Excerpt Browser

This page displays the full text of excerpts.  When viewing a single excerpt, its “Share,” “Switch Article,” and “Comment” functions are accessible.

GENESIS — 30:1 envious

GEN1311 Knowing oneself means being self-aware in a balanced way, and neither focusing only on your strengths (the course of arrogance) or only on your weaknesses (the source of low self-esteem).   In truth, strengths and weaknesses coexist in all of us … To encourage its readers to understand human nature and themselves, the Bible goes out of its way to note flaws even in its greatest figures.   Thus, although the Matriarch Rachel has entered Jewish consciousness as the epitome of a loving mother Jeremiah 31:15, she also had some less attractive features [this verse].   Knowing of Rachel’s envy should make us aware that we must not deny our faults (as the Bible does not deny those of Rachel), but recognize and work on them, and always be aware of how those negative qualities may influence what we do. TELVOL1 57-8  [Regarding Leah’s envy, see 30:15 TELVOL1: 300]

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GENESIS — 30:2 can I

GEN1315 Be especially careful how you speak to someone who is suffering.   Sforno explains that Yaakov grew angry at Rochel because she said, “Give me,” implying that her bearing a child was dependent on Yaakov, rather than on God’s will.   His anger was for the Almighty’s honor and this took precedence even over his love for Rochel.  Nevertheless, we find in the Midrash Genesis Rabbah 71:7 that Yaakov should have controlled his anger.  Despite the justice of his rebuke, he should have appreciated the immensity of Rochel’s suffering and not have spoken so sharply.   For this lack of consideration he was punished. (Rabbi Yeruchom Levovitz in Daas Torah, vol. 1, pp. 184-185). — PLYN 101-2

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GENESIS — 30:2 can I

GEN1314 “One should be soft as a reed, not hard as a cedar tree.”   Taanis 20b.  This statement teaches that one must always speak gently, even when feeling agitated and irritable. This is an extremely difficult task, considering that even a spiritual giant such as Yaakov Avinu did not attain the highest level of this ability [this verse]. Our Sages comment that Yaakov’s response was inappropriate: “Is this how one responds to a suffering person? Your punishment will be that your children (born by Leah) will stand up before her (Rachel’s) children (meaning that Leah’s children will stand up before Yosef)!” Midrash Rabbah 71:6.  WAGS 29-30

