A Guest Post on Vayigash by Rav Dr. Baruch Fox: The Baal Teshuva and the Tzadik Gamur

Earlier Posts on Vayigash:


Respecting another’s opinion even when it is horribly wrong

Yesurim that do not come from Schar ve’Onesh

Davenning in a dance hall

Honoring your Grandfather

The following is a dvar Torah from Rav Pinchas Friedman, which was translated by my friend, Rav Doctor Baruch Fox, who resides in Maaleh Adumim.  I copied it from a pdf and there might be little quirks, but it is generally in good order. 

Yehudah and Yosef Pave the Way for All of Klal Yisroel:
Yehudah the Path of Teshuvah and Yosef the Path of the Tzaddik

In this week's parsha, Vayigash, we read of two crucial confrontations between two royal figures - Yehudah and Yosef. The first encounter described at the beginning of the parsha occurs before Yosef reveals his identity to his brothers (Bereishis 44,18): "ויגש אליו יהודה ויאמר בי אדוני ידבר נא עבדך דבר באזני אדוני" - “Yehudah approached him and said, 'If you please, my lord, may your servant speak a word in my lord's ears"... The second encounter, after Yosef has revealed his identity to his brothers and has made peace with them, occurs when Yaakov sends Yehudah to Yosef (ibid. 46,28): "ואת יהודה שלח לפניו אל יוסף להורות לפניו גשנה" - "He sent Yehudah before him to Yosef, to instruct ahead of him in Goshen". Here Rashi comments: "To clear a place for him, and to instruct how to settle in it. Ahead of him: before he would arrive there". Rashi adds from an aggadic Midrash: "To establish for him a house of study from which instruction shall go forth."

When we examine the difference between these two encounters, we find that the first was dramatic and intense; Yehudah approached Yosef with grave concerns, prepared for battle, if necessary. Rashi (44,18) comments that he was prepared to kill Yosef and Pharaoh, quoting the Midrash: "כי כמוך כפרעה, אם תקניטני אהרוג אותך ואת אדוניך",". In contrast, their second meeting was calm, peaceful, friendly and brotherly. This encounter is discussed by our blessed sages in the Midrash Tanchuma (6):

"ואת יהודה שלח לפניו, זה שאמר הכתוב (איוב כה) המשל ופחד עמו עושה שלום במרומיו, המשל זה מיכאל ופחד זה גבריאל, מיכאל מן המים וגבריאל מן האש, והן עומדין לפני השכינה ואינן מזיקין זה את זה, הוי אומר עושה שלום במרומיו. אמר רבי שמעון, כל הרקיע של מים והמלאכים של אש ומשרתיו אש לוהט, ואין המים מכבין את האש ולא האש שורף את המים, יהודה ויוסף, זה ארי וזה שור, אתמול מתנגחין זה עם זה, ועכשיו הוא משלחו אצלו, שנאמר ואת יהודה שלח לפניו, הוי עושה שלום במרומיו".

The Kings Confronted One Another With Antagonism

In this article, we wish to examine an astonishing elucidation by our sages concerning the first encounter between Yehudah and Yosef based on the verses (Tehillim 48,5-7):

"כי הנה המלכים נועדו, זה יהודה ויוסף, עברו יחדיו, זה נתמלא עברה על זה וזה נתמלא עברה על זה, המה ראו כן תמהו, ויתמהו האנשים איש אל רעהו, נבהלו נחפזו, ולא יכלו אחיו לענות אותו כי נבהלו מפניו, רעדה אחזתם שם, אלו השבטים, אמרו מלכים מדיינים אלו עם אלו אנו מה איכפת לנו, יאי למלך מדיין עם מלך".

The kings assembled refers to Yehuda and Yosef; ""עברו יחדיו, they each filled with rage against the other; "המה ראו כן תמהו" ,the spectators were bewildered; ""נבהלו נחפזו, his brothers were unable to respond to him because they were in shock; ""רעדה אחזתם שם, this refers to the Shevatim who said: “kings are debating one another, what concern is it of ours, it is fitting for a king to confront a king.”

We must endeavor to decipher our sage's enigmatic words: (a) Surely, Yehudah was enraged and furious towards Yosef who held Binyamin captive; however, why should Yosef have borne any antagonism toward Yehudah, who was merely fulfilling his promise to Yaakov? (b) What did the Shevatim mean when they said: “kings are debating kings, what concern is it of ours”? There is undoubtedly a hidden lesson here regarding this royal confrontation; it is incumbent upon us to unravel our sages riddle. Lastly, Rashi adds in his commentary (46,28) in the name of a midrash aggadah that Yaakov sent them to establish a beis midrash, a house of study; why, davka, did Yaakov choose Yehudah and Yosef out of all of the twelve shevatim for this task?

