Vo’eira – When to Remind Can Be Unkind

It’s intriguing that when Moshe and Aharon are sent to present themselves to Par’oh and to demonstrate the miracle of a staff turning into a snake, Moshe is commanded by Hashem to tell Aharon to throw his staff to the ground to effect the transformation.

Elsewhere, of course, with two exceptions (hitting the Nile and the ground, because Moshe had been saved by water and earth) it is Moshe’s staff that is used to fulfill divine commandments, as in the splitting of the sea and, in the desert, the hitting of the rock to bring forth water. But here, why isn’t Moshe the one charged to cause the miracle?

A lesson may lie in the oddity. Moshe, we remember, was earlier, at the burning bush, told to throw his staff to the ground, where it turned into a snake (Shemos 4:2,3). There, the command was issued after Moshe expressed doubts about whether the Jews would listen to him.

And, as Rashi explains there, the transformation of the staff was not meant as some demonstration of miraculousness but rather as a rebuke to Moshe, for having doubted the Jewish people’s willingness to hear His message.

So perhaps the reason Hashem wanted Aharon and not Moshe to perform the demonstration before Par’oh was to spare Moshe embarrassment over the memory of the rebuke he had earlier received. The reminder, of course, was still there, in a staff turning into a snake. But at least Moshe himself was not asked to perform the very action that had telegraphed the rebuke.

The Mishna (Bava Metzia 58b) says that one may not remind a repentant sinner of his prior deeds, nor a convert’s son of those of his ancestors. Perhaps the lesson here of Aharon being given the order to throw the staff down is that even a subtle reminder can be a source of embarrassment to another, and thus, something to carefully avoid.

© 2024 Rabbi Avi Shafran

Shemos – Working the Empathy Muscle

Each of us lives at the center of a series of concentric circles, the closest one encompassing our immediate family members; the next, friends and neighbors; beyond that, co-religionists or fellow citizens of one’s country. At a distance removed even farther is the larger circle of human beings with whom we share similar values. And further out still, the circle encompassing the rest of humanity.

I once wrote an essay contending that it is no sin – in fact, it is proper – that we feel, and demonstrate, our deepest love for the circle closest to us. And greater concern for the next circle out than for those beyond it.

Some Jews seem embarrassed at the idea of Jews acting with special alacrity on behalf of fellow Jews. But they are misguided. 

In fact, I suggested, the only way to feel any concern for the “outer circles” is to hone one’s love for those in one’s inner one first. Exercising the “empathy” muscle with regard to those closest to us is what allows us to have true empathy at all for those most distant.

Moshe Rabbeinu, the “most humble of all men,” was not naturally given to interfering in conflicts. And yet we find him doing so thrice in the parsha: First, by killing the Mitzri who was beating a Jew; second, by berating a Jew who was hitting another Jew; third, by standing up to the non-Jewish shepherds who were bullying the non-Jewish daughters of Yisro.

A dear talmidah of mine from long ago, Tanya Farber, suggested that my observation about how empathy for those distant from us is only enabled by first feeling, and acting upon, empathy for those close to us may inform Moshe’s interventions. What empowered Moshe’s decision to stand up for Tzlafchad’s daughters may have been his standing up earlier for fellow Jews.

The only way to truly “love humanity,” and not just mouth half-hearted concern for it, is to first concentrate on the easier, but essential and prime, endeavor of loving those to whom we are closest.

© 2024 Rabbi Avi Shafran

Vayechi – Missing Letter, Vital Message

All the letters of the Hebrew alphabet are found in the bracha that Yehudah is given by his father Yaakov – with one exception: the zayin.

That fact is pointed out by Rabbeinu Bachya, who notes that zayin is not only a letter but a word – meaning “sword” or, more generally, “weapon.”

He writes: 

“The reason is that the malchus Yisrael, which emerges from Yehudah, will not score its essential victory through the use of weapons like [ victories achieved by] other nations. Because the sword is Esav’s heritage but [not] that of the Jewish malchus, which will not inherit the land with their swords. And is not conducted by natural means, with the strength of the hand – but rather, through the… sublime power of Hashem. 

And that is why one finds in the name Yehudah, the source of the Jewish kingdom, the letters of Hashem’s name…”

That fundamental message is always important to internalize, but it is particularly timely today. We have seen, in the Jewish fight against unspeakable evil, failures of military tactics, intelligence and weaponry, and the use of the latter bringing only more hatred against Klal Yisrael. 

