by Rabbi Ephraim Z. Buchwald

With this week’s parasha, parashat Terumah, we begin to read a cycle of five Torah portions that extensively describe the building and furnishings of the Tabernacle. The furnishings of the Tabernacle are not simply room decor. Each of the furnishings of the Tabernacle is intended to convey a profound life  message that is of vital importance for all times. (Terumah 5763-2003)

Because it was significantly larger than any of the other furnishings in the Tabernacle, the outer altar was the most prominent of all the ritual items. The Tabernacle actually contained two altars, one inside the sanctuary, known as the Golden Altar or the Incense Altar (Tetzaveh 5770-2010), and one that was located outside the Tabernacle in the courtyard, in front of the Tabernacle doorway.

Although it is often simply referred to as the Mizbay’ach, the altar actually had four other descriptive names: Mizbach Ha’oh’lah, the altar of the burnt offering, because of the sacrifices that were burnt upon this altar. It was also known as Mizbach Ha’n'cho’sheht, the copper or brass altar, because although the inner frame of the altar was made of acacia wood, the outside was coated with a copper surface. It was also known as Mizbach Ha’chee’tzohn, the outer altar, because of its location outside the Tabernacle in the Tabernacle courtyard. In another context, it is also referred to as Mizbach Ha’ah’dah’mah, the earthen altar, because under the copper surface that covered the wooden frame, the altar was filled with earth.

The outer altar played a key role in Israel’s life, because it was upon this altar that the elaborate blood service was conducted through which atonement was achieved.

Although there is an opinion that maintains that the height of the altar was only three cubits, Rabbi Yosi (Zevachim 59a-60b) argues forcefully that the altar’s total height was, in reality, ten cubits. The altar’s width and depth were five cubits each. Included in the ten cubit height of the altar were the four horns atop the altar, each one cubit tall, on the four corners. Also important to note was that included in the altar’s height was a base, as well as a Michbar, a one cubit high lattice work and a Karkov, a one cubit high border around the midsection of the altar.

Among the supplementary implements that were utilized by the priests who served at the altar were the See’roht, the pots that were used to clear the ashes, the Ya’oht, shovels, Miz’r'koht, basins, Miz’l'goht, forks and Mahch’toht, the fire pans. The altar was transported by means of staves made of acacia wood covered with copper, which were inserted into rings that were affixed to the sides of the altar. The Michbar, the copper lattice work, marked the midpoint of the altar’s height. This midpoint played a crucial role in the altar’s ritual, because certain bloods of the offerings were required to be placed on the lower half of the altar, while bloods of other offerings were to be placed on the upper half. According to some opinions, the Karkov,the border platform, was wide enough for the priests to stand on, allowing them to easily officiate.

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888, the great Bible commentator and leader of German Jewry), notes that the upper third of the altar is called the Har’El, literally, the mountain of G-d, while the top of the altar is called the Ariel, the lion of G-d, implying that offering a sacrifice is a way of reaching up toward heaven. Thus, the primary purpose of the Tabernacle is an attempt to bring earth up to heaven, rather than bring heaven down to earth. This may explain why images (Cherubs) are permitted in the Tabernacle. Indeed, the service on the altar was intended to subtly recreate the revelation experience of Mount Sinai.

The lattice work on the altar served the same purpose as the Choot Ha’sikrah, the red thread, that divided the upper and lower halves of the altar in Solomon’s Temple. The blood of the sh’lamim, ah’shamim and oh’loht, the peace, guilt and burnt offerings were cast below the midpoint, while the blood of the cha’taht, the sin offering, was smeared by the Kohen on the horns. Placing blood below the midpoint of the altar was intended to symbolically convey that what is cast below has the potential to rise upward toward perfection. Whereas, what is placed on top of the altar, represents steadiness and support, which sinners need and deserve.

The commentators explain that if sinners were told, that as a result of their trespasses, they are forever damned, they would soon despair and give up hope. However, by symbolically conveying that even sinners are created in the image of G-d, and that the blood that is placed on top of the altar can help them rise even higher, sinners are given hope and assurance that they too are as spiritual and redeemable as anyone else.