Yehudah represents the ""בעל תשובה, Yosef the ""צדיק גמור. Let us introduce an important principle that should clarify and shed light on this entire parsha. We shall expand on an illuminating concept of the holy, gaon Rav Tzaddok hakohen, zy”a, presented in his Pri Tzaddik (Vayigash,3): the two kings, Yehudah and Yosef are in essence the source of two distinct approaches to the service of Hashem - that of the tzaddik and that of the baal teshuvah.

Yosef hatzaddik merited the title צדיק יסוד עולם"" due to his withstanding the difficult test in matters of kedushah in Mitzrayim. He is emblematic of the perfect tzaddik who has defeated his yetzer harah. In contrast, Yehudah- who admitted publicly to Tamar (Bereishis 38,26): "ויכר יהודה ויאמר צדקה ממני" “Yehudah recognized, and he said, 'she is right, it is from me', . . .” - is emblematic of the baal teshuvah. It is true, however, that Rashi comments (ibid.) based on Sotah 10: that a heavenly voice went forth and proclaimed that it was I, Hashem, who brought about these events (involving Yehudah and Tamar). The point being that it was heavenly ordained that -the element of choice was withdrawn from Yehudah, so that he would repent as serve as a beacon for teshuvah for all of Klal Yisroel.

It is stated in Sefer Yetzirah (chapt. 6): "לב בנפש כמלך במלחמה" – the king represents the heart of the people. The Rambam (Hilchot melochim, chapt.3, halachah 6) comments, in a similar fashion, that the king is the heart of the congregation of Yisrael ; just as the heart is the central, gathering place of the blood, so, too, the king is the focus and heartbeat of the nation.

Anatomically, the heart is comprised of right and left chambers. Spiritually, the right heart houses the yetzer hotov, while the left heart houses the yetzer horah. This is taught in the Midrash (Bamidbar R.,22,8) on the verse (Koheles 10,2):

"לב חכם לימינו ולב כסיל לשמאלו - לב חכם לימינו, זה יצר טוב שהוא נתון בימינו, ולב כסיל לשמאלו, זה יצר הרע שנתון בשמאלו".

In this vein, Rav Tzaddok explains that the two kings, Yehudah and Yosef, correspond to the two chambers of the heart. Yosef, the complete, ultimate tzaddik represents the right chamber, the abode of the yetzer hotov and, thus, was able to overcome his yetzer harah - an illustration of (Avos 4,1): “who is mighty, he who conquers his personal inclination.” Yehudah, however, represents the left cavity of the heart, the abode of the yetzer harah; this is why it was arranged from shamayim that he fall prey to this yetzer, so that he would pave the road for the baal teshuvah.

Thus, our two kings, Yehudah and Yosef, blazed the paths for all of Yisroel . Yosef, the complete tzaddik, is credited by the Midrash (Vayikrah R. 32,5) as being the reason the children of Yisrael were able to sanctify themselves and refrain from immorality during their exile in Mitzroyim; he is also credited with their redemption. Yaakov avinu, in his wisdom, realized that it would be impossible for everyone to be like Yosef hatzaddik - as stated by the wisest of all men (Koheles 7,20): "כי אדם אין צדיק בארץ אשר יעשה טוב ולא יחטא", i.e. there doesn't exist such a righteous man that never commits a sin.
Therefore, he devised to send Yehudah, representative of the baal teshuvah, to Yosef hatzaddik, to integrate these two forces. Thus, an appropriate path was provided for all members of klal Yisroel. This is the meaning of the possuk: "ואת יהודה שלח לפניו אל יוסף להורות לפניו גשנה", and Rashi's commentary"לתקן לו בית תלמוד שמשם תצא הוראה". In other words, a place was designated to provide instruction in both methods of service to Hashem - that of Yehudah and that of Yosef.

The Two Moshiachs

In this manner, Rav Tzadok continues to weave the golden threads of this fascinating tapestry. It is for this same reason that Dovid Hamelech, also from shevet Yehudah, was also designated from above to set an example and lead the way for baalei teshuvah. The gemorah (Avodah Zarah 4:) states:

"לא דוד ראוי לאותו מעשה דכתיב ולבי חלל בקרבי... אלא לומר לך שאם חטא יחיד אומרים לו כלך אצל יחיד... והיינו דרבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן, מאי דכתיב (שמואל ב כג א) נאום דוד בן ישי ונאום הגבר הוקם על, נאם דוד בן ישי שהקים עולה של תשובה".

