prayer, warfare or appeasement, one must always “come close” to their subject. Thus, says Rabbi Alpert, when Judah approached Joseph, it was not coincidental. It was essential!

In order to successfully appeal to Joseph, Judah had to understand Joseph’s innermost self. It was only when Judah approached Joseph and “came close” to him that Judah recognized how vulnerable Joseph was, and was able to discover his emotional soft spot.

Fourteen times, Judah repeats the word “father” with all its emotional undertones, in order to arouse compassion in the hardest of hearts. Judah emphasizes that Jacob, who is well advanced in years, would not survive without his son, Benjamin, whom he deeply loves.

Judah repeatedly humbles himself before Joseph, the mighty ruler. The word, “eved,” slave or bondsman, is repeated thirteen times in Judah’s appeal to Joseph.

In his final plea for Joseph’s mercy, Judah dramatically explains that were he to return to his father in Canaan without Benjamin, Jacob would die, and Judah will have brought down the gray hairs of Jacob, with sorrow, to the grave.

Judah already knew quite clearly that Joseph had strong feelings for their father. Joseph had, after all, repeatedly inquired about Jacob’s welfare. Even when Joseph sends his brothers off to bring food to their families, he instructs them (Genesis 44:17), to “go in peace to your father.”

Judah knew where Joseph’s soft spot was, and exploited it to the fullest, knowing that Benjamin’s failure to return would cause untold grief to Jacob.

Judah’s ability to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of his opponent, with respect to war, appeasement and prayer, paid off handsomely. When Judah approached Joseph, he did so not only physically, but emotionally as well, enabling Judah to discover the vulnerable weak spot that would succeed in the release of Benjamin.

This is the meaning of “va’yee’gahsh,” and the implication of the phrase “and Judah approached him [Joseph].”

May you be blessed.

The festival of Chanukah began on Tuesday night, December 20th, 2011 and continues through Wednesday, December 28th, 2011. Wishing all a happy and joyous conclusion of Chanukah.

“Joseph Takes His Brother Simeon Hostage”

by Rabbi Ephraim Z. Buchwald

The festival of Chanukah begins on Tuesday night, December 20th, 2011 and continues for eight days, through Wednesday, December 28th, 2011.

Wishing you all a very Happy Chanukah!

“Interpreting the Dreams of Others”

Rabbi Ephraim Z. Buchwald

In this week’s parasha, parashat Vayeishev, Joseph is accused of the attempted rape of Mrs. Potiphar. Her husband, Potiphar, “took Joseph and placed him in a prison” (note the rather gentle language) where the king’s prisoners were confined.

As G-d was with Joseph, the warden favored Joseph and placed all the prison inmates in Joseph’s care. Whatever Joseph did, G-d made it succeed.

Scripture then relates (Genesis 40:1), “Vy’hee ah’char ha’d’varim ha’ay’leh, chaht’oo mahsh’kay melech Mitzrayim v’ha’oh’feh la’ah’doh’nay’hem l’melech Mitzrayim,” And it happened after these things, that the butler of the king of Egypt and the baker transgressed against their master, the king of Egypt.

According to Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, 1040-1105, foremost commentator on the Bible), the sin of the chief butler was that he served Pharaoh a cup of wine with a fly in it, while the chief baker’s transgression was that he presented Pharaoh a loaf of bread that had a pebble inside the crust. Pharaoh was enraged at his servants, and placed them in the same prison in which Joseph was confined.

Joseph was appointed to be with the two ministers and to attend to their needs. According to Rashi, Joseph attended to the butler and the baker for a period of one year. During that time, Joseph learned much about their dispositions and personalities, and about the workings of the Pharaoh’s court. This information would prove to be of great importance to Joseph when interpreting their dreams.

One morning while attending to Pharaoh’s ministers in prison, he noticed that they appeared upset. They told Joseph that they had each dreamed a dream, but that no one could interpret the dreams for them. Joseph then declared (Genesis 40:8), “Do not interpretations belong to G-d? Relate it to me, if you please.”