Two important laws regarding the outer altar are found at the end of parashat Yitro. In Exodus 20:20 the Torah states, “Mizbach ah’dah’mah ta’ah’seh lee,” You shall make for me an altar of earth. And when you make for me an altar of stones do not build them hewn, for you will have raised your sword over it and desecrated it. When the temporary Tabernacle was replaced with the permanent Temple in Jerusalem, a new altar was erected to replace the earth-filled copper/wooden one. This new altar was to be manufactured entirely of stone. However, the stones of the permanent altar may not be cut with iron tools, for iron is used in the manufacture of swords and spears. These tools represent the shortening of life, while the altar represents lengthening people’s lives through repentance and atonement.

The Ramban (Nachmanides, Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, 1194-1270, Spanish Torah commentator) notes that the Hebrew word for sword, cherev, is related to the Hebrew word for destruction, churban. Such a tool has no place in the Tabernacle.

The second law that is recorded in Exodus 20:22, “V’loh tah’ah’leh v’mah’ah’loht ahl miz’b'chee,” You shall not ascend my altar using steps, so that your nakedness will not be uncovered. Instead of steps, there was a long ramp leading up to the altar that the priests would climb. By walking up the ramp, rather than up steps, the priests legs would move evenly and their naked legs would not be exposed, possibly embarrassing the sanctity of the altar.

Although we have no altar today, the powerful symbolism of the altar lives on. We must continue to study the details and nuances of the altar and of the entire Tabernacle, because their lessons are eternally and profoundly relevant.

May you be blessed.

by Rabbi Ephraim Buchwald

With fifty three commandments–thirty negative and twenty three positive, parashat Mishpatim ranks fourth among all the parashiot of the Torah in the number of mitzvot found in the weekly Torah readings.

It is in parashat Mishpatim that the Torah introduces the concept of capital punishment. In Exodus 21:12, the Torah states, “Mah’kay eesh va’met, moht yoo’maht,” One who strikes a man so that he dies, shall surely be put to death. While accidental homicide is punishable by exile to a city of refuge (see Matot-Masei 5762-2002), premeditated murder is punishable by execution.

Included among the capital offenses that are recorded in parashat Mishpatim are: premeditated murder, striking or cursing a father and mother, kidnaping and forcing the victims to work or selling them into slavery.

In Chapter 21 of Exodus, we find two cases of people quarreling that provide insight into the nature of homicide and capital punishment in Jewish law. In Exodus 21:18-19, the Torah records the following scenario: “V’chee y’ree’voon ah’nah’sheem, v’hee’kah eesh et ray’ay’hoo b’eh’vehn oh v’ehg’rohf v’loh yah’moot, v’na’fahl l’mish’kahv,” If men quarrel, and one strikes his fellow with a stone or a fist, and he does not die, but falls into bed; if the victim gets up (recovers) and goes about outside under his own power, the one who struck him is absolved.

This encounter is understood by the commentators to be a case in which a verbal argument escalated into physical violence. The blow, even though it may have been administered by only a hand or a fist, was powerful enough to kill the victim. If the victim was so badly injured that there is a reasonable chance that he may die, the aggressor is held by authorities pending the victim’s recovery or demise. If the victim fails to recover and the blow results in a fatality, the attacker may be liable to the death penalty.

A second case recorded in parashat Mishpatim, is in Exodus 21:22-23. There the Bible relates: “V’chee yee’nah’tzoo ah’nah’shim, v’nahg’foo ee’shah harah, v’yahtz’oo y’lah’deh’hah v’lo yih’yeh ah’sohn, ah’nohsh yay’ah’naysh kah’ah’sher yah’sheet ah’lahv bah’ahl ha’ee’shah, v’na’tahn bif’lee’lim,” If men fight and they collide with a pregnant woman and she miscarries, but there will be no fatality, he shall surely be punished as the husband of the woman shall cause to be assessed against him, and he shall pay it by order of judges. But if there shall be a fatality, then you shall give life for a life.

In this instance, the commentators assume that both men were trying to kill one another. In the course of their struggle, the pregnant woman came by, and a blow, which was intended for one of the disputants, struck her. Although the blow did not kill the woman, it did cause her to lose her child. The rabbis rule in this case, that since no homicide was intended, the loss of the pregnancy may be compensated by monetary payment. In contrast to a life for a life, the Torah demands only monetary compensation for the fetus. It is from this scenario that Jewish law derives that a fetus is not to be regarded as a full-fledged human being, and that abortion should not be considered murder. Also derived from this, is the halakhic conclusion that a mother’s life, which is a definite life, always takes precedence over the potential life of a fetus. Thus, a pregnancy that threatens a mother’s life may be legally terminated.