We see that it was arranged from above that Dovid Hamelech would fail and sin in the matter of Bat Sheva. Being that he was the king of Yisrael , and, in the words of the Rambam, the heart of the people, he was obliged to follow in the footsteps of Yehudah, the father of his tribe. He committed what appeared to be a sin on his part, in order to carve out a path of teshuvah for all of Yisrael .

Based on the above, we find many references from Rav Tzaddok to the concept found in the gemorah (Succah 52:) that the Almighty will redeem Yisroel by means of two mashiachs - משיח בן יוסף from the line of Yosef and משיח בן דוד from shevet Yehudah. Mashiach ben Yosef will guide the people of Yisroel to be kadosh and follow the ways of the tzaddik. Mashiach ben David will guide the people of Yisrael to correct all of their transgressions through teshuvah.

The Philosophical Debate Between Yehudah and Yosef

With this background and understanding, we can begin to fathom why it was so crucial in the heavenly scheme that this royal confrontation takes place in Mitzroyim. Yehudah and Yosef represented very different philosophies; Yehudah was ready to wage war against Yosef in order to retrieve Binyomin and return him to his father Yaakov. Yet, in the end, they made peace, and Yaakov, with his entire household, were brought to Mitzroyim.

There is a well-known dispute in the gemorah (Berachos 34:) as to who is greater, the צדיק גמור or the בעל תשובה:

"אמר רבי יוחנן, כל הנביאים כולן לא נתנבאו אלא לבעלי תשובה, אבל צדיקים גמורים (ישעיה סד ג) עין לא ראתה אלהים זולתך, ופליגא דרבי אבהו, דאמר רבי אבהו מקום שבעלי תשובה עומדין צדיקים גמורים אינם עומדין".

In matters of dispute among the righteous, there is an important principle (Eruvin 13:):"אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים" i.e. both sides represent divine Truth. So too, in our discussion, both doctrines hold true. In certain aspects, the baal teshuvah is greater; in other aspects, the tzaddik gomur stands out. Furthermore, it all depends on each's spiritual level and madreigah. Not every tzaddik is greater than his baal teshuvah counterpart, and not every baal teshuvah is greater than his tzaddik counterpart.
This explains why the initial confrontation in our parsha was so fiery and antagonistic. Both Yosef and Yehudah wished to defend their holy doctrines and guide the people of Yisroel appropriately. They ultimately saw eye to eye and were able to establish a paradigm for future generations to follow. Their message is that both ways are valid and necessary; both are invaluable; therefore, both Yosef and Yehudah, together, were required to pave the way.

We can now suggest an interesting interpretation of the possuk: ""ויגש אליו יהודה ויאמר בי אדוני ידבר נא עבדך דבר באזני אדוני".

In the sefer Lev Aryeh (Vayigash 5), he writes in the name of Rabbi Leib Darshen from Ostrah, based on what we've learned (Sotah 10:): Yosef who performed an act of kiddush Hashem in private merited the addition of one letter from Hahem's name to his own name - as it is written "עדות ביהוסף שמו" ; Yehudah, who performed an act of kiddush Hashem in public merited to be named entirely after Hashem's name. Rashi explains that this is telling us that all four letters of Hashem's name are contained in the name יהודה.

So, when Yehudah says "בי אדוני", he his making the point that his name contains all the letters of the shem havaya, as opposed to יהוסף which only contains the single addition of the letter “ה" from Hashem's name. Yehudah's intention was not to prove to Yosef that he was the greater of the two of them, but rather to prove that the halachah accords with Rabbi Abahu that "מקום שבעלי תשובה עומדין צדיקים גמורים אינם עומדין".

“What Concern Is It of Ours Both of them are Right”

In the final analysis, we see that these two kings made a peaceful alliance, they were joined by all twelve shevatim and the result was that Yaakov and his entire household went down to Mitzrayim. Hashem is teaching us the lesson that: ""אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים; we required the approaches of both Yehudah and Yosef - the baal teshuvah and the tzaddik - in order to survive the exile in Mitzrayim. Similarly, in the merit of these two approaches, we will realize the future redemption facilitated by ""משיח בן יוסף - emblematic of the tzaddik gamur and ""משיח בן דוד - emblematic of the baal teshuvah.