After hearing the butler’s dream, Joseph told him that in three days, the butler would be restored to his previous post, and that he will place Pharaoh’s cup in his hand as he had done formerly when he was Pharaoh’s chief butler. Joseph then added a plea to the butler that he remember him, and help free him from the dungeon.

Scripture in Genesis 40:16, then states, “Va’yahr sahr ha’oh’feem kee tov pah’tar, va’yo’mehr el Yosef,” the baker saw that Joseph had interpreted well, and he too related his dream to Joseph. Joseph responded by saying that in three days Pharaoh will lift the baker’s head and hang him on a tree, and that the birds will eat the baker’s flesh.

Both of Joseph’s interpretations were fulfilled. On the third day, which was Pharaoh’s birthday, Pharaoh made a feast for all his servants, and recalled the chief butler and the chief baker. He restored the butler to his position, but the baker was hanged exactly as Joseph had predicted.

Unfortunately, the butler did not remember Joseph, and forgot him. Joseph languished in prison for another two years, until Pharaoh dreamed his famous dream and Joseph was summoned to interpret it.

Many of our commentators state that Potiphar knew that his wife’s accusations against Joseph were false. This explains why Joseph was “gently” placed in a special prison along with the upper class royal prisoners. The Midrash also states that Potiphar did not want to lose the benefits of Joseph’s sage advice and seemingly magic touch.  He would, therefore, regularly visit the prison to consult with Joseph about household matters, for it was Joseph’s advice that made Potiphar successful and wealthy. However, since the relationship between Potiphar and Joseph (master and servant) was quite sensitive, it would be unseemly for Potiphar to appear to help Joseph in any way. After all, Joseph had been accused of attempting to rape Potiphar’s wife.

When Pharaoh’s butler and baker arrived in prison, Potiphar saw  the opportunity to help Joseph indirectly, and arranged for Joseph to be placed in charge of caring for the royal ministers.

The difference between Joseph’s interpretive abilities in Egypt and those in Canaan were stark. When Joseph was in his father’s house in the land of Canaan, a Heavenly message would arrive directly to him through his own dreams about others. Now, with Joseph in exile and in the hands of strange masters, he no longer received direct Heavenly communication. Instead, others had the dream, and he would retrieve the message from their dreams.

Scripture tells us in Genesis 40:5, “Va’ya’chahl’moo chah’lohm sh’nay’hem, eesh chah’loh’moh b’lye’lah eh’chahd, eesh k’fit’rohn chah’loh’moh,” The butler and the baker each dreamed their dream on the very same night, each one according to the interpretation of his dream. Our rabbis maintain, that in addition to their own dream, they also dreamed the interpretation of the other’s dreams. Even though as senior ministers it had been many years since they themselves had actually acted as servants, they nevertheless dreamed about themselves actively serving Pharaoh.

The Torah states in Genesis 40:16, that the chief baker saw “kee tov pah’tar,” that Joseph had interpreted well. This can mean that Joseph interpreted the baker’s dream favorably, or that the chief baker thought that Joseph had the power to magically transform a dream into a favorable dream.

The question remains: How did Joseph know the true interpretation of the dreams?

The Abarbanel (1437-1508, Spanish statesman, philosopher and commentator) says that Joseph received all his interpretations  through Divine inspiration. Others say that Joseph’s familiarity with the politics of the palace, having spent so much time in prison with the butler and the baker, made it possible for him to interpret their dreams. Benno Jacob (1862-1945, German Jewish Bible scholar, chiefly known for his commentary on the Pentateuch in which he made use of keen critical analysis and modern scholarship in support of the traditional positions) argues that Joseph was able to understand the message of the dreams from the nature and details in the dreams themselves. After all, the chief butler was very active in his dream, pouring wine into Pharaoh’s cup again. On the other hand, the chief baker was passive, and the birds were eating the baked goods off the top of his head. The Rashbam (Rabbi Samuel b. Meir, French exegete, c.1085-1174, grandson of Rashi) argues that “The truth speaks for itself.” Although there were no obvious clues in the dreams to help confirm the truth of Joseph’s interpretation, the power of truth is often self-evident and bears its own telltale seal.

