Parshat Va'Yishlah
post from last year. I thought of the same one again. I still think it is true.
Showing posts with label Vayishlah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vayishlah. Show all posts
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Va'Yishlah: making your mark
Parshat Va'Yishlah
The Torah goes through the children and grandchildren of Esav. In 36:12 it says "And Timna was the pilegesh (concubine) of Elifaz."
Rashi says this shows the greatness of Avraham, because Timna was from a very powerful family yet in order to attach herself to the family of Avraham, she was even willing to make herself into a concubine to Elifaz.
We saw a similar situation by Hagar. She was the daughter of the king of Egypt. She was a princess. Yet because she wanted to attach herself to Avraham and his family, she was willing to become a maidservant, rather than marry the great prospects she would have had otherwise.
Hagar becoming a maidservant is more understandable. She was actually in the house with Avraham. She saw his greatness and wanted to be in that environment.
Timna, however, was attaching herself to Avraham's family by becoming the mistress to Elifaz. He was a rasha, his father Esav was a rasha who spent much of his recent life hoping and trying to kill Yaakov - the one who really continued the path of Avraham.
By hanging out with Elifaz, how exactly is Timna absorbing the environment of Avraham?
It is really despite being with Elifaz and Esav. Even though Esav and Elifaz were evil, they were still the family of Avraham. Some greatness must have worn off onto them and they must have had traits of the family. TYimna was willing to put up with their bad, in order to absorb the good that remained from Avraham.
That is how strong an influence the head of a family, and really anybody, can have. if he leaves his mark on his family, on his community, on his surroundings, that mark can be mighty difficult to get rid of. Even in adverse situations, that influence, that mark, will remain.
The Torah goes through the children and grandchildren of Esav. In 36:12 it says "And Timna was the pilegesh (concubine) of Elifaz."
Rashi says this shows the greatness of Avraham, because Timna was from a very powerful family yet in order to attach herself to the family of Avraham, she was even willing to make herself into a concubine to Elifaz.
We saw a similar situation by Hagar. She was the daughter of the king of Egypt. She was a princess. Yet because she wanted to attach herself to Avraham and his family, she was willing to become a maidservant, rather than marry the great prospects she would have had otherwise.
Hagar becoming a maidservant is more understandable. She was actually in the house with Avraham. She saw his greatness and wanted to be in that environment.
Timna, however, was attaching herself to Avraham's family by becoming the mistress to Elifaz. He was a rasha, his father Esav was a rasha who spent much of his recent life hoping and trying to kill Yaakov - the one who really continued the path of Avraham.
By hanging out with Elifaz, how exactly is Timna absorbing the environment of Avraham?
It is really despite being with Elifaz and Esav. Even though Esav and Elifaz were evil, they were still the family of Avraham. Some greatness must have worn off onto them and they must have had traits of the family. TYimna was willing to put up with their bad, in order to absorb the good that remained from Avraham.
That is how strong an influence the head of a family, and really anybody, can have. if he leaves his mark on his family, on his community, on his surroundings, that mark can be mighty difficult to get rid of. Even in adverse situations, that influence, that mark, will remain.
Friday, December 08, 2006
taking a stand
Parshat Va'Yishlah
There is a curious debate as to whether the sons of Yaakov were involved in a plan of deception or not. Shchem and Hamor come to Yaakov and his sons and request that they allow the families to intermarry. The children respond that they cannot marry with uncircumcised people. They make a deal that the people of Shchem will circumcise themselves and then they will allow marriage (or consideration of it). Then, on the 3rd day after the circumcisions when they were in the most pain, Shimon and Levi killed everyone out.
It looks like the whole deal was a plot to weaken them and set them up as easy prey in a way that they would not be able to fight back effectively.
I would like to suggest that there was no plot here and no deception. The brothers were really making a deal. If it was a plot, why were Shimon and Levi the only ones who went and killed everyone? Where were the others?
There was no plot. They really were making a deal. I think that as the deal was panning out and the people of Shchem were fulfilling their end of it, Shimon and Levi woke up and asked themselves how they could let this happen. They realized that the whole deal was wrong and corrupt and only harms their interests. So they got up and reacted.
This is similar to what we see happening by the story of Chushim Ben Dan, when Yaakov dies. We know the stroy that they were bringing Yaakov for burial and Esau stopped them claiming the plot in Hebron was rightfully his, not Yaakov's. Naftali ran back to Egypt to retrieve the document of sale as proof. In the meantime, Chushim, who was deaf and not clear as to what was happening and holding up the funeral, killed Esau and the funeral proceeded. The brothers entered negotiations and Chushim realized that just the delay itself, the negotiating itself was a desecration fo Yaakov. Sure, we can prove our point by bringing the documents, but just responding to Esau was a desecration of Yaakov's honor, so he stood up and took action.
