“In my dream, similarly, there were three openwork baskets on my head. In the uppermost basket were all kinds of food for Pharaoh that a baker prepares; and the birds were eating it out of the basket above my head.” Yosef answered, “This is its interpretation: The three baskets are three days. In three days Pharaoh will lift off your head and impale you upon a pole; and the birds will pick off your flesh.”            (Bereishit 40:16-18)

 

The Dream, the Dreamer, and the Interpreter

“When the chief baker saw how favorably he had interpreted…” – From where did he know? Said Rabbi El’azar: From this we learn that each one was shown both the dream of his friend and its interpretation.

(Bavli, Berakhot 552)

 

“When the chief baker saw how favorably he had interpreted”: The text is explaining that had he not seen [the favorable interpretation of his friend’s dream] he would not have agreed to relate his dream to Yosef, as did the chief cupbearer; this is a sign of a base heart.

(Haamek Davar 40:16)

 

Said Rabbi El’azar: From where do we know that all dreams follow speech? From (Bereishit 41) “And as he interpreted for us, so it came to pass.”

(Bavli, Ibid. ibid.).

 

… These courtiers were worried as they said “We had each a dream, and there is no one to interpret them” – meaning that they were in need of an interpreter who would offer a favorable interpretation and then their dreams would follow his speech… the baker was initially afraid to reveal his dream to Yosef, lest he be a bad person and give an unfavorable interpretation – as is illustrated by the detailed incident in Berakhot 56a – therefore does it say “When the chief baker saw how favorably he had interpreted” – meaning to say that when he saw that Yosef was a good person who speaks only good, only then did he relate his dream. (Arvei Nahal, Parashat Miketz)

 

 

“HA’ADERETH VE’HAEMUNAH” THE GLORY AND THE FAITH¹

Yossi Penini

 

          A story is told about Rabbi Menahem Mendel of Kotsk, leader of Hassidim, who was famous for his pithy Torah aphorisms. He used to preface his sermons on the Sabbaths of the Book of Bereishit by saying: “These winter parashot are covered with a heavy overcoat”.

          It would seem that not only the appearance of his Hassidim in the freezing European winter inspired these words; there is also the challenge hidden in the stories of Bereishit. Whoever wishes to delve into the depths of their meaning and to reveal their secrets, had best go and peel away their outer layers to penetrate their profundity.

We shall follow the advice of the Kotsker and attempt to focus on a subject which deals entirely with garb, perhaps upon a complete “Torah” which is all garments.

          We first come across the subject of clothing in the heart of the story of Creation; it provides the framework for the story of Adam’s sin. In the beginning of the story, Scripture informs us that “And the two of them were naked, man and his wife, and they were not embarrassed. (Bereishit 2:25) At the end of the drama of the first sin, the Torah informs us that “The Lord God made garments of skins for Adam and his wife, and clothed them” (Bereishit 3:21). It seems that these two passages frame the story of the first sin [it is not mere coincidence that the phrase “man and his wife” appear in both passages, and the Scripture even follows that latter verse with an “open pause” [a large space indicating the end of a topic]. It is possible that these two passages express the deep meaning of the essence of sin and the essence of garb. Before the sin of man and his wife, there was “transparency”, an openness sans partitions, without hidden agendas – “naked and were not embarrassed”. The sin itself created the separation – “and clothed them” – leading to estrangement and to the distinguishing differentiation between each of the members of the first human couple. From here on, each has something to hide and something from which to hide. The garb becomes the device which provides the personality with protection and shelter against all external factors.

          Our parasha’s narrative about “the coat of many colors” which Yaakov gave his favorite son, Yosef, may also be examined along the same lines. Yaakov, as it were, gives Yosef the code for the mechanism to defend his individuality, his guiding principles, the secret of singularity, the religious foundation which is concealed in the folds of the coat and beneath it.