Whatever enabled Joseph to properly interpret the dream, Joseph was still not ready to be the public hero that he was to become two years later. As he languished in prison for two years, Joseph grew in his own self-knowledge, sophistication and fervent belief in G-d. The two extra years transformed Joseph into the real Joseph. It allowed for the formerly “seventeen year old lad” to become a great, mighty and perspicacious leader.

May you be blessed.

“Jacob Lines Up His Family for the Encounter With Esau”

By Rabbi Ephraim Z. Buchwald

In this week’s parasha, parashat Vayishlach, after his epic struggle with the angel, Jacob prepares for his encounter with his brother, Esau. The Torah tells us that Jacob raises his eyes and sees (Genesis 33:1), “V’hee’nay Eisav bah, v’ee’moh arbah may’oht eesh,” Behold, Esau was coming, and with him were four hundred men.

In preparation for the encounter, Jacob strategically divides his family. He places the handmaidens, Bilhah and Zilpah and their children first, Leah and her children follow next, and Rachel and Joseph are last. Scripture tells us that Jacob himself goes ahead of the retinue, bowing down seven times before reaching his brother Esau.

Esau runs toward Jacob, embraces him, falls on Jacob’s neck and kisses him, and they both weep. Jacob explains to Esau that all the people with him are his wives and children, and that the entire assemblage that had preceded his family was intended as his gift to Esau. After first declining, Esau accepts the gift. In their newfound brotherly love, Esau offers to escort Jacob. Eventually, Esau goes his way toward Seir, and Jacob resumes his journey to the land of Canaan.

The May’am Lo’ez (an extensive 17-18th century Ladino commentary on the entire Hebrew Bible) explains that, originally, Jacob intended to take his entire family together with him to meet Esau, because he felt confident that they would be protected by his fervent prayers. If, however, his brother Esau chose to do battle, Jacob was secure that he would defeat Esau. However, when Jacob raised his eyes and saw the four hundred powerful men with Esau, he was stricken with overwhelming fear, and was no longer certain that his prayers would help. So he divided his family into the three groups.

Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, 1040-1105, foremost commentator on the Bible) as well as many other commentators, notes that Jacob lined up his family based on his feelings of “Acharon acharon chaviv,” the more precious and beloved members were placed further back for protection. The Radak (R’ David Kimchi, 1160-1235) says that Jacob assumed that, at worst, Esau’s anger would be assuaged with the massacre of those in front, sparing those in the rear.

Commenting on the order of the lineup, the May’am Lo’ez argues that Jacob did not, G-d forbid, intend to send Bilhah and Zilpah and their children into the lion’s den. After all, all members of his family were beloved by Jacob, and were destined to be essential members of the twelve tribes. But Jacob knew that the Divine Presence dwelt in the tents of Rachel and Leah, and was therefore not as concerned about their families’ safety. He consequently compensated for putting the handmaidens and their children first, by praying passionately on behalf of Bilhah and Zilpah and their children that G-d should save them. Only later, did Jacob pray for Rachel and Leah and their children.

Clearly, Jacob was acting pragmatically. He did not want to rely on miracles, so he devised a strategy. The strategy was predicated on the assumption that Esau would be less interested in the handmaidens and their children and, by the time that Esau reached Rachel and Leah and their children, he would undoubtedly be assuaged.

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888, the great Bible commentator and leader of German Jewry) explains that, at first blush, one might think that because of Jacob’s greater feelings of affection for Rachel and Leah and their children, he placed them last, so they would be more protected. Rabbi Hirsch however argues that this was not the case at all. When looking at the full situation more precisely, we discover that there was another reason for Jacob’s actions.

Surely, Jacob must have impressed upon his wives and children that they must behave with an outward appearance of due humility before their dreaded uncle. When the Torah describes the encounter with Esau, we are told that the handmaidens step forth with their children and promptly bow low. When Leah, “the real mother and keeper of the household,” steps forth, this noble, proud and confident woman, does not bow down before Esau, but her children do. When Rachel and Joseph step forth, Joseph, protectively stands in front of Rachel to shield her from Esau. Afraid that Esau would take offense, Rachel quickly bows down to disarm him. Upon seeing his mother bow, Joseph bows as well. Says Rabbi Hirsch, “Jacob let the maidservants [go] first, because he could quietly reckon on their behaving with due humility. Rachel and Joseph [went] last, because he expected the least from them.”

