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 — 49:12 teeth

GEN1598 R. Yochanan said: “It is better to ‘whiten’ [expose in a smile] one’s teeth to one’s friend than to give him milk to drink, as it is written: ‘ULVN shinayim mechalav’ – do not read it ‘Uleven shinaym’ [‘and his teeth will be white’], but ‘Ulevon shinayim’ [‘and he shall whiten his teeth’]” Ketubot 111b  TEMIMAH-GEN 191

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GENESIS — 49:12 teeth

GEN1600 The Mishnah Ethics of the Fathers 1:15 states: “Welcome every person with a pleasing countenance.”  What is the essence of this message? It teaches that if one presents even the most precious gift to someone while maintaining an unpleasant facial expression, it is considered as if he gave nothing.   Conversely, if one merely welcomes another person with a pleasing countenance, it is considered as if he gave him the most precious gift in the world, even if he did not give him anything” (Avos deRabbi Nasan 13:12).   Rambam [Maimonides] comments that one who welcomes another person in a joyful manner fulfills the Mishnah’s rule to an even greater extent, since this type of reception will make him feel truly at ease.  … People receive numerous signals, both explicit and implicit, that gauge the degree of affection with which other regard them.   The most revealing of these signals is facial expressions.   One who is not consciously aware of his facial expressions may be guilty of transmitting wrong signals; if his affection for another person is not sufficiently reflected by his facial expression, he is liable to lose that relationship.   The other person will consciously or subconsciously pick up unfriendly signals, which will in turn cause him to withdraw from the relationship.   The idea tool for expressing affection is the face.  One who masters the art of pleasant facial expressions will benefit himself and others, while one who continues to allow his facial expression to involuntarily betray his emotions will cause untold damage to himself and his acquaintances.   WAGS 26-7

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GENESIS — 49:24 firm

GEN1601 Joseph, as the Talmud imagines, might have been seduced by Potiphar’s wife, but for the appearance at the crucial moment of his dead parents’ image at the window.   Why, then, does Joseph’s chastity remain his own? Because it was he who chose to heed the message that he and he alone could see encoded in his mother’s eyes and hear articulated from his father’s lips.  According to the midrash B. Sotah 36b, Jacob appealed to Joseph’s sense of history and destiny; immediately, “his bow abode in strength” [this verse], that is, his lust abated.  But even in this ancient homily Joseph was cautioned, not unmanned.   What the apparition offered him was a choice – inscription of his name on the ephod of the High Priests of its erasure from the stone reserved for it, his virtue blotted out by his dissoluteness, his memory preserved only as a whoremaster Proverbs 29:3.   The cautionary vision clarified Joseph’s choice against a backdrop larger than history – but it did not make his choice for him.   JHRHV 20-1

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GENESIS — 49:28 appropriate

GEN1602 Whoever makes a multitude meritorious, no sin shall come through him; but whoever brings a multitude to sin will not be given the means to achieve repentance. Moses attained virtue and brought the multitude to virtue; so the merit of the multitude is referred to him, as it is stated: “He effected the righteousness of the Lord, and His ordinances with Israel... Deuteronomy 33:21; Pirkei Avot V:21 …  From the Almighty, Moses sought charity; with the people Israel, he strove for mishpat, justice and right law. Before Heaven, Moses pleaded for the charity of understanding, mercy, patience, forgiveness for his people. But when he turned to his people, he was stern. He taught them not merely piety, reverence, and hope, but also exacting law. And he upbraided them for their stubbornness and blindness; he took them to task for their shortcomings; he would admonish, rebuke, correct them. This is the approach of the thoughtful leader, his teachings tempered by love. The patriarch Jacob took a similar approach. About to die, he called together his sons, and in telling, cutting words, castigated some for their misdeeds. Yet afterward we read, “everyone according to his blessing he blessed them.” [this verse]. It is no benison to merely praise, flatter, and give hope of a splendid future. Where criticism is needed because improvement is needed, it is a blessing to have the criticism well given and well taken, harsh though it may be. But where Heaven’s aid is sought, for the security and welfare of our people or our sons, there only kindness and mercy should be invoked. SINAI3 193

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GENESIS — 49:33 gathered

GEN1604 With ten trials was Abraham our Father proved… Pirkei Avot V:4 … Abraham, the embodiment of living-kindness, could hardly bear to mete our such harsh punishment [i.e., banishing Ishmael].   And apparently he would have refused to, had not the Almighty instructed him to listen to Sarah. As Pirke d.R. Eliezer attests, it was indeed a grail, an agonizing experience for him. If the Almighty demanded humility, loyalty, devotion of him alone, he complied. But now he had to be cruel to a son whom he love. It was a bitter lesson, but Abraham accepted it. He learned that kindly love to Ishmael all his life had let the boy grow corrupt and delinquent. To continue with loving-kindness would let the rot spread to his other son. He learned to know the wisdom that Solomon was to put into words; He who spares his rod hates his son. Proverbs 13:24.   At times sternness and punishment are needed. Used reasonably and consistently, fair discipline is the greatest kindness for a child: It helps him find clear boundaries and guide-lines, which become imbedded in his character. If you use no firm hand, with rigorous chastisement when it is needed, you do your child no favor. A little anecdote is related of a small child who was told he would be going to a new school. With a pained look tinged with despair, he asked, “Is this another school where I must do whatever I want to?”  Without guidance, correction, discipline, you condemn your child to a life of weakness and error. Unless he is psychologically evil, he welcomes firm, wise control, with reasonable punishment when necessary. In total freedom a child often senses not live, but a criminal indifference of the grown-ups.   In our day, this lesson is very much needed. The widespread tendency is till to frown upon physical punishment, whether by teachers of parents. Everyone is piously urged to “reason” and “communicate” with our youngsters. It is good to do so as a general rule recognizing and respecting our children’s ability to understand and their willingness to be good. But at times a parent faces utter irrationality in the child, a lack of reason that cannot be argued with. This can and must be overcome only be superior authority or force. At these moments the child cannot understand, for he is in the grip of unreason drives and forces in the dark part of the self. Then the parent or teacher must put his foot down and put it down hard, not shirk responsibility or take refuge in bland, fatuous over-indulgence, in the name of loving-kindness. In such “kindness” the child gains neither the understanding nor the strength to discipline himself.   Scripture instructs the father לבניך ושננתם: teach the Torah’s words to your children diligently; Deuteronomy 6:7. the Hebrew verb denotes thorough study, with continual repetition and review, until the lessons have been learnt clearly and fluently. Parenthood in Judaism is a lifetime task, to ever instruct and guide, by word and by example. The day a father has nothing more of value to say to his children, he ceases to exist as a father. We read: “when Jacob finished charging his sons … he expired.” [this verse]. SINAI3 38-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GENESIS — 50:16 forgive