          It would seem that the Biblical narrator is aware that the very presentation of the coat of many colors is in itself a kind of usage of the “code”. There is something unique about the presentation: It is not a mere external act; beneath it lies hidden a value concept. Later on in our parasha’s narrative, as Yosef is in his master’s home, he remains alone with the woman of the house who attempts to seduce him; as he tries to escape, she grabs the corner of his garment. Chazal were sensitive to, and well aware of, the connection between the garments – the coat of many colors and the corner of the garment. In their words: “It was taught in the academy of Rabbi Yishmael: ‘She caught hold of him by his garment, saying…’ at that moment the image of his father appeared to him in the window”. (Bavli, Sotah 36b)

As though from the depths of the labyrinths of his soul - and possibly from the heights of his “supreme ego” – there stands before him the image of the father who gave him the code of covering, the coat of concealment, the mechanisms for defense of the cherished and the sanctified; this image propels him and protects him from exposure and from sin. [Perhaps this affects our understanding of a later development: “And Pharaoh removed the ring from his hand and put in on the hand of Yosef, and he dressed him in clothes of linen” (Bereishit 41:42).

          In the spirit of the Kotzker’s words, we might broaden our canvas and suggest that not only are the parashot of winter covered with a heavy coat; the festivals of winter are also heavily cloaked.

Neither the Hanukkah nor the Purim festivals are mentioned in the Bible. Both are marked by the special “Al HaNissim” prayer. Perhaps they share another specialfeature: concealment and revelation are important components of their significance.

          In their unique way, Chazal knew how to focus our attention and to provide uswith hints which serve as keys to unlock their secrets.

          According to Chazal, the name of the Purim story’s central heroine – Esther – contains the essence of the narrative, and points out the manner of its unique unraveling: “Where do we find Esther mentioned in the Torah? “Ve-Anokhi haster asteer” – “And I will conceal, yes, conceal.” (Bavli, Hullin 139b)

It is certainly not happenstance that at the climax of the unfolding drama, when the plan for the “final solution of the Jewish problem” takes shape and reaches the ears of Uncle Mordecai, who sits in the gate of the imperial palace, he rents his clothing and dons sackcloth and ash – “When Mordecai learned all that had happened, Mordecai tore his clothes and put on sackcloth and ashes. He went through the city, crying out loudly and bitterly…” (Esther 4:1-2)

          When Esther hears of Mordecai’s behavior, her immediate reaction is: “The queen was greatly agitated. She sent clothing for Mordecai to wear, so that he might take off his sackcloth.” (Ibid. ibid. 4). It seems that the tearing of the garments is the beginning of Mordecai’s bitter cry. The narrator of the Megilla dos not reveal the content of the cry – is it directed against the king who sits behind the walls of the palace, or is it, perhaps, directed at the King of the universe? Once thing is clear from Mordecai’s words and his actions – the removal of the garment leads to the baring of the heart. Esther, concealed and concealing, teaches Mordecai that the exposure of the truth – painful though it may be – is not the way.

The source of the Hanukkah festival is recorded by the Babylonian Talmud:

What is this Hanukkah about which our Sages taught: “On the 25^th of Kislev, the days of Hanukah are eight, in which it is forbidden to lament or to afflict oneself”? When the Greeks entered the sanctuary, they contaminated all the sanctuary oils, and when the kingdom of the House of the Hasmoneans defeated them, they searched and found only one vial of oil closed with the seal of the High Priest, and there was but enough oil for only one day’s burning. A miracle was performed and it was lit for eight days. In a later year, these days were established and ordained a festival, with praise and thanks. (Bavli, Shabbat 21b)

 “Only one vial of oil closed with the seal of the High Priest” – this, too, through allusion, leads us to the laws pertaining to the High Priest, who is strictly charged: “The priest who is exalted above his fellows, on whose head the anointing oil has been poured and who has been ordained to wear the vestments, shall not bare his head or rend his vestments. He shall not go in where there is any dead body; he shall not defile himself even for his father or mother” (Vayikra 21:10,11). The High priest is the “guardian of the seal” , the guardian of the code of the uniqueness of the Jewish faith, which must be rigorously guarded and not divulged, not even at the moment of the most difficult test of faith – when the body of your loved one lies dead before you. The High Priest may not rend his vestments in mourning, he may not reveal his secrets. This ‘sealed’ priest is the one whose seal is imprinted upon the vial. The test of the encoding, the internalization into the deep recesses of the soul, was passed by that vial which the Greeks, with all that their culture symbolized, could not damage or defile.