The meaning of the Midrash now becomes clear: "כי הנה המלכים נועדו, זה יהודה ויוסף, עברו יחדיו, זה נתמלא עברה על זה וזה נתמלא עברה על זה",. Each wished to fortify his own doctrine, being of the opinion that his way was the correct and direct path to pave on behalf of all of Yisroel .

"המה ראו כן תמהו, ויתמהו האנשים איש אל רעהו, נבהלו נחפזו, ולא יכלו אחיו לענות אותו כי נבהלו מפניו", The brothers were shocked by Yosef's kedushoh and their realization that he epitomized the "צדיק יסוד עולם".

"רעדה אחזתם שם, אלו השבטים, אמרו מלכים מדיינים אלו עם אלו אנו מה איכפת לנו, יאי למלך מדיין עם מלך".

The brothers perceived through divine inspiration that Hashem devised this scenario, pitting the kings, Yehudah and Yosef, head to head, in one locale, to teach that both paths are correct and essential in order to serve Hashem. At that point, they proclaimed: "מלכים מדיינים אלו עם אלו אנו מה איכפת לנו" - what difference does it make to us that these two kings are debating one another; we require a combination of the two approaches. A deal was finally struck when Yaakov sent Yehudah to Yosef to establish a house of learning where both doctrines of service of Hashem would be taught.

An X-mas Carol, and Silvesterabend

A few months ago, a good friend and neighbor, and a member of my Daf Yomi for many years, passed away.  He was a Lithuanian Jew, and his name was Yosef Aronovitz.  As a child, he studied in the Cheder in Kelm, where he saw the great tzadikim of the Kelmer Talmud Torah, including Reb Doniel, an experience that he likened to being in the presence of angels.  Later, he spent time in Warsaw, where he met Menachem Begin, with whom he spent many hours discussing the future of the Jewish people and their hopes for a Jewish State.  He was a kind and precious man whose life experience reflected the horrors of the end of of the Jewish sojourn in Europe.  He survived a Nazi death march, watching nine of ten of the others die along the way, but he eventually succumbed to the murderous evil of Auschwitz and was placed on a conveyor belt to be cremated.  A technician happened to see his body move, felt a pulse, and removed him from the conveyor belt and sent him to the hospital so that the doctors could determine what had enabled him to survive that which had killed so many others.

He once told me that he survived for two reasons.  First, he said, the heavier people, the well fed, died right away, and he had always been thin.  Second, and more importantly, he survived the mind-destroying experience because of his absolute faith, his emunah and bitachon.  He told me a story that deserves to be heard.

One December 25th, it was bitterly cold and snowing, and he heard the camp guards singing in their barracks.  He heard them melodiously singing a favorite carol, "Stille Nacht, heilige Nacht", which we know as Silent Night.  Then the door of the barracks opened, a drunken guard came out, walked to the building where the starved and freezing Jews lay, and opened the door and grabbed one man and pulled him out into the courtyard, where he began to beat him with his fists and boots.  As the guard broke and bled the Jew to death, Mr. Aronovitz heard the guard say "I know that you Jews will always be in the world- Der ewige Jude - the Eternal Jew- but now, here, we are going to kill as many of you as we can."

I don't know how others would react to this experience, but I can tell you what Mr. Aronovitz said.  He said, "I heard it from the mouth of a shikereh poyer, a drunken peasant.  Even ah shikereh poyer knows that the Jews are eternal.  How can anyone not believe it?"

We Jews, always surrounded by others who disparage our stubborn faith, need to remember Mr. Aronovitz's lesson..  The Christians say, yes, the Jewish People received revelation from God, the Jews were chosen by God, but....., and the Muslims say, yes, the Jews were the first to receive revelation from God, but........  But what?  But nothing.  Every tall steeple and every ring of a church bell, every minaret and every song of a muezzin, testifies unwittingly and unwillingly that the Torah is true and that the Jews have a unique relationship with Hashem and a unique responsibility to Hashem.  Even ah shikereh poyer knows it.  How can anyone not believe it?

Just a footnote: It's interesting to see how cultural referents can be so different.  Around twenty years ago, my children went down the block to my father zt'l's house, and one of them had a little backpack with a picture of Sylvester the Cat on it, with the name Sylvester underneath.  My father was upset; he said, how can I allow my son to carry around such a name?  I had no idea what he was talking about.  It was just a cartoon character.  I later learned that in the area he grew up, in Lithuania/Germany, New Year's Eve was Silvesterabend, the day of veneration of Saint Sylvester, one of the leaders of the early Church.  He was not a friend of the Jews.  Apparently, the commemoration of Saint Sylvester involved sermons demonizing the Jews, and on that night, any Jew found on the street would be viciously beaten or killed.  To my father, Sylvester was not a puddytat.  He was a reminder of one of the several days, like Easter, when the life of a Jew was even cheaper than usual.