Shimon and Levi realised that the negotiations between the brothers and Shchem were harmful to their interests and a continued desecration of Dina's honor and their honor. They stood up and took action. And that is why it was only them. There was no plot and deception taking place.
There is a curious debate as to whether the sons of Yaakov were involved in a plan of deception or not. Shchem and Hamor come to Yaakov and his sons and request that they allow the families to intermarry. The children respond that they cannot marry with uncircumcised people. They make a deal that the people of Shchem will circumcise themselves and then they will allow marriage (or consideration of it). Then, on the 3rd day after the circumcisions when they were in the most pain, Shimon and Levi killed everyone out.
It looks like the whole deal was a plot to weaken them and set them up as easy prey in a way that they would not be able to fight back effectively.
I would like to suggest that there was no plot here and no deception. The brothers were really making a deal. If it was a plot, why were Shimon and Levi the only ones who went and killed everyone? Where were the others?
There was no plot. They really were making a deal. I think that as the deal was panning out and the people of Shchem were fulfilling their end of it, Shimon and Levi woke up and asked themselves how they could let this happen. They realized that the whole deal was wrong and corrupt and only harms their interests. So they got up and reacted.
This is similar to what we see happening by the story of Chushim Ben Dan, when Yaakov dies. We know the stroy that they were bringing Yaakov for burial and Esau stopped them claiming the plot in Hebron was rightfully his, not Yaakov's. Naftali ran back to Egypt to retrieve the document of sale as proof. In the meantime, Chushim, who was deaf and not clear as to what was happening and holding up the funeral, killed Esau and the funeral proceeded. The brothers entered negotiations and Chushim realized that just the delay itself, the negotiating itself was a desecration fo Yaakov. Sure, we can prove our point by bringing the documents, but just responding to Esau was a desecration of Yaakov's honor, so he stood up and took action.
Shimon and Levi realised that the negotiations between the brothers and Shchem were harmful to their interests and a continued desecration of Dina's honor and their honor. They stood up and took action. And that is why it was only them. There was no plot and deception taking place.
vindicating 2, indicting 9
Parshat Va'Yishlah
In response to Shchem having his way with Dina, Yaakov's sons make a deal with Shchem that all the people of the town should be circumcised. On the 3rd day after the circumcision, the passuk tells us in 34:25 the two sons of Yaakov, Shimon and Levi, the brothers of Dina came to the city and destroyed..
There is a general criticism of their actions, though it is unclear as to the nature of the criticism. Some meforshim say they were wrong in taking such harsh action, others say they were right. Did Yaakov agree, or did he not. It is all very unclear.
I heard a dvar Torah on the topic yesterday in which it was brought down from some meforshim that the criticism was based on the fact that after they killed everybody in town it then says that they looted the city of its possessions. The fact that they looted the city indicated that their reaction might not have been completely lshem shamayim, but might have had a tinge of intent for personal gain. That lack of 100% clarity is what made Yaakov criticize them.
I was looking the section over again today and I noticed something in the way the story is written.
In passuk 25 it tells us specifically that the two sons of Yaakov, Shimon and Levi, went and killed everyone, etc..
In passuk 26 it concludes by saying they took Dina and left.
In passuk 27 it says the children of Yaakov came and looted the city.
I would like to suggest that Shimon and Levi came and destroyed the city killing all the inhabitants. They then retrieved Dina from her captivity and left. They took her home. Then the other brothers, having seen that the city was destroyed, came and looted the town.
Shimon and Levi were not the ones looting the town. I think the common perception that the whole story here was Shimon and Levi is incorrect. I think based on the text that Shimon and Levi only retrieved Dina, destroying the city in the process. The loot was taken by the others.
That would vindicate Shimon and Levi from any suggestions that there kavanos were improper. They were lshem shamayim, and that is whay Yaakov only criticized their anger and haste, and not the actions.
In response to Shchem having his way with Dina, Yaakov's sons make a deal with Shchem that all the people of the town should be circumcised. On the 3rd day after the circumcision, the passuk tells us in 34:25 the two sons of Yaakov, Shimon and Levi, the brothers of Dina came to the city and destroyed..
There is a general criticism of their actions, though it is unclear as to the nature of the criticism. Some meforshim say they were wrong in taking such harsh action, others say they were right. Did Yaakov agree, or did he not. It is all very unclear.
I heard a dvar Torah on the topic yesterday in which it was brought down from some meforshim that the criticism was based on the fact that after they killed everybody in town it then says that they looted the city of its possessions. The fact that they looted the city indicated that their reaction might not have been completely lshem shamayim, but might have had a tinge of intent for personal gain. That lack of 100% clarity is what made Yaakov criticize them.
I was looking the section over again today and I noticed something in the way the story is written.
In passuk 25 it tells us specifically that the two sons of Yaakov, Shimon and Levi, went and killed everyone, etc..
In passuk 26 it concludes by saying they took Dina and left.
In passuk 27 it says the children of Yaakov came and looted the city.