Professor Moshe Greenberg has written insightfully, “The guilt of a murderer is infinite, because the murdered life is invaluable. By contrast, the Torah never requires the death penalty for crimes against property. In Biblical law, life and property are incommensurable; taking of life can not be made up for by any amount of property, nor can any property offense be considered as amounting to the value of a life.” Although other near-Eastern societies permitted the family of the murdered to accept monetary settlement from the murderer, the Torah code strictly forbids such payments.

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888, the great Bible commentator and leader of German Jewry) offers a penetrating analysis on the subject. Rabbi Hirsch points out that the verse in Exodus 21:22, mandates that the husband shall, together with the court of law, determine how much of a fine is placed upon the perpetrator who killed the fetus. In that instance, the Torah states, “ V’na’tahn bif’lee’lim,” that the husband receives payment as the judges determine.

Rabbi Hirsch then notes that the very next verse, Exodus 21:23 states that, “V’im ah’sohn yih’yeh,” and if fatal results ensue, where the pregnant woman indeed dies, “V’nah’tah’tah nefesh tah’chaht na’fesh,” then you shall give a life for a life. Rabbi Hirsch interprets this to mean that the Jewish “community” is responsible for giving a life for a life. Rabbi Hirsch notes that the verse does not state that one should “take” a life for a life, but “give” or give up a life for a life. According to Rabbi Hirsch’s astute insight, capital punishment is not revenge, but rather restitution. Human life belongs to G-d and only to G-d. As G-d’s representatives on this earth, the community and its courts of law have the responsibility to give up a life (that of the murderer) for the life that was taken. Quite unexpectedly, Rabbi Hirsch makes certain to emphasize that even the death of the murderer is to be regarded as a communal loss.

In other ancient civilizations, those who came from noble families were almost always able to be excused from punishment. Often, murder charges against the upper class or nobility would never be brought, or the victim’s family would be compensated by the payment of cash or livestock. By asserting that only the actual perpetrator may be punished for such a crime (Deuteronomy 24:6), Judaism revolutionized the idea of the sanctity of human life and the penal code. No matter how important, no matter how noble, no one may buy their way out of punishment.

Parashat Mishpatim stands as the foundation of enlightened law, and reflects truths that are, in many instances, light-years ahead of other judicial systems.

May you be blessed.

Please Note: On this Shabbat, an additional Torah portion is read known as Parashat Shekalim.  It is the first of four additional thematic Torah portions that are read on the Shabbatot that surround the holiday of Purim.  This week’s supplementary Torah reading is found in Exodus 30:11-16 and speaks of the requirement for all the men of Israel, aged 20 and above, to bring a half-shekel in order to be counted as a member of the People of Israel. In later years, these shekels were donated to the Temple in anticipation of the festival of Passover, when funding for the daily sacrifice had to be renewed.

by Rabbi Ephraim Buchwald

Jethro, a man of great stature and distinction, is first encountered in the Bible in Exodus 2:16. The Torah describes Jethro as Kohen Midian (the Midianite Priest), and the father of seven daughters.

Moses had fled from Egypt, where Pharaoh sought to kill him. When he arrives at the well in the land of Midian, Moses meets Jethro’s seven daughters who have come to water their father’s flocks. Moses saves Jethro’s daughters from the abusive Midianite shepherds, and waters Jethro’s flocks. When Jethro hears of Moses’ chivalrous actions, he invites the refugee from Egypt into his home to eat and to dwell with them. Moses soon marries Jethro’s daughter, Tzipporah.

While serving as shepherd for Jethro’s flocks in the wilderness, (Exodus 3:1) Moses receives a calling from G-d to return to Egypt to lead the Children of Israel out of bondage. Moses requests, and receives, permission from Jethro to return to the enslaved people in Egypt (Exodus 4:18).