          The Haftara of Shabbat Hanukkah, which deals with days to come, also touches upon the subject of garb: “Now Yehoshua was clothed in filthy garments when he stood before the angel. The latter spoke up and said to his attendants, “Take the filthy garments off him!” And he said to him, “See, I have removed your guilt from you, and you shall be clothed in [priestly] robe. (Zechariah 3:3,4)

          Matters would seem to be uncomplicated and self-understood. Each of us recognizes from his own world that the area of beliefs, which determine and motivate much of our activity, is coded and hidden. This is “nature’s way”. Perhaps, in the light of these matters – so known and self-understood - it would be proper to examine and confront anew the roots of our faith, each person in the recesses of his heart. It would be proper to shed light and to reveal our faith again, and to test it again – against a changing world, against new realities, against human distresses unknown to our ancestors.

(Yossi Penini is the chairman of “Meitarim” – Network for Jewish-Democratic Education)

 

 

“Taamei HaMikra” – Double Meaning²

“But he refused and he said… my master…” The cantillation of the word “And he refused” indicates the prohibition of the act and that he was totally prevented from doing so, for through the notes of the Torah we understand that which is not overtly recorded, similar to man’s movements from we divine his thoughts.

(Rabeinu Bahaye, Bereishit 49:8)

 

… meaning that through the notes which accompany the text, we can understand that which is not expressly written. The rabbi’s intention is to say that a person has facial expressions and vocal nuances, which enables us to reveal and know something about his mood and mental-spiritual condition; mimicry and gesticulation of a person, and the shadings of his voice, help us know when is actually taking place in his inner consciousness.

In the narrative of Yosef and Potifar’s wife who tries to seduce him, he withstands temptation and does not comply. The Torah expresses his restrained behavior with the term “and he refused” . The term is accompanied with the very rare “shalshellet” note.³ The Massorah’s assignment of this particular note to “and he refused” is hardly accidental. Through it, the massora wanted to let us know that in that situation Yosef conducted a very difficult struggle, an act involving tremendous spiritual courage, in order to withstand this test of temptation. Therefore, great is the merit of Yosef, termed by tradition “Yosef the Righteous”, who emerged victorious from this conflict. His refusal is not at all a simple matter; it is “he refused” to the tune of a shalshellet, with its melodic line thrice ascending and descending, like a warning siren accentuating the merit of the Biblical figure who refused, who conquered his desires, Yosef the dreamer.

(Y. Leibovitz: Seven Years of Discussion of the Weekly Parasha, p.151)

 

Said the philosophers: One who rules over his soul – even though he performs good and important acts – he does so while inwardly desiring and longing for the forbidden acts, yet he conquers his desires; his actions contradict his desires, he does the proper thing. He suffers from the stormy conflict between his two inclinations.

The righteous person, however, is one whose actions follow from his desire and his attributes; he does good – his desire is to do good, and for that he longs. The philosophers all agree that the righteous man (who is free of the battle between his inclinations) is a spiritually more perfect man than one who subdues his inclination. – because the latter’s very desire to do evil is a defective trait of the soul. King Solomon, may he rest in peace, said similarly: “The desire of the wicked is set upon evil.” (Proverbs 21:10). And he spoke of the joy of the righteous in the good deed, and was saddened by the person who is not righteous in his actions: “Justice done is a joy to the righteous; to the evildoers, ruination” (Ibid., ibid., 15). This which is seen in the words of the prophet [David and Saul] is consonant with the views of the philosophers.