I would like to suggest that Shimon and Levi came and destroyed the city killing all the inhabitants. They then retrieved Dina from her captivity and left. They took her home. Then the other brothers, having seen that the city was destroyed, came and looted the town.
Shimon and Levi were not the ones looting the town. I think the common perception that the whole story here was Shimon and Levi is incorrect. I think based on the text that Shimon and Levi only retrieved Dina, destroying the city in the process. The loot was taken by the others.
That would vindicate Shimon and Levi from any suggestions that there kavanos were improper. They were lshem shamayim, and that is whay Yaakov only criticized their anger and haste, and not the actions.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
A simple answer
Parshat Va'Yishlah
We read about the story in which Shchem takes Dina and has his way with her. He and his father Hamor approach Yaakov and family and request her hand in marriage along with a general approval of their communities intermarrying.
Yaakov and family are not impressed, to say the least. They come up with a plan and suggest that they cannot marry uncircumcised people. if they would circumcise themselves, they could marry each other.
Shchem and Hamor have all the males in the community get circumcised and when they are at their weakest point (the third day), Levi and Shimon say they cannot let this happen and they wipe out the whole town to no resistance.
Yaakov is upset at his sons. He tells them off that this is not the way to act and they have put him in a precarious position.
Levi and Shimon offer a very simple response to their fathers scathing discipline. In 34:31 they respond with just four words. הכזונה יעשה את אחותינו. Should we let our sister be treated like a harlot?
Four simple words to deflect their fathers wrath. Four words that did not even answer the issues Yaakov had raised.
Sometimes the answer is clear. Sometimes the method of action is clear. No beating around the bush. Yaakov was worried about diplomacy and how it would affect his relationships with the various other natives and clans around the country.
But Levi and Shimon had a clear and simple equation. We cannot let our sister be treated like that. Nothing more. Nothing less. The time to act was upon us and we had to defend Dina. The rest does not matter.
And Yaakov accepted the answer.
We read about the story in which Shchem takes Dina and has his way with her. He and his father Hamor approach Yaakov and family and request her hand in marriage along with a general approval of their communities intermarrying.
Yaakov and family are not impressed, to say the least. They come up with a plan and suggest that they cannot marry uncircumcised people. if they would circumcise themselves, they could marry each other.
Shchem and Hamor have all the males in the community get circumcised and when they are at their weakest point (the third day), Levi and Shimon say they cannot let this happen and they wipe out the whole town to no resistance.
Yaakov is upset at his sons. He tells them off that this is not the way to act and they have put him in a precarious position.
Levi and Shimon offer a very simple response to their fathers scathing discipline. In 34:31 they respond with just four words. הכזונה יעשה את אחותינו. Should we let our sister be treated like a harlot?
Four simple words to deflect their fathers wrath. Four words that did not even answer the issues Yaakov had raised.
Sometimes the answer is clear. Sometimes the method of action is clear. No beating around the bush. Yaakov was worried about diplomacy and how it would affect his relationships with the various other natives and clans around the country.
But Levi and Shimon had a clear and simple equation. We cannot let our sister be treated like that. Nothing more. Nothing less. The time to act was upon us and we had to defend Dina. The rest does not matter.
And Yaakov accepted the answer.
quality blessing
Parshat Va'Yishlah
Yaakov meets up with the angel of Esau and battles with him. The angel requests to end the battle so he can depart and Yaakov refuses. In 32:37 we see Yaakov's response, in which he says, "I will not send you, unless you bless me."
Rashi says this is referring to showing that he accepts the fact that Yaakov has the brachos from Yitzhak and will retain no further claims on them.
While I would not dispute that and disagree with Rashi, I would like to offer an alternate pshat, one based on the simple reading of the text.
In the next response of the angel we see that the angel actually blessed Yaakov ("ויברך אותו שם"). That would indicate to me that Yaakov was simply requesting a blessing from this angel.
I would like to point out a thought that came to me when reading this:
Yaakov meets up with the angel of Esau and battles with him. The angel requests to end the battle so he can depart and Yaakov refuses. In 32:37 we see Yaakov's response, in which he says, "I will not send you, unless you bless me."
Rashi says this is referring to showing that he accepts the fact that Yaakov has the brachos from Yitzhak and will retain no further claims on them.
While I would not dispute that and disagree with Rashi, I would like to offer an alternate pshat, one based on the simple reading of the text.
In the next response of the angel we see that the angel actually blessed Yaakov ("ויברך אותו שם"). That would indicate to me that Yaakov was simply requesting a blessing from this angel.
I would like to point out a thought that came to me when reading this:
We see from here that even people who we might consider evil have the ability to bless, and that, as the gemara says, is something we should take seriously. Do not scoff and reject the blessing of anybody, even if you think they might not be worthy. Yaakov actively sought out the blessing of the angel of Esau who had just tried to kill him and maimed him in the process! Who could represent greater evil than that!!
- 2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