The Etz Chaim Torah and Commentary finds clues in Jacob’s behavior that would greatly impact on the future history of Israel. The commentary notes that the favoritism displayed by Jacob toward Rachel and Leah would eventually lead to serious consequences when Jacob favors one wife over the other and prefers his son Joseph over all the other children. After all, children do not really want to be treated equally. They want to be treated according to their own unique needs. That is why it is important for parents to recognize their children’s individual strengths and talents. There is certainly no reason for a parent to be embarrassed and try to hide the fact that they treat their children differently based on each child’s individual personality.

But favoring, one child over the other, often has very unfavorable consequences, as we will soon learn in the upcoming Torah portions.

May you be blessed.

“In Haran–A Kiss is Still a Kiss”

by Rabbi Ephraim Z. Buchwald

In this week’s parasha, parashat Vayeitzei, Jacob, fleeing for his life from his brother Esau who has threatened to kill him, departs from Be’er Shevah to make his way to Haran, to dwell in the safety of his mother’s family.

When Jacob arrives in Haran, he meets his beautiful cousin, Rachel, at the well. Although weary from his long journey, Jacob is immediately energized at the sight of Rachel. He single-handedly rolls away the huge stone that covers the mouth of the well, and waters his Uncle Laban’s flocks. Scripture, describing Jacob’s subsequent actions, states (Genesis 29:11), “Va’yee’shahk Yaakov l’Rachel, va’yee’sah et koh’loh v’yayvk,” Jacob then kissed Rachel, and raised his voice and wept.

Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, 1040-1105, foremost commentator on the Bible), states that Jacob cried because, through the Holy Spirit, he foresaw that Rachel would not be buried with him in the Machpelah cave, but would die in childbirth with Benjamin on the way to Canaan.

A second explanation, cited by Rashi, is that Jacob cried because he came empty-handed to Rachel’s family in Haran. Bemoaning the irony of his circumstances, Jacob recalls that when Abraham’s slave, Eliezer, came to Haran to find a wife for his father Isaac, he brought with him ten camels laden with gold, silver and jewelry.

Rashi cites the well-known Midrash that explains why Jacob arrived empty-handed. Apparently, Eliphaz, at the behest of his father Esau, had pursued Jacob when he left Be’er Shevah, in order to kill him. However, during his formative years, Eliphaz had a close relationship with his grandfather, Isaac, and was still under his influence. He therefore refused to kill his uncle. Instead, he allowed himself to be persuaded by Jacob to take all of Jacob’s possessions. Now totally impoverished, Jacob would be considered as if he were dead.

The obvious question that most religious students are reluctant to ask is, how does Jacob take the liberty of kissing his cousin Rachel? After all, the Code of Jewish Law, Even HaEzer, chapter 21, strictly forbids intimacy, even with members of one’s own family, unless they are very young children, with the exception of parents and their children.

Seeking to understand Jacob’s behavior, the commentators offer a host of reasons. The May’am Lo’ez (an extensive Ladino commentary on the entire Hebrew Bible, 17-18th century), explains that Jacob cries out loudly after publicly kissing Rachel because he realized what a terribly unseemly thing he had done. Citing rather ascetic traditions, the May’am Lo’ez insists that men are expected to distance themselves from women. They are not permitted to smell women’s perfumes or look at the flowers that adorn women’s hair. The May’am Lo’ez recalls that in ancient times, the Sanhedrin, the Supreme Court of Israel, used to beat violators without compassion, and not release them until they vowed to keep away from women, and not raise their eyes to gaze at them. Again the May’am Lo’ez quotes a rabbinic tradition (which was rejected by most mainstream codifiers), that it is even forbidden for a man to kiss his sister, because this is the act of fools. Furthermore, even a father may not kiss his daughter or his granddaughter, nor may a mother kiss her male children, unless they are very young.