Since that first textual encounter with Jethro in the early chapters of Exodus, much has transpired. Ten plagues have struck Egypt, Pharaoh and his hosts have drowned in the sea, and the people of Israel have begun their journey to the Promised Land. When the people reach Rephidim, they are attacked by Amalek. Joshua leads the battle against the vicious enemies. With the help of G-d and Moses, Amalek is roundly defeated.

In this week’s parasha, parashat Yitro, Jethro arrives at the camp of Israel together with Moses’ wife, Tzipporah and her children. They meet Moses at Har Ha’Eh’lo’him, the mountain of G-d.

Scripture reports, in Exodus 18:7, that upon Jethro’s arrival, “Va’yay’tzay Moshe lik’raht choht’no va’yish’tah’choo va’yee’shahk lo,” Moses personally went out to meet his father-in-law, prostrated himself before him and kissed him. They inquire about each other’s well-being, and Moses brings Jethro to his tent.

Moses informs his father-in-law of all the miracles and wonders that G-d had performed on behalf of Israel, rescuing them from Egypt. Jethro then blesses G-d and acknowledges the G-d of Israel as the greatest of all powers. He offers burnt sacrifices and festive offerings to G-d.

In the Five Books of Moses, there is no other personage of non-Jewish origin who is accorded as much honor and distinction as Jethro.

The Jewish people are particularly indebted to Jethro for his  profound contribution to the judicial system of Israel. After seeing Moses deal with burdensome communal matters, Jethro makes an insightful recommendation to establish a judicial hierarchy, which enables Moses to share the leadership responsibilities with other talented jurists. Because of that, an entire parasha is named for Jethro (the name Jethro is based on the Hebrew word that means to add, to add a parasha).

The fact that the Ten Commandments is recorded in parashat Yitro, adds significantly to the glory of Jethro.

The Torah in Numbers 10:28-32, records that Moses invites Jethro to join the nation (he had arrived from Midian nearly a year before), and accompany the people to the land of Israel. The Torah, however, does not definitively report whether Jethro agreed, but most commentators assume that he did. Others say that Jethro instead chose to return to Midian in order to convert the masses to monotheism.

Despite the great respect with which Jethro is treated in the Torah, the Midrash offers a far more ambivalent portrait of Jethro. As opposed to Bilaam’s wicked council to Pharaoh regarding the Jews, and the non-committal advice of Job to Pharaoh, Jethro is regarded as a true hero by the Midrash for his favorable counsel to Pharaoh regarding the Israelites. According to Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, 1040-1105, foremost commentator on the Bible) in Numbers 10:32, in return for his uncompromising support of Israel, Jethro’s descendants were bequeathed a very fertile plot of land near Jericho. Additionally (Judges 4:17-22), Jethro merited to have his descendant, Yael, a heroic Kenite woman, save the Jewish people by hammering a tent peg through the Canaanite general Sisro’s skull, marking the final defeat of the enemy.

Despite the abundant praise, Jethro also receives some bad reviews. The Midrash reports that the idolatrous Jethro would not grant Moses permission to return to Egypt to rescue the Israelites unless Moses promised that one of his children would be dedicated to idolatry. According to Judges 18:30, the priest who officiated at Micha’s idol and, subsequently, for the tribe of Dan was Moses’ grandson, Yonatan the son of Gershom, the son of Menashe. The commentators regard “Menashe,” which is written with a floating “nun,” as a subtle way of disguising the name Moses, out of respect for him (Rashi, Sanhedrin 101b, Tanchuma Exodus 19).

The Ibn Ezra (1098-c.1164, Spanish Bible commentator) points out that the story of Jethro comes on the heels of the attack and defeat of Amalek, in order to underscore that not all gentiles are wicked. While there are always vicious enemies such as Amalek, there are also wonderful friends such as Jethro.

The commentators’ ambivalence toward Jethro is similarly reflected by their response to the question of what did Jethro hear that moved him to come to Israel? Some say that Jethro was moved by pity when he learned of the suffering of the Israelites in Egypt. Some say that Jethro heard of the triumph of the Israelites over Pharaoh’s army, and wanted to associate himself with a victorious people. Others say, that he heard that Israel was on its way to a rendezvous with G-d, and Jethro wanted to share in Israel’s spiritual destiny (Michiltah Amalek 3:1).