GEN1605 [This and next verse] make [] it as plain possible that the story they told Joseph was a lie. If Jacob had really said those words he would have said them to Joseph himself, not to the brothers. The times to have done so was on his deathbed in the previous chapter. The brothers’ tale … was a “white lie.” Its primary aim was not to deceive but to ease a potentially explosive situation.  Perhaps that is why Joseph wept, understanding that his brothers still thought him capable of revenge. The sages derived a principle from this text. Mutar leshanot mipnei hashalom, “It is permitted to tell an untruth (literally, “to change” the facts) for the sake of peace” Yevamot 65b.   A white lie is permitted in Jewish law…. It is clear that the sages needed both [Genesis 18:12 – 13 and this] episodes to establish the principle.  Had we known only about the case of Sarah, we could not infer that we are permitted to tell a white lie. God did not tell a white lie about Sarah. He merely did not tell Abraham the whole truth. Had we only known about the case of Joseph’s brothers, we could not have inferred that what they did was permitted. Perhaps it was forbidden, and that is why Joseph wept. The fact that God Himself had done something similar is what led the sages to say that the brothers were justified. What is at stake here is an important feature of the moral life, despite the fact that we seem to be speaking of no more than social niceties: tact. The late Sir Isaac Berlin pointed out that not all values coexist in any kind of platonic harmony. His favourite example is freedom and equality. You can have a free economy but the result will be inequality. You can have economic equality-communism-but the result will be a loss of freedom. In the world as currently configured, moral conflict is unavoidable. Isaiah Berlin, “Two Concepts of Liberty,” in Four Essays on Liberty (London: Oxford University Press, 1969). This was an important fact, though one about which Judaism seems never to of been in doubt. ...  The existence of conflicting values means that the kind of morality we adopt and society we create depend not only on the values we embrace but also on the way we prioritize them. Prioritizing equality over freedom creates one kind of society-Soviet Communism for example. Prioritizing freedom over equality leads to market economics. People in both societies may value the same things but they rank them differently in the scale of values, and thus prioritize how they choose when the two conflict. This is what is at stake in the stories of Sarah and Joseph’s brothers. Truth and peace are both values, but which do we choose when they conflict? … Given the choice, when it came to interpersonal relations, the sages valued peace over truth, not least because truth can flourish in peace while it is often the first casualty in war. So the brothers were not wrong to tell Joseph a white lie for the sake of peace within the family. It reminded them all of the deeper truth that not only their human father, now dead, but also their heavenly Father, eternally alive, wants the people of the covenant to be at peace. For how can Jews be at peace with the world if they are not at peace with themselves? SACKS 72-76

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GENESIS — 50:16 left

GEN1606 Rabbeinu Yonah, in his Sha’arei Teshuvah, classified the various manifestations of deceit and falsehood, in nine separate categories. … The fourth category is … One who speaks deceitfully and relates falsehoods, without either causing harm to his friend, or causing himself to gain thereby. While on the one hand, such an individual’s transgression is less severe because he has caused no one harm, on the other hand, he arrogantly manifests a callous disregard for truth, for he speaks deceitfully even where he stands to gain nothing thereby. His indifferent and callous attitude concerning truth, may eventually cause him, even, to testify falsely, as King Solomon said Proverbs 6:19He who breathes out lies [may become] a false witness.”   In certain instances, however, it is permissible to tell a lie which is harmful to no one if it will further the cause of peace, harmony, and good will. It is permissible, for example, to shower lavish praise upon a bride, even where it is untrue, on order to make her more beloved in the eyes of her husband. Talmud, Ketubot 17a.   Elsewhere, the Sages observe, “It is permissible to tell a lie, for the sake of peace and harmony.” Talmud, Yevamos 65b.   It was in this vein, too, that, when Jacob died, Joseph’s brothers told him that their father had left instructions for Joseph to deal kindly with them [this verse], even though this was entirely untrue. Sha’arei Teshuvah, 3:181. FENDEL 110-1

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GENESIS — 50:16 message

GEN1610 The Talmud Yevamot 65b says that a person may lie for the sake of peace and gives three biblical precedents for this concept.   [One of them is this verse; the other two are Samuel during his journey to anoint David Samuel I 16:2-5, and God, explaining to Abraham why Sarah laughed Genesis 18:12-13.]   It is clear that Jacob never uttered these words because if Jacob had wanted to prevent Joseph’s vengeance against his brothers, he would have told Joseph, not the brothers, not to take revenge (it is doubtful if Jacob actually ever found out about the sale).   The Torah itself tells us why the brothers “lied” about their father’s statement – in order to prevent recriminations by Joseph now that their father was dead.  AMEMEI 293-4

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

RSS
1234
Back To Top