The May’am Lo’ez cites the Talmudic sage Ulah, who would kiss the hand of his older sisters out of respect when he would return from the yeshiva. Ulah, however, regretted what he did. So too, when Jacob realized his errant behavior, he cried.

There are those who contend that Jacob did not kiss Rachel on the lips, but rather on her head or her shoulder. Otherwise, Scripture would have specifically written that Jacob kissed Rachel on the face. The Ibn Ezra (1098-c.1164, Spanish Bible commentator), points out that when the Hebrew verb “to kiss” is followed by the “lamed” prefix–-“to Rachel,” as in the case of “Va’yee’shahk Yaakov l’Rachel, it means that Jacob did not kiss Rachel on her face, but rather on her head, shoulder or cheek, as was customary in those days in that region.

Most other commentators, including Rashi, agree that the Hebrew verb “nashek” to kiss, in Scripture, always means on the mouth.

The Haamek Davar (The Netziv, R’ Naftali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, author of Haamek Davar, 1817-1893) states that we see from Jacob’s crying, that his kissing Rachel was not meant to be a frivolous sexual act, but rather an expression of closeness and fondness for a relative. And even if the kissing took place in public, he would not be scorned.

There is a view, cited in the Midrash, which maintains that Jacob wept in response to the reaction of the onlookers who started whispering to one another, accusing Jacob of introducing immorality by kissing a woman in public. His weeping was intended to emphasize that the kiss was not frivolous, but a sign of respect for a relative. Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer 7, derives from this that one must always take into consideration what others will think of their actions, as well as what is correct in G-d’s eyes. Others also learn from this, that a victim of unwarranted accusations is justified in being upset and moved to tears.

In a fascinating analysis of the narrative, the Daat Sofrim (an extensive compilation of Scriptural commentaries, edited by Rabbi Chaim D. Rabinowitz,  1911-2001), notes that the Torah records many instances in which the patriarchs often acted as if they barely cared for their relatives. Abraham sends out Hagar and Ishmael and binds Isaac, his son. Jacob “steals” the birthright from his brother, Esau, for a bowl of lentil soup. Rebecca assists in taking away the blessings from one son, in order to give it to a second child.

In stark contrast, notes the Daat Sofrim, in the encounter between Rachel and Jacob, we see a beautiful scene of abundant familial love in the time of the patriarchs.

There is a fascinating discussion cited in Rabbi Getsel Ellinson’s volume entitled “Ha’eesha V’ha’mitzvot” (Woman and the Mitzvot) volume 2, regarding what type of touching between sexes is prohibited. Is all touching between men and women prohibited, or is only hugging and kissing for the sake of lovemaking prohibited? Is kissing, as an acknowledgment of friendship, permitted?

Today, the debate regarding the propriety of male-female contact in Judaism is hardly resolved. It’s hard to believe that it all started with a kiss in Haran.

May you be blessed.

“Isaac Blesses His Sons”

by Rabbi Ephraim Z. Buchwald

In this week’s parasha, parashat Toledot, we learn how Isaac’s intentions to bless Esau are thwarted by the deceptive actions of Rebecca and Jacob.

In volume four of his Questions and Themes in Tanach (Bible), Professor Menashe Duvshani offers a unique view on Isaac’s blessing of his sons. For many years, Menashe Duvshani was among the premier Bible educators of Israeli High School students. For decades, Israeli High School students used Professor Duvshani’s review books to prepare for the High School matriculation exams.

Professor Duvshani views the narrative of Isaac blessing his sons as a play in seven acts. In each act, only two actors appear. He cites Professor Shlomo Dov Goitein, who notes that biblical narratives often have few actors. Never, in this entire episode, do more than two personalities appear together at one time.

Duvshani identifies two scenes in this play. The first scene takes place in Isaac’s tent and consists of Isaac blessing both Jacob and Esau within several hours of each other. The action in this scene moves fast and furious. In the much briefer second scene, which occurs at some indeterminate time after Isaac blesses his sons, Jacob is sent away to Haran.