I just mentioned Silversterabend to my mother shetichyeh, who comes from Kelm and Shavlan, and she recoiled.  She, too, remembers this to be a day when a Jew being out on the street meant he was taking his life in his hands.  She remembers that on that day, the priests would always fulminate about how the Jews killed their God, and the congregants would rush out of church looking for Jews from whom they could take revenge.

It's a classic irony, though, how we taught the world about monotheism and ethics, and they turn that religious teaching itself into an excuse to murder people.  Also, see the comments, below, for a discussion of Sylvesterabend and the absurd reality that in Israel, New Years is called Sylvester.  As Kurt Vonnegut would say, so it goes.
~~~

Off to Israel

I'm going (a foot of snow and forty mile an hour wind permitting) to Israel for Chanuka iy'h to connect with  the past and to embrace the future. Have a lichtige Yomtov!

Earlier posts on the Parsha;

Jewish wives are not and never were chattel.
How the Torah retained certain pre-Torah forms but entirely redefined their substance.

A little boy- a Na'ar- at sixty years old.
Being patronized is not an insult when it is done by your patron.

The danger of a dream fulfilled.
Thank G-d you don't always get what you want.


All the love wearing the Kesones Pasim brought Yosef.
A thought about the strange prayer said during Birchas Kohanim.

No good deed goes unpunished.
Why Yosef's kindness to the sons of Bilha and Zilpa didn't win him any friends.

Is it appropriate to inscribe your name on the things you donate to a Shul?
It seems self-serving, but it has ancient roots.

Vayishlach, Breishis 33:9. What Yitzchak, Yishmael, and Eisav Have in Common: בְּאֵר לַחַי רֹאִי

Earlier posts on Vayishlach: click on the Vayishlach link in the list at the right.

I diligently avoid Toras haNistar, and I recommend the same to all my fellow Torah dilettantes. I find that some of what I understand is two dimensional and descriptive rather than analytical or prescriptive, and the rest is often disturbing.  However, I recently saw a Chasam Sofer in a new edition (Edited by Yosef Naftali Stern, Shapira print, Yerushalayim Tuf shin samach tes) that was intriguing.  So I wrote a letter to great unknown, asking if he had any idea of what the Chasam Sofer was talking about.  Here is my letter and his response, slightly edited. 

My letter:

In Parshas Chayei Sara (24:62), where Yitschak first meets Rivkah, it says that he had returned from Be'er Lachai Ro'i, where he had been living-- בא מבוא מבאר לחי ראי   The Chasam Sofer there says that the words Ba mi'bo, which literally means "he came from coming", connotes an idea similar to the English phrase "coming and going," a degree of instability.  So long as Avraham was alive, Yitzchak's specific personality trait was still tentative.  He wasn't firmly established in his unique identity until after his father's passing, at which point he grew into his personification of the midda of gevura (strength? might?mastery?).  Then the Chasam Sofer says that  that just as Be'er Sheva was the focal point of Avraham's midda of Chesed, (for it was there that he had his Eshel, his hostel for travelers,) so too was  באר לחי ראי  the source of Yitzchak's specific trait of gevura   This is why the passuk in Chayei Sarah (25:11) says

 וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי מוֹת אַבְרָהָם וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹהִים אֶת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ וַיֵּשֶׁב יִצְחָק עִם-בְּאֵר לַחַי רֹאִי.

Then he says that Be'er Lachai Ro'i was not unique to Yitzchak; משם ירש ישמעאל כחו ומשם כחו של עשו  From there, too, Yishmael inherited his strength, and from there, too, came Eisav's strength.  The connection to Yishmael is explicit: it was there that the angel told Hagar that her son would be a powerful man.  See Lech Lecha, Breishis 16:13-14, where it says

 וַתִּקְרָא שֵׁם ה' הַדֹּבֵר אֵלֶיהָ אַתָּה אֵל רֳאִי כִּי אָמְרָה הֲגַם הֲלֹם רָאִיתִי אַחֲרֵי רֹאִי..

 עַל כֵּן קָרָא לַבְּאֵר בְּאֵר לַחַי רֹאִי הִנֵּה בֵין-קָדֵשׁ וּבֵין בָּרֶד.

The connection to Eisav is alluded to in this week's parsha.  In 33:9, Eisav told Yaakov  וַיֹּאמֶר עֵשָׂו יֶשׁ לִי רָב אָחִי and the words "li rav achi" contain the same letters as the words "Be'er Lachai Ro'i" (although not the same number of letters.)

He then says that although all drew their strength from the same be'er, there was a big difference: Eisav's "li rav achi" begins with the letters l r and a, while "be'er lachai ro'i" begins with b l and r.  The Gematriya of the latter is 232, while that of the former is 231. He says that 231 she'arim are tamei and 231 are tahor, פנים ואחור, and that 232 is the gematria of yehi ohr and the roshei teivos of Ki rotzeh hashem be'amo.
 