But upon examination of the words of our Sages on this subject, we find the following: One who desires sin and longs for it [yet does not sin] – he is more important and perfect than he who has no longing for sin, and suffers none by avoiding it. Our Sages said: the more important and perfect a person is– the greater will be his longing for sin, and the more acute his suffering at not satisfying his desire. They cited sources: “The more a person is greater than his companion, so is his inclination greater”. They were not satisfied with this, and they added: The reward given one who conquers his inclination is proportionate to his pain in ruling over his inclination. They said “In proportion to the pain – the reward.” Yet more, they encouraged man to desire sin; Let him not say: By nature I have no desire for this sin – even had the Torah not forbidden it to me. “Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: Let man not say: ‘I have no desire to eat meat with milk; I have no desire to wear shaatnez; I have no desire to have an illicit sexual relationship’ – rather let him say: ‘I desire, but what can I do? – my Father in heaven decreed!”

Cursory comparison of the words of the philosophers and of our Sages would seem to indicate contradiction – but such is not the case. Both are true, and there is no contradiction at all. The evils of which the philosophers spoke when they said that one who has no inclination for evil is more important than the one who has the inclination but conquers it – these are those matters universally considered to be “evils”: such as bloodshed, theft, plunder, cheating, damaging someone without just cause, doing bad to one who has benefited him, disrespecting parents, etc. These are the commandments of which Chazal said “Even were they not written, they would have worthy of being written (“mitvot ha’sichliyot’, rational commandments). Without doubt a soul which longs for these evils has a defective soul… But those matters of which the Sages thought when saying that one who conquers his inclination is more important – and receives greater reward – are the “torot shim’iyot”, those prohibitions which, had the Torah not proscribed, would not at all have been considered bad.                      

(Rambam, Eight Chapters, Chap. 6)

 

1.  Adereth” has a double connotation – ‘glory’ and" ‘overcoat’.

2.  “Taamim” refers to the musical notation which punctuates the Bible; it also means “reasons” or “rationales”

3.  The shalshelet is a series of siren-like rising and descending tones.

 

 

Editorial Board: Pinchas Leiser (Editor), Miriam Fine (Coordinator), Itzhak Frankenthal and Dr. Menachem Klein

Translation: Kadish Goldberg

This weekly publication was made possible by:

The Moriah Fund, the Tisch Foundation and private donors

 

 

To our readers:

We will be happy to have you actively participate in “Shabbat Shalom” by:

·        Letters to the editor

·        Publication of Divrei Torah (in coordination with the editorial board)

·        Membership in Oz V’Shalom – Netivot Shalom and payment of dues.

 

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $1000
• English edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

 

US tax-exempt contributions to OzveShalom may be made through the New Israel Fund or through P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc.

Contributions should be marked as donor-advised to OzveShalom/Netivot Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project.

New Israel Fund, POB 53410, Jerusalem 91534 (Please include Israeli address and telephone number)

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Canada, 801 Eglinton Ave. West, Suite #401, Toronto, Ontario M5N 1E3 Canada (Canadian tax exemption)

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, United Kingdom (British tax exemption)

P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

 

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts which have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

 

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

 

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom`s programs include both educational and protest activities. Seminars, lectures, workshops, conferences and weekend programs are held for students, educators and families, as well as joint seminars for Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Protest activities focus on issues of human rights, co-existence between Jews and Arabs, and responses to issues of particular religious relevance.

 

9,000 copies of a 4 page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email.

 

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom`s educational forums draw people of different backgrounds, secular and religious, who are keen to deepen their Jewish knowledge and to hear an alternative religious standpoint on the subjects of peace and social issues.

 

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom fills an ideological vacuum in Israel’s society. Committed both to Jewish tradition and observance, and to the furthering of peace and coexistence, the movement is in a unique position to engage in dialogue with the secular left and the religious right, with Israeli Arabs and with Palestinians.

 

Our activities are funded by donations and one part time employee.

 

Pob 4433                                             Email: ozshalom@netvision.net.il

Jerusalem 94310, Israel