The Torah states in Genesis 27:1, “Vayehi kee za’kayn Yitzchak, va’tich’heh’nah ey’nahv mayr’ot,” Isaac became old and his eyes became weak. Professor Duvshani points to the double meaning reflected in the words of this verse. Not only could Isaac not see well because of his poor vision, he was also unable to discern which of his two sons deserved to receive his blessing.

In Genesis 25:28, we learn that Isaac loves Esau because he provided venison for him to eat, and that Rebecca simply loves Jacob for no stated reason. Isaac strongly identifies with Esau, whose physical abilities much impressed Isaac. Esau was big and strong, and probably assisted Isaac more than his much meeker brother Jacob did, helping to provide for the family by working the fields and hunting. Jacob, on the other hand, is described in the Torah (Genesis 25:27) as being, “Ish tahm, yo’shayv oh’hah’lim,” an innocent person, who dwelt in tents. As opposed to Esau, Jacob was a spiritual person whose soul clung to G-d and to heavenly thoughts. He was a sensitive, delicate child, who was close to his good-hearted and wise mother, and most likely never went out to hunt with his brother Esau.

Because Esau had already sold his birthright to Jacob, Isaac calls Esau (Genesis 27:1), “B’no ha’ga’dohl,” his big son, and not his “first born.” Isaac, properly calls Esau, his “big son” for two reasons. First Esau is chronologically older, and he prefers Esau over Jacob.

Nevertheless, Isaac does not bless Esau straight away, but rather tests him, sending Esau to hunt venison, and prepare a meal for him the way he likes it. Surely, Isaac could have done without the meal, but he wanted to make certain that Esau was worthy of the blessing.

While all this is going on, we learn that Rebecca, who was more insightful, prefers Jacob over Esau for two reasons. Rebecca understood the spiritual nature of the boys, and saw that Jacob  was clearly more worthy of the blessing than Esau. Perhaps, she also felt that Jacob would be in need of the blessing far more than Esau. After all, Esau, the strong man of the field, could protect himself without a blessing, whereas Jacob, who was weak and innocent, needed protection. She therefore, suggests that Jacob obtain the blessings through deception, surely a dangerous ploy, which could easily backfire, and result in a curse for Jacob. Jacob is clearly hesitant, but Rebecca succeeds in convincing Jacob to go ahead with the scheme.

At the very start, Rebecca raises the stakes by introducing the possibility of a divine blessing. Not only does she tell Jacob to bring his father food, she assures Jacob that as a result, he will be blessed (Genesis 27:7), “Lif’nay Hashem lif’nay mo’tee,” before G-d before my death, which, of course, is something that Isaac never said.

Furthermore, Rebecca promises Jacob (Genesis 27:13) “Ah’lai k’l’laht’cha b’nee,” that she accepts upon herself all responsibility if the deception backfires and Jacob is cursed. She further advances the scheme by costuming Jacob to look like Esau, placing goat skins on Jacob’s hands and on his neck. In this way, she helps Jacob overcome his concern that his father might recognize the deception if he is touched by Isaac.

Meanwhile, Rebecca prepares the food for Jacob to bring to Isaac, in the way that Isaac loves. She seeks out two goats, one for food, and the second, probably for disguising Jacob’s body.

Despite his initial hesitation, once the scheme is set in motion, Jacob throws himself into it thoroughly. Not at all passive, he skillfully tries to convince his father that he is worthy of the blessing.

At this point, Professor Duvshani asks the key question:  How could Rebecca ever think that a stolen blessing, achieved through deception, would be of any value?

Professor Duvshani suggests that the answer to this question is vital to understanding the entire episode. Apparently, Isaac was also not entirely convinced that Esau was the one who deserves to be blessed. Perhaps there were conversations between Isaac and Rebecca about which child is more worthy of the blessing. Consequently, Isaac sets a test for Esau. But once Isaac realizes that he has been deceived by Jacob, he regards the deception as a heavenly omen that he intended to bless the wrong son. That is why Isaac never expresses anger toward Jacob. To the contrary, Isaac actually reaffirms the first blessings with a second set of blessings. It is also highly likely that Isaac understood from the taste of the food, that Rebecca was involved in this scheme. He now realizes that the correct decision is to bless Jacob. Obviously, a blessing achieved through deception would be invalid. This was not such a blessing.