It sounds interesting, that all drew their strength from the same place, and the quasi anagram is cool, but I don't know what he's talking about. If you can tell me a reasonable pshat, I would appreciate it, so I don't have to just leave that thing about Cheerios on the blog.
 
And this is what he answered me:
 
Superficial quick analysis:


Sarah was midas hadin (sitra d'nukvasah). [The Chidah, (I think in Yad David) brings a pshat that because

Yitzchak was connected to the midas hadin, he was too feminine to reproduce, and therefore had to be
shected and resurrected in order to ma'amid zera.]

The victim of Sarah's midas hadin was Hagar. The Ramban points out that because of the mistreatment of Hagar,  Yishmoel was given shlita to attack the Jews. Be'er Lachai Roi was where Hagar was mekabel upon herself the midas hadin by acceding to the malach's instructions of vehis'ani tachas yadah. Thus, the koach of Yishmael stems from that be'er.

Mincha, which is keneged gevurah/din, was created at that self-same be'er.

And of course, Esav took the pesoles of din with him as a son of Yitzchok.

Note that Esav took the pesoles of Yitzchok's middah, just as Yishmoel took the pesoles of Avraham's middas hachesed. The koach hagevurah of Yishmoel over klal yisroel is a  secondary aspect which he was yoresh from Hagar, as discussed.

On the other hand, Yitzchok crystallized his midas din precisely when Hashem sent him the tikkun of Rivka, to allow them to create the tif'eres of Yaakov.

There are two aspects of din - the negative and the positive. Din can be used destructively or positively - even by non-Jews. Thus the 231 shearim of tum'ah and taharah.

However, the underlying purpose of din, which is an offspring of chesed, is to allow the world/Jews to earn
schar and come to an ultimate tikkun. Thus, the world was originally created b'din - yehi ohr, which represents the 231 shearim of din plus the alef of the hidden kavana. This is why reshoim should not use the original ohr, because they would realize that din is beneficial. The yesod of the ohr shivas yemei bereshit can now be found only in the Torah - which is the ultimate chesed comprised of din.

The tachlis of this din to bring to chesed is of course klal yisroel, hence rotzeh hashem be'amo.

Unfortunately, my library is mostly packed away, so I could not provide you with more information/mar'ei mekomos. This is all I could come up with off of the (ed.- top of my head).

Post script by Barzilai:
For what it's worth, I would have understood the triple allusion to בְּאֵר לַחַי רֹאִי to mean that divine inspiration or grace is not our monopoly; Every human being has access to ruchnius: We share the Be'er even with our nemeses, even with Yishma'el and Eisav.  But to me, this doesn't have the ring of truth.  It's like something Casuto would say; it's too 'haskooolish."

Post script II:
Nemeses is the plural of Nemesis.

Post Script III
 Another question that bothers me, and that I have not seen anyone address, is this:  What is the relationship between the name Hagar gave to the place of spirituality, and the name Avraham gave to the mekom ha'akeida--

 וַיִּקְרָא אַבְרָהָם שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא ה' יִרְאֶה אֲשֶׁר יֵאָמֵר הַיּוֹם בְּהַר ה' יֵרָאֶה

Obviously, they both focus on re'iyah, but Avraham's was a har, while Hagar's was a be'er.

Hamotzi on Cheerios

A well known posek recently said that the proper bracha on Cheerios is Hamotzi.  He said that Cheerios cereal is Pas Haba BeKisnin, i.e., a baked grain product for which the proper bracha depends on whether it is being eaten "like bread" or "not like bread."  That is, the bracha would be Mezonos when it is eaten as a snack, but when it is eaten as a the central part of a full meal it requires Netilas Yadayim, Hamotzi, and the long Birchas Hamazon.  Assuming that baked grain cereals are pas haba bekisnin, the halacha certainly would be that if you sit down to a breakfast in which all you eat is the baked cereal, and certainly if you eat to satiation, Hamotzi would be required.  (The fact that nobody does it proves nothing.  The field of Brachos, such as precedence, shiur, eina tzricha, and so forth, is the neglected stepchild of halacha.  And, of course, there are many people who think they're doing God a favor by making brachos at all, and so they view serious and careful analysis of the laws of Brachos as an obsessive preoccupation with superficialities that hinders true spiritual growth.  To those people I say "I love you, and have a  nice life.")