Once again, we see that some of the commentators regard Jethro in a most favorable light, as a sensitive person, who had pity on the Israelite slaves who were being abused and tortured by the Egyptians. Some commentators also regard Jethro as a spiritual person, who wanted to cast his lot with the Jewish people and their G-d. On the other hand, it is also revealed that Jethro longed to be associated with a winner, and in those days, there was no greater winner than Israel, who had defeated the greatest power on the face of the earth, the Egyptians.

It’s difficult to understand the wide range of opinions among the Bible commentators and the Midrash with regards to Jethro. On the one hand, he is given the most favorable assessments that are given to any non-Jew. But a constant gnawing suspicion often surfaces that Jethro is not sincerely loyal, that he is leading our Jewish grandchildren astray, or that he is joining the “club” only for personal honor.

It is impossible to know which portrait best reflects the true Jethro. Unfortunately, we will likely never know.

May you be blessed.

On Tuesday night and Wednesday, February 7^th and 8^th, we celebrate Tu B’Shevat, the fifteenth day of the Hebrew month of Shevat, the New Year for trees. In Israel, it symbolizes the beginning of Spring. On Tu B’Shevat it is customary for Jews to eat species of fruit that grow in the land of Israel.

by Rabbi Ephraim Buchwald

In this week’s parasha, parashat Beshalach, we read of the splitting of the Red Sea and the miraculous salvation of the Israelites from the hands of Pharaoh and his mighty armies.

Although Pharaoh hastily chased the People of Israel out of Egypt, once the people departed, Pharaoh had a change of heart and decided to pursue them in order to bring them back to Egypt. Scripture records Pharaoh and his servants saying (Exodus 14:5): “Mah zoht ah’see’noo kee she’lahch’noo et Yisrael may’ahv’day’noo?” What have we done that we have sent away Israel from serving us?

The Torah reports that Pharaoh himself harnessed his own chariot, and took 600 of his elite chariots and officers with him to pursue the Children of Israel. He overtook the Israelites encamped by the sea.

Thoroughly panicked, the Children of Israel cried out to Moses (Exodus 14:11-12), “What is this that you have done to us to take us out of Egypt…for it is better that we should serve Egypt than die in the wilderness?” Moses assured the people that G-d would save them (Exodus 14:13-14): “For as you have seen the Egyptians today, you shall not see them ever again. G-d will do battle for you, and you shall remain silent.”

Moses soon stretched his hands out over the sea, and G-d split the sea with a strong east wind. The Children of Israel walked through the sea on dry land, as the water formed walls for them on their right and on their left. The Egyptian forces pursued the Israelites, coming after them with their horses, chariots and riders into the midst of the sea. The Torah reports that G-d confounded the Egyptian hosts, removing the wheels of their chariots and causing them to drive with difficulty.

When the Egyptians tried to flee, G-d instructed Moses to once again stretch his hand out over the sea, so that the waters would go back upon Egypt, its chariots and its horsemen. The Torah then states (Exodus 14:28): “Va’yah’shoo’voo ha’ma’yim va’y’cha’soo et ha’reh’chehv v’et ha’pa’rah’sheem l’chol chayl Par’oh ha’bah’eem ah’cha’ray’hem ba’yahm, lo nish’ahr ba’hem ahd eh’chahd,” The water came back and covered the chariots and the horsemen of the entire army of Pharaoh who were coming behind them in the sea–-there remained not one of them.

The Torah then concludes by describing the resounding triumph over Egypt (Exodus 14:30-31): On that day, the L-rd saved Israel from the hands of Egypt. Israel saw the Egyptians lying dead on the seashore. Israel acknowledged the great power that G-d had displayed against the Egyptians, and the people revered the L-rd, and had faith in the L-rd and in Moses, His servant.

In the very next chapter of the parasha, Exodus 15, Moses leads the men of Israel in triumphant song, and Miriam leads the women of Israel in a song of victory.

That is the last that we hear of Pharaoh, or is it?

The Ha’amek Davar (The Netziv, R’ Naftali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, author of Haamek Davar, 1817-1893) offers a fairly literal interpretation of the Torah’s words. He notes that the Torah’s language, “lo nish’ahr ba’hem ahd eh’chahd” (not one remained) indicates that not only did every soldier and every chariot rider succumb to the powers of the sea, but even those who were not warriors perished. All those allied with the Egyptians, even non-combatants who only assisted in caring for the chariots, succumbed.