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GENESIS — 30:14 brought

GEN1316 The talmudic realia of filial “honor” focus on acts of service. Inasmuch as the rabbis contended that “Esau” was a paragon of filial piety, it is to be expected that filial service too, was not considered a uniquely Jewish institution (see infra on R. Gamliel and Esau), and, indeed, it is to be found in the traditional cultures of Greece and Rome…    The typical parental request in the discussion of the legists is, “Get me a drink of water.” See. e.g. Kiddushin 31a; see also Sotah 49a, Sifre Deuteronomy, sec. 218 (“light the candle”), and Nedarim 38b; Mekhilta d’RSBI, p. 47, 1, 21. Similarly, the Midrash states that Noah suffered in the Ark for want of a young son to serve him” Genesis Rabbah 36:11.   Again, the ethos of service (as that of reverence) was impressed upon Jewish society by heroic and extreme exemplars of attentiveness and zeal, as we recall from the filial behavior of Dama ben Netinah, R. Tarfon, and Abimi the son of R. Abahu. Biblical characters, too, were extolled as models of filial service, and the lesson was not lost on the students of the tradition: Naftali honored his father to an extreme. His father would send him wherever he wished, and Naftali eagerly fulfilled his father’s task. Jacob took pleasure in him, and found his words pleasing. … Numbers Rabbah 14:11   “ … Ruben came upon some mandrakes … and brought them to his mother Leah” [this verse]: This teaches how fully he honored his mother, for he did not taste them but brought them to her first. Reuben is elsewhere seen by the Midrash as zealous in his mother’s behalf; R. Simeon ben Eleazar and others (Shabbat 55b, cited in Rashi to Genesis 35:22) claims that Ruben did not actually lie with Bilhah, Jacob’s concubine, after the death of Rachel, as the biblical text states (see Genesis 35:22), but rather “defended the honor of his mother [Leah], saying ‘Though my mother’s sister shared my father with my mother, should the maidservant of my mother’s sister also do so?” And so he disarranged the bed.”   Genesis Rabbah 72:2  R. Simeon ben Gamliel said: “I served my father all my life, and when I would go to my affairs would change into clean clothes, but Esau always dressed as royalty to serve his father . …” Genesis Rabbah 65:16   Here, the Bible lesson [Esau] and biographical incident [R. Simeon b. Gamliel] reinforce each other, both teaching filial service in all its specificity. Furthermore, the point made by R. Simeon b. Gamliel is not to be taken lightly; he is concerned, not with the externals of the service per se, but what their precision in mirroring the centrality and significance of this service [and hence, of the person served] in the eyes of its performer. Is filial service dashed off ungracefully, resentfully—or is it performed nobly, winningly? Here, indeed, is the subtle yet substantial measure of true honor and regard. The rabbis found, in their attentively read Bible, the same lesson. The sale of Joseph is precipitated by the following incident: One time, when his brothers have gone to pastor their father’s flock at Shekhem, Israel said to Joseph, “Your brothers are pasturing at Shekhem. Come, I will send you to them.” He answered, “I am ready.” … So he sent him from the valley of Hebron.  When he reached Shekhem, a man came upon him wandering in the fields. The man asked him, “What are you looking for?” He answered, “I am looking for my brothers. Could you tell me where they are pasturing?” The man said, “They have gone from here. …” So Joseph followed his brothers and found them at Dothan. Genesis 37:12-17  The midrashic comments follow: Genesis Rabbah 84:13 (ed. Theodore-Albeck, II, pp. 1015-1016). The idea that Joseph’s filial piety was evidenced by his willingness to comply with his father’s demanding request is already found in Tannaitic literature; see Mekhilta Vayehi Petihta, 1 (e. Horowitz-Rabin, p. 29).   a. “Israel said to Joseph” – R. Tanhum in the name of R. Berekhia said, “He behaved toward him with the proper honor, as befits the reverential obligations of a son toward a father.” b. “He answered, I am ready’” – R. Hama b. Hanina said, “Our father Jacob would later remember these words, and feel his bowels cut up. ‘I know that your brothers hate you, and yet you answer, “I am ready.’”   The medievals understood the one midrashic comment to reinforce and interpret the other, and so Rashi writes: “Joseph answered, ‘I am ready,’ eager to fulfill his father’s wish, though he knew that his brothers hated him.” And Nahmanides finds additional evidence of this motif in the episode: “‘ … A man came upon him wandering in the fields. …’ Scripture tells this entire tale to show that though Joseph had a good cause to turn back, he suffered it all for the honor of his father.” Compare G. von Rad, Genesis, p. 347: “One is … surprised that Jacob so carelessly sent the defenseless youth to the camp of his brothers, whose hate, as just reported, had already reached such a menacing pitch. The way Joseph finally found his brothers … is told with strange minuteness. …”    The same lesson was taught in the many midrashic treatments of biblical material which we have cited elsewhere in our discussion. Rabbinic reflection on the Joseph-story could elicit even the more extreme demand that “a man’s father is like his king.”   Yalkut Shim’oni, sec. 153: “’ Joseph hitched his chariot and went to Goshen to meet his father Jacob’ (Genesis 46:29): Joseph heard that his brothers had reached the Egyptian boundary, so he took his retinue and went to greet his father. Now people go to greet the king; the king does not go to greet others. Thus we are taught that a man’s father is as his king.”   Midrash ha-Gadol, Genesis (ed. M. Margaliot, p. 785), concludes, “Scripture shows that Joseph did not go forth as ruler of Egypt, but as a son honoring his father.”   Indeed, one wonders whether this preoccupation with Joseph’s filial conduct did not grow, in part at least, out of the uncomfortable question posed by Joseph’s allowing his father to mourn him as dead all the years he was living as vice-regent in Egypt. In any case, the virtue of filial honor through personal service was exemplified by unimpeachable Biblical and talmudic models.   And the medieval moralist R. Israel Alnakawa systematically spells out the full (and realistic) dimensions of the services listed by the baraita: “Clothe them” – How is this to be done? He must clothe them as is the fitting, covering them from winter’s cold in a wrap befitting them, and giving them proper beds. “Lead them out” – How is this to be done? The son is obliged to accompany his father and mother, and not to turn back until they are out of sight. “Take them in” – How is this to be done? He is obliged to give them a fitting dwelling, or rent one for them. And when the father or mother enters the son’s home, he must rejoice in their coming and receive them happily.   Menorat ha-Ma’or, pp. 15-16.   BLIDSTEIN 51-53

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GENESIS — 30:20 dark

GEN1319 [Regarding employment exit interviews] Just like the employer, an employee has to ensure that the departure process is dignified and thoughtful. Avoid using your resignation statement or letter to express anger toward the boss or to slander fellow employees. Such outbursts are not only unethical, they will give you a bad reputation that you may find hard to live down.  If there are serious lapses in the workplace that you feel a responsibility to report, it is a good idea to inform your employer, but it may be best to wait until a few weeks after you quit, when both of you will be less excited and more objective. If you are asking for a reference, then it is certainly prudent to wait until after one has been provided. When God commanded Jacob to return to his homeland, putting an end to his employment by his father-in-law, Jacob hid what he was doing because he was afraid that Laban would prevent him from leaving. Although this fear was confirmed by Laban’s subsequent hot pursuit of Jacob and his family, the Torah describes Jacob’s plan as a deception [this verse], indicating that in normal circumstances we should avoid this approach. MEIR 186

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GENESIS — 30:27 blessed

GEN1321 Tending Laban’s flock, Jacob exerts himself to the utmost for him and never idles on his time.   When a mishap occurs, Jacob never shifts the blame, but instead makes good the loss even when he is not legally required to do so.  After fourteen years in his employ, Jacob decides to take leave of Laban, leading to the following dialogue between them (Genesis 30:27-30).   By ascribing his good fortune to Jacob’s piety rather than to his diligence, Laban, notes R. Samson R. Hirsch (Germany, 1808-1888), fails to recognize Jacob’s integrity.   R. Hirsch’s insight provides us with an understanding of why Jacob decides to remain in Laban’s employ despite his exploited status until now.   Jacob considered it his mission to perfect in himself the character trait of integrity.   His failure to make an impact on Laban proved to Jacob that he had not yet achieved the highest level of integrity.   Jacob therefore redoubled his efforts to display a level of honesty that would make his integrity objectively evident.   Toward this end, he proposes a plan for compensation in which he deliberately exposes himself to an objectively verifiable standard: All the spotted and mottled lambs will be removed from Laban’s flock, leaving in his (Jacob’s) care only the single-colored lambs.   Jacob’s wage will consist of the mottled and spotted goats born from the single-colored herd.   (Genesis 30:33) CASE 25

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

RSS
First122123124125126127128129130132134135136137138139140141Last
Back To Top