May we soon merit to see the success that can ultimately only come from Above.

© 2023 Rabbi Avi Shafran

Vayigash – Bad is Good

The books considered holy by other religions present their heroes as flawless. One of the indications that the Torah, by contrast, is divine in nature is its recording of flaws of action or attitude in its greatest people.  Considering the stature of the people exhibiting them, the flaws are always in reality more subtle than they seem, but are noted all the same.

An example is Yaakov Avinu’s response when asked his age by Par’oh. He replies: “The days of the years of my sojournings are 130 years; few and bad have been the days of the years of my life…” (Bereishis 47:9).

A Midrash quoted by the Daas Zekeinim has Hashem responding, “I saved you from Esav and Lavan, I returned Dina to you, and also Yosef, and you complain about the years of your life that they were few and bad?”; and reducing Yaakov’s life by 33 years, 33 being the number of words in the exchange. 

It is said in the name of the Arizal that Yaakov’s soul inhabited Rabi Akiva. Their names share a root (and both married Rachels). Yaakov, the Arizal said, needed to atone for the 22 years he was away from his father Yitzchak, and Akiva “corrected” that inability of Yaakov to honor his father by serving his teacher, Nachum Ish Gamzu, for the same number of years.

It’s fascinating to realize that Rabi Akiva famously would say “All that the Merciful One does is for the [ultimate] good” (Berachos 60b) – an attitude that reflected the motto of his teacher, Nachum Ish Gamzu – “This, too, is for the good” (Taanis 21a). Hashem has a plan for us, and, even when its details are painful, it is for an ultimate good.

It would seem plausible that Rabi Akiva, by his adopted attitude, “corrected” the flaw in his predecessor Yaakov’s words. Yaakov saw the challenges he had been forced to face in some way as “bad.” But, as Rabi Akiva and his rebbe said, nothing Hashem does, no matter the pain it may yield, can be called anything but, evident or not, its ultimate essence: good. 

I once overheard someone, asked how things were going, respond: “Everything’s going according to plan!” It was a truly insightful answer.

© 2023 Rabbi Avi Shafran

A Tale of Two Surgeries

“A disfigured woman whose case has become well known is among the Palestinians released” was the headline of a New York Times story about criminals in Israeli jails being traded for hostages held by Hamas.

Want to know more about the woman referred to in the headline, a new definition of chutzpah and something you might not know about the Hamas leader in Gaza? Well, just click here.

Mikeitz – Something Bad in our Bloodline

Many years ago, a wise rebbe of mine, addressing instances of financial finagling by some members of the tribe, explained that  the forefathers of us Jews whom we revere are Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, and we are to strive to emulate their rectitude and integrity. But, he continued, our bloodline also includes the cheater Lavan. And sometimes, regrettably, his genes, so to speak, can express themselves in some Jews’ inclinations, and even behavior.

At the end of the parsha, Yosef, still “undercover” as the Egyptian viceroy, plants a royal goblet in Binyamin’s knapsack. When the chalice, which Yosef indicates was used for telling the future, is “found” there, he says to his brothers, “Don’t you know that a person like me practices divination?”

Divination, or kishuf, is forbidden by the Torah. Yosef received his ability to interpret dreams directly from Heaven, not through any magical means. And that is clearly why he avoids lying outright, not claiming that he himself uses the goblet for divination purposes but, rather, that it is so used by “a person like me” – referring to Par’oh, not himself.

The halachos of what constitutes kishuf are complex. There are occasions when an omen may be taken seriously but, generally speaking, acting on the “revelation” of an omen, or relying on seemingly magical means to make one’s plans, constitutes a forbidden act. 

There are, unfortunately, practices that have found footholds in some otherwise observant Jewish circles that seem clearly to be straddling, if not crossing, the line between legitimate “omen recognizing” and outright, forbidden occultism. I won’t venture into citing particular practices. As the same wise rebbe quoted above would say about controversial things, “Go ask your local Orthodox rabbi.” But when faced with the option of utilizing a seemingly questionable segulah, one needs to weigh the possibility that doing so may be an issur d’Oraysa, a Torah prohibition.

Back in parshas Vayeitzei, we find Lavan telling Yaakov, that “I have learned by divination that Hashem has blessed me on your account” (Beraishis 30:27).

Once again, Lavan is in our ancestry. But we have free will, and are charged to do our best to squelch whatever inclinations we may have that are born of that ancestor’s influence.

© 2023 Rabbi Avi Shafran