When Jacob approaches his father pretending to be Esau, Isaac is not at all certain that the person standing before him is Esau. At the very start of the deception (Genesis 27:20), Isaac is surprised when Esau, who is really Jacob, returns with the food so quickly. Three times Isaac asks (Genesis 27:18, 21 & 24) ”Who are you, my son?” “Are you indeed my son Esau, or not? Is this my son Esau?” He’s especially suspicious because (Genesis 27:22) the voice is the voice of Jacob and the hands are the hands of Esau. Even though as twins their voices may have been similar, their style of speaking was profoundly different. Jacob was polite, Esau much less so.

Although Isaac was probably able to discern through the style of speech that the person standing before him was not Esau, nevertheless, once Isaac blesses the boy he stops questioning.

Thinking that he is speaking to Esau, Isaac promises his son the dew of the heaven and the fat of the land. He blesses his son that he should have general economic blessing, sufficient rain, and lands that are productive. He further promises his son that he will rule over other nations, and that his place will be superior over all other members of the family. Concluding the blessing, Isaac says (Genesis 27:29): “Oh’r’reh’cha ah’roor, oo’m’vah’r’cheh’cha baruch,” those who curse you shall be cursed, and those who bless you shall be blessed.

Shortly after Jacob departs, Esau enters and offers food to his father in return for the blessing. Isaac, in shock, asks who he is? Esau announces that he is Isaac’s first born son, Esau. Isaac trembles, but not because he feels that he had done an injustice to Esau. It’s true that his brother came deceitfully and took his blessing, but Isaac does not revoke the blessing, in fact he confirms the blessing.

Isaac then blesses Esau as well, with a blessing of economic prosperity.  Although Isaac is able to bless both his children with economic abundance, he cannot bequeath to both of them the authority to rule. Consequently, Esau will live by the sword, and will be subservient to his brother, unless his brother rebels against G-d. There is also a slight difference in the nature of the blessings to the sons. Jacob’s success must be earned by proper behavior. He must deserve to be favored by G-d. Esau’s blessing however, is not conditional and does not depend upon his moral comportment.

Esau hates his brother for stealing his blessing(Genesis 27:41), and is determined to kill Jacob, but will not do so as long as his father, Isaac, is still alive.

Rebecca is concerned for Jacob’s safety, and suggests that he flee to Haran, where he can stay with Rebecca’s brother, Laban, until Esau’s anger subsides. Says Rebecca (Genesis 27:45): “Why should I lose both of my children on the same day?”

Rebecca asks Isaac for approval to send Jacob away, making no mention of Esau’s threat to kill Jacob. Instead, she invokes (Genesis 27:46) a different reason, expressing her concern about the daughters of Heth, again demonstrating her ingenuity and resourcefulness.

Isaac blesses Jacob a second time. Now there are no doubts in his mind that Jacob is the child who is truly worthy of the birthright and the blessing of Abraham. Esau goes to Seir, the land of Edom, confirming that Canaan, the land of the forefathers, is to be given over to Jacob.

With all this, Duvshani points out that the Torah does not take a favorable view of the deceptive actions of Rebecca and Jacob. Both of them are eventually punished for their behavior. Jacob, who deceived his father, is himself deceived several times. Laban deceives him with Leah, and changes his salary ten times. Jacob’s own sons deceive him by saying that Joseph has been torn to pieces. Rebecca, on the other hand, is forced to separate from Jacob, her beloved son, and made to watch as he sets out alone on the road to Haran, a very dangerous journey, and apparently never sees her beloved child again.

Duvshani summarizes this important biblical narrative by saying that it is not simply a story of a struggle between two brothers, but rather the beginning of an historic confrontation between two nations, and how the blessings impact on the destiny of both sons. Throughout the First Temple era, terrible enmity develops between these two peoples, and Judea and Edom (Esau) are in direct conflict. Only later, in the time of the Second Temple, do the Jewish people overcome the Edomites. Fortunately, during the struggle for the blessing, Jacob and Esau never meet, allowing for an eventual reconciliation between the brothers, after many years of separation.

May you be blessed.