However, not all commentators accept the literal interpretation of the Biblical text. While some (like the Ha’amek Davar) insist that Pharaoh drowned in the sea together with his army, other commentators cite differing opinions. In the Midrash Mechilta, Beshalach 2:6 we find that the rabbis are troubled by the expression, “lo nish’ahr ba’hem ahd eh’chahd,” (there remained not a one of them). Some commentators argue that “ahd eh’chahd” may mean, even one, or as much as one. In fact, they maintain that the “one” who survived the churning seas was Pharaoh himself, so that Pharaoh could serve as living proof and retell firsthand the account of the miracles and wonders that G-d had performed on behalf of the People of Israel.

The commentators also note that confirmation of Pharaoh’s death is glaringly absent from the Song of Moses crossing the sea. While the text states in Exodus 15:4, “Pharaoh’s chariots and army, He threw into the sea, and the pick of his officers were mired in the Sea of Reeds,” it fails to mention anything about Pharaoh himself. Again, at the conclusion of the song, Scripture reports (Exodus 15:18) that “When Pharaoh’s cavalry came with his chariots and his horsemen into the sea and G-d turned back the waters of the sea upon them, the Children of Israel walked in the dry land amid the sea.” Again, it never states that Pharaoh himself drowned. This is what leads the commentators to suggest that, perhaps, Pharaoh survived.

Prof. Louis Ginzberg, in his monumental work on the Midrash, The Legends of the Jews, records the incident as follows:

Thus all the Egyptians were drowned. Only one was spared– Pharaoh himself. When the children of Israel raised their voices to sing a song of praise to God at the shores of the Red Sea, Pharaoh heard it as he was jostled hither and thither by the billows, and he pointed his finger heavenward, and called out: “I believe in You, O God! You are righteous, and I and My people are wicked, and I acknowledge now that there is no god in the world beside You.”

Without a moments delay, [the angel] Gabriel descended and laid an iron chain about Pharaoh’s neck, and, holding him securely, addressed him thus: “Villain! Yesterday you did say, ‘Who is the Lord that I should hearken to His voice?’ and now you say, ‘The Lord is righteous.’” With that he [the angel Gabriel] let him drop into the depths of the sea, and there he tortured him for fifty days, to make the power of God known to him.

At the end of the time, he [Gabriel] installed him [Pharaoh] as king of the great city of Nineveh, and after a lapse of many centuries, when Jonah came to Nineveh, and prophesied the overthrow of the city on account of the evil done by the people, it was Pharaoh [now the King of Nineveh] who, seized by fear and terror, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes, and with his own mouth made this proclamation and published this decree throughout Nineveh: “Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; let them not feed or drink water; for I know there is no god beside Him in all the world, all His words are true, and all His judgments are true and faithful.”

An alternate Midrash claims that Pharaoh never died, and never will die.

He [Pharaoh] always stands at the portal of hell, and when the kings of the nations enter, he makes the power of God known to them at once, in these words: “O you fools! Why have you not learned from me? I denied the L-rd G-d, and He brought ten plagues upon me, sent me to the bottom of the sea, kept me there for fifty days, released me then, and brought me up. Thus I could not but believe in Him.”

This is not the only instance that an archenemy of G-d is portrayed as ultimately testifying about G-d’s truthfulness. The Midrash similarly reports that when the earth opened up and swallowed Korach, as Korach went down into the bowels of the earth, he cried out, “Moses is true and his Torah is true, and I am sinful.”

A pattern emerges. After giving a sinner numerous opportunities to repent, the Al-mighty punishes the sinner, at times rather grievously. While the punishment is obviously meant to repay the perpetrators for their wickedness, for G-d, it is intended more to serve as a means for mortals to achieve contrition and, even more importantly, to teach others to conduct themselves properly.

Had Pharaoh simply drowned in the sea along with the Egyptian hosts and troops, it would not have been nearly as impactful as knowing that Pharaoh survived to proclaim the truth of the L-rd.

The man who had hardened his heart time and again is now given the opportunity to soften up the hearts of countless would-be defiers of G-d throughout the ages.

May you be blessed

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!