However, there is one exception to this rule.  If the food does not have the appearance of bread (turisa de'nahama), you make mezonos, no matter how much you eat or if you are eating is as a full meal.  What is "the appearance of bread"?  There's the ambiguity, since this is a subjective assessment.  Cake definitely has halachic Turisa De'nahama, since it is baked in large loaf-like pieces, although it might be iced or frosted or sweetened.  Most people say that doughnuts have turisa de'nahama and are pas haba bekisnin as well.  What about breakfast cereals? 

Do all baked cereals have turisa de'nahama? Or perhaps there is a difference between flakes, Cheerio types, crumbs like Grape Nuts, and squares?  Some poskim say that Cheerios, for example, are pas, because they are little bagels. Others say that while that might be true from a mouse's perspective, we are not mice, and size matters when deciding on turisa de'nahama.  So, it becomes a little complicated. Theoretically, two people could sit down to eat breakfast, both eating cereals that are made from identical ingredients, both prepared by baking, both tasting the same, but one cereal might have turisa de'nahama and require Netilas Yadayim and Hamotzi, and one not have Turisa De'nahama and therefore be a plain old mezonos.

Rabbi Heinemann of Baltimore once (1986 or 1987) added to the fog by saying that he had been wrestling with the question for many years, and that one of his issues was that breakfast cereal is eaten with a spoon and never eaten with the hands, as bread is, and that this also might create a legal distinction between them.

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt'l and Rav Eliashiv Shlitah have been quoted variously as having said that most cereals have turisa de'nahama and require hamotzi, (Vezos Habracha fourth edition page 192) but also have been quoted contrariwise, as having said that this is only true in the case of Grape Nuts, which is a cereal breakfast made of crumbled loaves of bread (Vezos Habracha fifth edition page 219).  Rav Sheinberg Shlitah has been unambiguously quoted there (fourth edition page 192) as having said that cereals do not have turisa de'nahama and do not ever require hamotzi.  I surmise he would say this is true even in the case of Grape Nuts, because they are made with the specific intention of continuing to process them into crumbs, and so the intermediate loaf stage is irrelevant.  This reasoning has been applied by some to Bagel Chips and Pita Chips, which are manufactured specifically to be sliced and chopped and sold as snacks, even though they are baked in large pieces, like normal bagels and pita.

Before being too quick to decide, remember that if it is pas, then the rule of pas palter applies.  That is, that there cannot be a problem of bishul akum, because there is a special leniency for pas baked by professional bakeries.  If, on the other hand, it is not pas, then there might be a problem of bishul akum.  So, if you are kovei'a seudah on the cereal but still make a mezonos, you'd better be ready to explain why you aren't worried about bishul akum.

However, many people choose the best of all possible worlds and say that it is not pas, but there is no bishul akum problem because breakfast cereal is not served at state banquets, it is not "oleh ahl shulchan melachim."  Only foods that would be "served at kingly tables" are covered by the prohibition of bishul akum and must be cooked by Jews.  The Aruch Hashulchan, for example, says that potatoes are not covered by the issur of bishul akum, because potatoes are a peasant food, and no king would allow them on his table.  Obviously, that is no longer the case.  Here, too, the application to breakfast cereal is debatable.  They may not be served at state banquets, but a head of state would certainly serve them to a guest at breakfast.  Many poskim hold, for example, that even potato chips need bishul yisrael, because heads of state would serve them with dips.  I find this difficult to accept, but how many dinners have I had with heads of state?

So what should you do?  Sometimes, the best answer is to ask your rav.  Here, where it involves the very subjective categorization of "turisa de'nahama", I suggest you just think for a few days about what you think of as bread, and then make your own decision.  Maybe you, too, will decide that Cheerios are lilliputian bagels. 

But what is most important is to make an informed decision, not to just coast along on the momentum of habit, indifference, and ignorance, or worse, scorn for the minutiae of the laws of brachos.  Better wrong than oblivious.

Vayeitzei, Breishis 30:15. How could Leah say הַמְעַט קַחְתֵּךְ אֶת אִישִׁי, “Isn't it enough that you took away my husband"?

Since this Parsha has a great deal to say about naming babies, here is a link to posts on other parshios that discuss Jewish and Secular names, and the general definition of a name and another that discusses who has the right to name a baby.

****************************************

30:15. How could Leah say הַמְעַט קַחְתֵּךְ אֶת אִישִׁי? It seems like a caricature of ingratitude for Leah to resentfully say that Rachel had taken away her husband, when in fact it was Leah that took away Rachel's husband, and even that was done with Rachel's help. Even assuming that the switch of Leah for Rachel was done unilaterally by Lavan, and Leah had no choice in the matter, but the fact remains that Rachel voluntarily gave Leah the simanim at the chasuna to prevent Leah’s embarrassment, and if not for that act of kindness, Yaakov would have realized he was being defrauded, he would have kicked Leah out of the tent in middle of the night, and she never would have married to him.


1. Someone answered that the Gemarah (Reb Chiya) in Kesuvos 59b says, women live for two things; their spousal relationship and their maternal relationship. (This is an excellent pshat in the Gemara, but it's not pashut pshat.) Leah said, our husband Yaakov’s personal relationship is already exclusively yours. I am left only with the relationship I have with my children. Now, you want to insinuate yourself into my relationship with my firstborn son Reuven? In other words, Leah was not saying that Rochel had already done anything treacherous by taking her husband. She knew that Rachel had gotten her married to Yaakov in the first place. She was just saying that since her husband didn’t love her (since he loved Rachel), she had only one source of emotional satisfaction in life, and that was her special relationship with her children. If Rachel were to interfere with that, Leah would have nothing left.

2. Rabbeinu Bachaya– Rachel was the Rambam's Baalas Chessed. The Rambam says a baal chesed should give tzdaka so that the recipient doesn’t realize that the other person gave him anything. So when she gave the simanim to Leah, she didn’t say “I am sacrificing my happiness to prevent your disgrace.” Instead, she made up a story that made Leah think that by taking Rochel’s place at the wedding, she was doing Rachel a favor. Maybe Rachel told her she was afraid of Yaakov, maybe she told her she didn’t like him. In any case, Leah was convinced that she was the baalas chessed who had done a favor for Rachel, and that Rachel later cheated her out of her husband by taking his love from her.

3. Reb Yerucham says that once Leah and Yaakov were married, nothing that brought them to that position mattered: it was bashert, and Leah was his intended wife. The factors that implemented that result were completely fungible, and if Rochel hadn’t given the simanim, something else would have happened to ensure Leah’s marriage to Yaakov. (This is a classic strategy, which I have seen in countless meshulachim, of avoiding hakoras tov, along with “you were just doing your mitzvah." I don’t know if Reb Yerucham meant it to illustrate bitachon in hashgacha pratis in marriage, or he really meant that you don’t have to appreciate a gomel chesed because the result was bashert anyway. I hope not. But it sounds like a good excuse not to come up with shadchonus money after the couple gets engaged.)

4. A commenter (The Great Unknown) sent in the following. I hesitated to post it, but, as he said, it's not up to me to censor the words of the Litvishe gedolim

The Maharil Bloch said: " appreciating a favor does not include repaying it in such a way as to nullify the original favor." (clumsy translation of the Yiddish) This was in the context of his firing Reb Leib Chasman immediately after Rav Bloch took over the yeshiva on Reb Leib's recommendation.

~~~~~

Congratulations to Brisker

Congratulations to Brisker on getting a score of 94 on his first major Arabic translation test, in which he had to translate complex sentences from Arabic to Hebrew. May he go mei'chayil el choyil.

Rabbi Kaphach (קאפח) z'l should be looking over his shoulder.

Update
To make this post less obscure:
Brisker is the son of a good friend, an American boy who is studying in Israel, both in a kollel and at a University.  I'm proud of him for many reasons.  First, his Kollel and University studies are mutually extra-curricular.  Second, for an English speaker to do well translating Arabic into Hebrew deserves recognition.  Third, he's just a nice young man.

Rav Kaphach translated the Rambam's Judeo-Arabic into Hebrew, and many people say that he did a far better job than earlier translators. Brisker is studying both classic and modern Arabic, but probably not Judeo-Arabic.  Rav Kaphach probably doesn't really have anything to worry about.